Since I was not in class on Tuesday, I cannot comment on Group 4 or 5's presentations. Instead, I will briefly comment on each of my group mates presentations and recommend specific stories or areas of research for them that I hope they will find helpful.
Kylie, I think "Let It Snow" would be a great story for you to look at, particularly page 15 with the discussion of who should have to lie in the street. There are two parts to this that speak to sibling relations and the power structure inherent among siblings. First, David thinks that if one of them dies "the rest of us would be more valuable." Children often feel their parents affection is divided among the children, which leads to sibling rivalry as a means of getting attention from their parents. Second, the way the responsibility of lying in the street is successively passed down from older to younger sibling until Tiffany, the youngest with "no concept of death," is forced to lie in the street shows the hierarchal structure the young Sedaris' created. Tiffany will "do just about anything in return for a little affection." She is the youngest and most needy for attention. I think it would be interesting to examine the ways birth order affects the roles children play and how this is represented in literature.
Evan, for a brief time I was also thinking about writing about the relationship between David and his father, particularly how David's sexuality complicates his relationship with his father. "Hejira" might be an interesting story for you to look at. Lou kicks David out for being gay but can't even bring himself to say that's the reason. All he can say is, "I think we both know why we're doing this," but, in fact, David doesn't know. Lou's inability to express his emotions complicates his communication with his son. You could look at Death of a Salesman and the relationship between Willy and Biff for another example of a father's emotional reticence preventing from communicating with his son.
Emma, both "The Ship Shape" and "Slumus Lordicus" deal with Sedaris' issues with economic status. He gets a feeling of superiority based on either owning a vacation home or owning the duplexes. This is a boost for him due to usual lack of confidence and insecurities due to his feeling he is an outsider because of his sexuality. The smug attitude with which he deals with the waitress on page 24 shows the feelings of superiority that being wealthier than someone else gives him. Also, you could look at the story "Chipped Beef" from Sedaris' earlier collection Naked. In this story a very insecure young David dreams of being rich and famous and believes when he is people will finally like him.
Jesse, have you thought about examining the way Sedaris' describes his entire family as being outsiders, and how he is an outsider even within his own family? In "Us and Them" and "Consider the Stars," Sedaris' tries to trace his social problems back to his family and how their status as Greek Orthodox Northerners in the South makes them all stand out. Also, you may want to check out a book called Out, Loud and Laughing, which is a collection of funny essays from LGBT writers.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Belated Blog 11
Blog 11, as promised.
(You'll noticed I changed my topic. I had a very hard time writing about male homosociality without making it sociological. My research led me down a different path that I think will be more literary.)
(You'll noticed I changed my topic. I had a very hard time writing about male homosociality without making it sociological. My research led me down a different path that I think will be more literary.)
In my paper, I will examine the role of fiction in biographical writing. I will prove that the very process of memory and storytelling lead to inaccuracies in the factual data of the story, but these inaccuracies actually enhance not hinder the truth of the story when the writer uses them to explain the meaning of the story that cannot be translated across space and time.
I want to examine what I call the “you-had-to-be-there” moment. Because the story is a recollection of the past, a mere copy of what once was, the story looses some of its meaning. The writer can skillfully uses the tools of inclusion, exclusion, exaggeration, archetypes, frames, verisimilitude and satire/irony to make the moment more real for the reader and transport them to that time. This allows the writer not to say, “You had to be there,” but rather, “You’re there.”
Thesis: Sedaris use of exaggeration, framing and archetypal characters allows a more accurate portrayal of the truth of his stories.
Bascom, Tim. "'True' stories, and necessary lies: A memoir writer reflects on the inescapable distortions of memory in describing one's past." Writer 122.10 (2009): 38. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 12 Nov. 2010
Bascom contends that both truth and lies are inherent to biographical writing. This is, in fact, part of the genre. Will be used to examine the “truthful” accounts of Sedaris’ life in a more literary way. If the reader can accept the non-fiction essays as literature a new realm of examination and criticism can be applied to Sedaris’ work.
Chandler, Kurt. "Write for readers, not your subjects: To make it real, write initially as if the latter are 'blind or dead,' and worry later about offending people, this author advises." Writer 121.11 (2008): 32-33. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 12 Nov. 2010.
Chandler maintains that the memoirist must be ruthlessly honest about himself and others in his life. This relates to Sedaris’ often stinging accounts of his families’ foibles. Chandler sees truth as the basis for biographical writing. Will contrast with Bascom and Korda’s looser definition of truth in biography.
Heard, A. "THIS AMERICAN LIE: How could so many funny things have happened to David Sedaris? Our intrepid reporter sifts fact from fiction." NEW REPUBLIC 236.4809 (2007): 35-40. British Library Document Supply Centre Inside Serials & Conference Proceedings. EBSCO. Web. 10 Nov. 2010.
This article is an account of inaccuracies, exaggerations or factual errors in Sedaris’ supposedly non-fiction essays. Also, it presents the opinions of Sedaris’ father and sister about the way they are represented in his stories. I will use this article to examine the nature of exaggeration in biographical writing and how it is deemed more acceptable when the stories are funny, as is the case with Sedaris.
Korda, Michael. "imagining nonfiction." Forbes 166.9 (2000): 107-121. Business Source Premier. EBSCO. Web. 12 Nov. 2010.
Korda explains the connection between the “Non-Fiction” label and the way a reader responds to the work of art because of that label. It is his opinion that biographical works, despite the “Non-Fiction” label, should not be taken as the truth. I will expand on Korda’s argument to state that even if all the elements in a autobiographical work are indeed true, the exclusion of other events from the life of the writer makes the work an inherently untrue version of the writer’s life.
Reginato, James. "Butt Out." W Magazine 37.6 (2008): 96. Biography Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 10 Nov. 2010.
This article is somewhat of a rebuttal to Heard’s. Sedaris is allowed to state his own opinion on the matter of factual errors in his work. He says, “I think a memoir is pretty much the last place an intelligent person would look for the truth.” Sedaris’ opinion is more in line with Bascom’s than Heard’s. I will use this article to explain Sedaris method of writing and his use of exaggeration for comedic effect.
Sedaris, David. Barrel Fever: Stories and Essays. Boston: Little Brown, 1994. Print.
This is Sedaris’ first book. It contains 12 fiction stories and 4 non-fiction essays and will be used to compare and contrast Sedaris’ storytelling techniques in the fiction and non-fiction genres. Also, I will highlight the overlap of characters between his short stories and later essays and examine the effect of reality on the reader’s perception of humor and tragedy.
Sedaris, David. Me Talk Pretty One Day. Boston: Little, Brown, & Co, 2000. Print.
This Sedaris’ fourth book, released prior to Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim. It is a collection of essays that focuses on Sedaris’ childhood and adjusting to a new culture when he moves to France. I will discuss the essays about his childhood because of how they overlap with the stories about Sedaris’ family in Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim. I will also examine the essay “Giant Dreams, Midget Abilities” and its overlap in characters and content to the earlier fiction story “My Manuscript” from Barrel Fever.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Blogs 11 + 13
Blog 11:
Ok, so I haven't checked my blog since before Thanksgiving. I signed on today, and it turns out Blog 11 was never published. I don't know why. I'd like to blame it on some computer malfunction, but that may not be the case. Fortunately, I write all my posts in Word (because I don't always trust these blogging websites). When I get home tomorrow and have access to the computer I saved it on, I will upload Blog 11.
Blog 13:
I was intrigued by Joanne's presentation on formula writing and its connection to what sells in the marketplace. I think there is a popular misconception that bestselling author is not as talented as the "literary" writer. I did some research on James Patterson and found this very interesting interview on Charlie Rose.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/5105
It seems that Patterson does just work on crafting his plot lines as a writer maybe more in the mold of Jonathan Franzen or Dom DeLillo does in crafting their dialogue, descriptions or literary style. Plot based writing, even when working within a formula, requires just as much creativity and insight as prose writing that has perhaps more of an poetic quality. Patterson himself says that his goal with "Cat & Mouse" was to write a page-turning thriller. Though I haven't read "The Post Card Killers" based on what I heard in Group 2's discussion, it seems he had the same goal with this book. It would be very interesting to read a book from an popular author like Dean Koontz, John Grisham or Patterson in a college level English class. I think professors fear the conversation would dry up and there would be nothing to discuss. I don't think this would be the case. Books of this nature perhaps have to be examined in a slightly different light, but the same skills of literary analysis can still be applied to popular works of fiction.
If you do not have time to watch the whole interview with Patterson, jump ahead to about the 12:30 mark. This is in reference to Joanne's discussion of formula writing. Patterson says one of the things he likes most about his books are unique. He says, "For better or for worse James Patterson's books...are not like somebody elses' books." Perhaps he does write within a formula, but that formula is his own. He also discusses the work involved in developing his style. This time and effort should be appreciated and respected in the same we admire the styles of more "literary" writers like Franzen and DeLillo.
Ok, so I haven't checked my blog since before Thanksgiving. I signed on today, and it turns out Blog 11 was never published. I don't know why. I'd like to blame it on some computer malfunction, but that may not be the case. Fortunately, I write all my posts in Word (because I don't always trust these blogging websites). When I get home tomorrow and have access to the computer I saved it on, I will upload Blog 11.
Blog 13:
I was intrigued by Joanne's presentation on formula writing and its connection to what sells in the marketplace. I think there is a popular misconception that bestselling author is not as talented as the "literary" writer. I did some research on James Patterson and found this very interesting interview on Charlie Rose.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/5105
It seems that Patterson does just work on crafting his plot lines as a writer maybe more in the mold of Jonathan Franzen or Dom DeLillo does in crafting their dialogue, descriptions or literary style. Plot based writing, even when working within a formula, requires just as much creativity and insight as prose writing that has perhaps more of an poetic quality. Patterson himself says that his goal with "Cat & Mouse" was to write a page-turning thriller. Though I haven't read "The Post Card Killers" based on what I heard in Group 2's discussion, it seems he had the same goal with this book. It would be very interesting to read a book from an popular author like Dean Koontz, John Grisham or Patterson in a college level English class. I think professors fear the conversation would dry up and there would be nothing to discuss. I don't think this would be the case. Books of this nature perhaps have to be examined in a slightly different light, but the same skills of literary analysis can still be applied to popular works of fiction.
If you do not have time to watch the whole interview with Patterson, jump ahead to about the 12:30 mark. This is in reference to Joanne's discussion of formula writing. Patterson says one of the things he likes most about his books are unique. He says, "For better or for worse James Patterson's books...are not like somebody elses' books." Perhaps he does write within a formula, but that formula is his own. He also discusses the work involved in developing his style. This time and effort should be appreciated and respected in the same we admire the styles of more "literary" writers like Franzen and DeLillo.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Blog #9
Use of The Speaker in Nikki Giovanni's "All Eyez on U"
The speaker of this poem is a person in mourning soon after the death of Tupac Shakur. The speaker is distraught over how Tupac, like so many of the black community's "brightest", were "cut down". The poem is written in the first person with frequent references to "I", but, though it is possible, the reader should no automatically assume this is Nikki Giovanni herself directly speaking. I see it as Nikki speaking on behalf of a community that feels many of it important members have been unfairly killed before there time. She gives voice to all those who feel Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Emmit Till and Tupac were killed before they were given the opportunity to complete the work they had been sent here to do. She even breaks this into a generational divide saying, "This generation mourns Tupac as my generation mourned Till as we all mourn Malcolm". In this line, Giovanni seperates herself from the group mourning for Tupac, so it could be argued that she is representing the younger generation through her poem. This would make the younger generation the speaker.
There is also a greater political message in the poem that shows the speaker spans and supercedes any generation. In the more political lines, the speaker stands for the collective wisdom and thoughts of oppressed non-whites throughout history. Giovanni writes, "If those who lived by the sword died by the sword there would be no white men on earth/ If those who lived on hatred died on hatred there would be no KKK". If the first line, the speaker stands up against the hippocracy of white people saying Tupac, who rapped about guns and murder, got what he deserved, when for the last thousand years white have conquered, pillaged and enslaved foreign cultures across the globe. This speaker, with knowledge of world history and American history (with the reference to the KKK), is not simply representing the generation of Tupac fans. The speaker speaks for all oppressed people who have seen injustice that they cannot change.
The speaker of this poem is a person in mourning soon after the death of Tupac Shakur. The speaker is distraught over how Tupac, like so many of the black community's "brightest", were "cut down". The poem is written in the first person with frequent references to "I", but, though it is possible, the reader should no automatically assume this is Nikki Giovanni herself directly speaking. I see it as Nikki speaking on behalf of a community that feels many of it important members have been unfairly killed before there time. She gives voice to all those who feel Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Emmit Till and Tupac were killed before they were given the opportunity to complete the work they had been sent here to do. She even breaks this into a generational divide saying, "This generation mourns Tupac as my generation mourned Till as we all mourn Malcolm". In this line, Giovanni seperates herself from the group mourning for Tupac, so it could be argued that she is representing the younger generation through her poem. This would make the younger generation the speaker.
There is also a greater political message in the poem that shows the speaker spans and supercedes any generation. In the more political lines, the speaker stands for the collective wisdom and thoughts of oppressed non-whites throughout history. Giovanni writes, "If those who lived by the sword died by the sword there would be no white men on earth/ If those who lived on hatred died on hatred there would be no KKK". If the first line, the speaker stands up against the hippocracy of white people saying Tupac, who rapped about guns and murder, got what he deserved, when for the last thousand years white have conquered, pillaged and enslaved foreign cultures across the globe. This speaker, with knowledge of world history and American history (with the reference to the KKK), is not simply representing the generation of Tupac fans. The speaker speaks for all oppressed people who have seen injustice that they cannot change.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Blog Post #7 - Paper Proposal
I would like to write about about the stigma of homosexuality in heterosexual male bonding. This is different vastly different than the other topics I had been debating writing about. I have a few ideas about Sedaris' work that I have already formed into a fairly clear argument in my head, but the possibility of doing research and writing about one of these topics does not excite me. I think the reason I chose to write about this new topic is because it is something I do not fully understand yet, and therefore, can do research to help educate myself and expand on my ideas. If I chose one of the topics that I have a more clear argument for I would simply be looking for other sources to back up what I was saying. I fear this would not be a very beneficial process for me because I would not learn anything knew. I have chosen this topic because I think it is challenging and culturally relevant.
I have been following the news about the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Though, maybe, repeal isn't the right word because while a judge has ruled the policy unconstitutional, the military is yet to actually stop using the policy. This speaks to the two topics I want to focus my paper on. Firstly, how does the presence of a gay man affect the way straight men interact, and how does a gay man break through cultural stigmas to become "one of the guys"? Though, perhaps even this line of questioning is biased because, just as we discussed how the role of a woman in a the military may not to be become "one of the guys", who's to say the object of a gay man should be to become "one of the guys". The military provides a very interesting microcosm for how gay man affect other men around them, but I am also interested in how this relates to society as a whole. I think Sedaris' stories about growing up and, in particular, his relationship with his father and brother will provide insight into this topic.
I realize at this point my argument may not be as fleshed out as it should be. I have really posed a question to myself that I do not know currently how to answer. I could have taken the easy way out and chosen a topic I could more easily write about, but out of some new academic bravado, I have decided challenge myself. Writing this paper will force me to question many of my own preconceived ideas about gay culture, and I hope make me a better, more tolerant person. I apologize if my proposal is not up to the standards it should be, but I feel the line of questioning I am currently thinking about will lead me a stronger final paper than if I just wrote about a topic I feel I already have a handle on.
I have been following the news about the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Though, maybe, repeal isn't the right word because while a judge has ruled the policy unconstitutional, the military is yet to actually stop using the policy. This speaks to the two topics I want to focus my paper on. Firstly, how does the presence of a gay man affect the way straight men interact, and how does a gay man break through cultural stigmas to become "one of the guys"? Though, perhaps even this line of questioning is biased because, just as we discussed how the role of a woman in a the military may not to be become "one of the guys", who's to say the object of a gay man should be to become "one of the guys". The military provides a very interesting microcosm for how gay man affect other men around them, but I am also interested in how this relates to society as a whole. I think Sedaris' stories about growing up and, in particular, his relationship with his father and brother will provide insight into this topic.
I realize at this point my argument may not be as fleshed out as it should be. I have really posed a question to myself that I do not know currently how to answer. I could have taken the easy way out and chosen a topic I could more easily write about, but out of some new academic bravado, I have decided challenge myself. Writing this paper will force me to question many of my own preconceived ideas about gay culture, and I hope make me a better, more tolerant person. I apologize if my proposal is not up to the standards it should be, but I feel the line of questioning I am currently thinking about will lead me a stronger final paper than if I just wrote about a topic I feel I already have a handle on.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Blog #6 - Blog Audit
I notice that all my blogs either mention the use of humor or contain my attempts to be funny. I've certainly written and talked about humor more in this class than any other English class I've had before. This is partly related to the use of dark humor in many of the texts we've read, but I think it has more to do with the composition of students in our class and the freedom we are given to write about what we want. I always notice and appreciate the use of humor in literature, but it doesn't seem to be discussed much in most classes. I read Huckleberry Finn in an English that will go unnamed last semester. Through two weeks of discussion, no one mentioned how Mark Twain's sense of humor and irony contributed to the story. During the latter part of Twain's life, he was widely considered the funniest man in America, and today, I would argue, his legacy lives on as much for his clever witticisms as it does for his contribution to American Literature. I say this knowing many people will disagree. For some reason, humor is never looked at seriously in literature, like being funny is beneath some intellectuals. I will never understand this. To me, humor and laughter are two of the most essential traits of being human. Certainly, there are many things that seperate us from the other creatures on this earth, but I think it is worth noting we are the only animal that can recognize irony. If an infinite number fo monkeys sat behind an infinite number of typewriters and typed for an infinite amount of time, they would eventually type Huckleberry Finn in its entirety without errors, but they would not recognize it was funny. I don't really know where I 'm going with that, but I do like to picture rows of monkeys (like this guy https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEie4sudNlWILgTrQ7dh7b2nhTuy9Svnt5nZCFwLjvc_fr-Anc78Sv-mPcMmHW5qNUPfsxHfiWr-Wt1-w6h5ZMZj-KfaatD1PYm5A2WzFvKCRF5ukNk8KyEpbzs0MmxwdSpeOm4oWRxzFzPZ/?imgmax=800) pounding away on typewriters as one supervisor monkey patrols the area, making sure everyone is typing.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Blog # 5: David Sedaris - The Ship Shape
My favorite character from Sedaris' essays is his younger brother, Paul. Paul does not feature heavily in any of the essays early in the book. If you just started the book and are reading the essays in order, I highly recommend skipping to the middle for a minute to read "Rooster at the Hitching Post." It is about Paul's wedding and is my favorite of all Sedaris' essays. But since most of you probably haven't read that far yet, I'll focus on "The Ship Shape" for my post today.
I think Sedaris does a very good job of displaying some of the more selfish parts of our nature that most of us are afraid to admit we have. He's great at describing that little-voice inside of you that wants to be better than everyone else, wants to flaunt what you have and generally wants to take pleasure in feeling superior to those around you. Like on page 24 when he was "drunk on the power of new home" and asked the waitress for another Coke without saying please. I think we all feel "drunk with power" at certain points of our lives, even though generally the power we actually have is not that great. So it manifests itself in little ways, like being able to "demand" a Coke from a waitress "without saying please."
At this point in the post I realize I have not yet included the two literary terms that are required. I now need to use these terms fairly quickly and this low-pressure writing situation is suddenly feeling more highly-pressured. My pulse is rapidly rising. The room is spinning. I feel faint. What two literary terms could I ever use to discuss David Sedaris!?
Antihero - Sedaris is generally the protagonist of his own pieces. He uses many of his essays to point out his own foibles. Whether his is discussing his speech impediment, shallowness, greed or laziness, Sedaris constantly points out all his personal qualities that clash with what the typical nature of a hero is supposed to be.
Symbol - In "The Ship Shape," the new home his parents are considering purchasing becomes a symbol to show young Sedaris' shallowness and greed. He feels the new house will make him a better person. He says, with the new house "my classmates would court me, hoping I might invite them over for the weekend". The house becomes a symbol for the powerful, popular person Sedaris wants to be.
I think Sedaris does a very good job of displaying some of the more selfish parts of our nature that most of us are afraid to admit we have. He's great at describing that little-voice inside of you that wants to be better than everyone else, wants to flaunt what you have and generally wants to take pleasure in feeling superior to those around you. Like on page 24 when he was "drunk on the power of new home" and asked the waitress for another Coke without saying please. I think we all feel "drunk with power" at certain points of our lives, even though generally the power we actually have is not that great. So it manifests itself in little ways, like being able to "demand" a Coke from a waitress "without saying please."
At this point in the post I realize I have not yet included the two literary terms that are required. I now need to use these terms fairly quickly and this low-pressure writing situation is suddenly feeling more highly-pressured. My pulse is rapidly rising. The room is spinning. I feel faint. What two literary terms could I ever use to discuss David Sedaris!?
Antihero - Sedaris is generally the protagonist of his own pieces. He uses many of his essays to point out his own foibles. Whether his is discussing his speech impediment, shallowness, greed or laziness, Sedaris constantly points out all his personal qualities that clash with what the typical nature of a hero is supposed to be.
Symbol - In "The Ship Shape," the new home his parents are considering purchasing becomes a symbol to show young Sedaris' shallowness and greed. He feels the new house will make him a better person. He says, with the new house "my classmates would court me, hoping I might invite them over for the weekend". The house becomes a symbol for the powerful, popular person Sedaris wants to be.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Blog Post #4
"...figurative, cartoonish idiom may be the most powerful means of representing modern atrocity."
I enjoyed Fineman's insights into Botero's work in the slideshow, but this last sentence has to be a joke, right? I have read it over a number of times, and it makes absolutely no sense to me. I respect what Botero is trying to with his paintings, but nothing can more powerfully represent the atrocities of Abu Ghraib than the actual photos of the atrocities Abu Ghraib . Do you guys remember when they came out? It was a one of the finest examples of truth being stranger than fiction. No painting, poem, movie, song, etc. of what happened can be more powerful than showing what actually happened.
The real pictures are so disturbing that looking at them (or even recalling them years later) makes me sick to stomach. They're so repulsive that most people do not want to look at them. Maybe Botero's pudgy, cartoonish figures make the pictures easier to look at. You can study them and take time to comtemplate what happened. This might be beneficial, but there are some things that we run the risk of being too intellectual about.
I would challenge anyone to look at any of the real photos for more than 5 or 6 seconds without looking away. They are so repulsive that you instantly want to block them out. In this way, they do not lead you to meditate on the nature of evil the way one of Botero's paintings might, but aren't there some things that do not need to be meditated upon? Aren't some things so clearly evil and amoral that in snap we can form an opinion on the topic? This is the way the Abu Ghraib photos are to me.
Certainly, I am not one for typically making rash judgments, but in this case it applies. We are all English majors. We like to engage our brains and think philosophically, but sometimes, you have to trust your gut. To quote Woody Allen, "The brain is the most overrated of all organs...Everything really valuable has to enter you through a different opening, if you'll forgive the disgusting imagery."
An overload of stimulus continually at our fingertips has given us a tendency to over-intellectualize. How else could someone think "...figurative, cartoonish idiom may be the most powerful means of representing modern atrocity"?
I enjoyed Fineman's insights into Botero's work in the slideshow, but this last sentence has to be a joke, right? I have read it over a number of times, and it makes absolutely no sense to me. I respect what Botero is trying to with his paintings, but nothing can more powerfully represent the atrocities of Abu Ghraib than the actual photos of the atrocities Abu Ghraib . Do you guys remember when they came out? It was a one of the finest examples of truth being stranger than fiction. No painting, poem, movie, song, etc. of what happened can be more powerful than showing what actually happened.
The real pictures are so disturbing that looking at them (or even recalling them years later) makes me sick to stomach. They're so repulsive that most people do not want to look at them. Maybe Botero's pudgy, cartoonish figures make the pictures easier to look at. You can study them and take time to comtemplate what happened. This might be beneficial, but there are some things that we run the risk of being too intellectual about.
I would challenge anyone to look at any of the real photos for more than 5 or 6 seconds without looking away. They are so repulsive that you instantly want to block them out. In this way, they do not lead you to meditate on the nature of evil the way one of Botero's paintings might, but aren't there some things that do not need to be meditated upon? Aren't some things so clearly evil and amoral that in snap we can form an opinion on the topic? This is the way the Abu Ghraib photos are to me.
Certainly, I am not one for typically making rash judgments, but in this case it applies. We are all English majors. We like to engage our brains and think philosophically, but sometimes, you have to trust your gut. To quote Woody Allen, "The brain is the most overrated of all organs...Everything really valuable has to enter you through a different opening, if you'll forgive the disgusting imagery."
An overload of stimulus continually at our fingertips has given us a tendency to over-intellectualize. How else could someone think "...figurative, cartoonish idiom may be the most powerful means of representing modern atrocity"?
Friday, September 24, 2010
Blog Post #3
I was flipping through The Atlantic on Wednesday. There was an article with the sub-heading “The Case Against Jonathan Franzen.” I have never read any of Franzen’s books, but I saw him on the cover of Time recently. I didn’t read the article about him, but I did see his picture with the caption “Great American Novelist.” Based on those three words alone, none of which were written by Franzen, I decided to like this Jonathan Franzen character. Who could have a case against him? I decided to read the article.
After a few paragraphs I decided it was really pointless to read a review of a book that I have never read by an author I really knew nothing about. But I scanned ahead a few paragraphs and found something interesting. Something that relates to class. Something about…Don DeLillo.
But if Freedom (Franzen’s new book) is middlebrow, it is so in the sacrosanct Don DeLillo tradition, which our critical establishment considers central to literature today. The apparent logic is that the novel can lure Americans away from their media and entertainment buffet only by becoming more “social,” broader in scope, more up-to-date in focus. This may be the reason we get such boring characters. Instead of portraying an interesting individual or two, and trusting in realism to embed their story naturally in contemporary life, the Social Writer thinks of all the relevant issues he has to stuff in, then conceives a family “typical” enough to hold everything together. The more aspects of our society he can fit between the book’s covers, the more ambitious he is considered to be.
Every big fat new effort to “develop” the DeLillo model is thus hailed as important even before it is read, as happened with Franzen’s last novel, The Corrections (2001). No doubt the rave reviews for Freedom will evince the same reluctance to quote from the text that we saw then. Reviewers gave that book maximum points for sweep and sprawl while subtracting none for its slovenly prose, the short-windedness of each of its thousand “themes,” and the failure of the main story line to generate any momentum. (These flaws, too, were in the great DeLillo tradition.)
-From Smaller than Life by B.R. Myers, printed in The Atlantic Oct. 2010
(follow the link here for the full article http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/10/smaller-than-life/8212/)
I particularly like the part about critics giving a novel “points for…sprawl.” I think a fair number of the students in our class would subtract points for sprawl. In fact in almost any work of storytelling “sprawl” isn’t something that is desired. No one ever leaves a movie and says, “Wow, that plot really just meandered around. Terrific! Half the characters served no purpose. I only wish there had been a few more meaningless scenes placed between the important ones.”
In truth, though, it is not really fair to compare a novel to a movie. Movies are meant to be viewed in one sitting, and, therefore, cannot sprawl. There’s no time for it. Of course there are exceptions—particularly the movies of P.T. Anderson (Boogie Nights, Magnolia, There Will be Blood) and Robert Altman (Nashville, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Shortcuts). But, by and large, audiences will not sit through sprawling movies. The stories must be concise and told quickly. Movies have become so interwoven with modern society that this very plot/action based storytelling has become the norm. I think Myers strikes this nail on the head when he writes, “the novel can lure Americans away from the entertainment buffet by becoming…broader in scope.”
Myers views this as a negative though, thinking that modern novelists should still be able to tell exciting stories with exciting characters. But, with all apologies to hardcore literature fans, movies will always be more exciting, at least to the general public. And for modern novelists to be able to make a living, they must appeal to the general public. Franzen and DeLillo have keyed in on this sprawling style because it something that is more effective in literature than movies or TV. It is a way for them to stand out from the “entertainment buffet.” Don’t we all want to stand out? Isn’t that something a writer must do to make a living? Like B.R. Myers writing a negative review of Franzen when all the others have been positive?
After a few paragraphs I decided it was really pointless to read a review of a book that I have never read by an author I really knew nothing about. But I scanned ahead a few paragraphs and found something interesting. Something that relates to class. Something about…Don DeLillo.
But if Freedom (Franzen’s new book) is middlebrow, it is so in the sacrosanct Don DeLillo tradition, which our critical establishment considers central to literature today. The apparent logic is that the novel can lure Americans away from their media and entertainment buffet only by becoming more “social,” broader in scope, more up-to-date in focus. This may be the reason we get such boring characters. Instead of portraying an interesting individual or two, and trusting in realism to embed their story naturally in contemporary life, the Social Writer thinks of all the relevant issues he has to stuff in, then conceives a family “typical” enough to hold everything together. The more aspects of our society he can fit between the book’s covers, the more ambitious he is considered to be.
Every big fat new effort to “develop” the DeLillo model is thus hailed as important even before it is read, as happened with Franzen’s last novel, The Corrections (2001). No doubt the rave reviews for Freedom will evince the same reluctance to quote from the text that we saw then. Reviewers gave that book maximum points for sweep and sprawl while subtracting none for its slovenly prose, the short-windedness of each of its thousand “themes,” and the failure of the main story line to generate any momentum. (These flaws, too, were in the great DeLillo tradition.)
-From Smaller than Life by B.R. Myers, printed in The Atlantic Oct. 2010
(follow the link here for the full article http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/10/smaller-than-life/8212/)
I particularly like the part about critics giving a novel “points for…sprawl.” I think a fair number of the students in our class would subtract points for sprawl. In fact in almost any work of storytelling “sprawl” isn’t something that is desired. No one ever leaves a movie and says, “Wow, that plot really just meandered around. Terrific! Half the characters served no purpose. I only wish there had been a few more meaningless scenes placed between the important ones.”
In truth, though, it is not really fair to compare a novel to a movie. Movies are meant to be viewed in one sitting, and, therefore, cannot sprawl. There’s no time for it. Of course there are exceptions—particularly the movies of P.T. Anderson (Boogie Nights, Magnolia, There Will be Blood) and Robert Altman (Nashville, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Shortcuts). But, by and large, audiences will not sit through sprawling movies. The stories must be concise and told quickly. Movies have become so interwoven with modern society that this very plot/action based storytelling has become the norm. I think Myers strikes this nail on the head when he writes, “the novel can lure Americans away from the entertainment buffet by becoming…broader in scope.”
Myers views this as a negative though, thinking that modern novelists should still be able to tell exciting stories with exciting characters. But, with all apologies to hardcore literature fans, movies will always be more exciting, at least to the general public. And for modern novelists to be able to make a living, they must appeal to the general public. Franzen and DeLillo have keyed in on this sprawling style because it something that is more effective in literature than movies or TV. It is a way for them to stand out from the “entertainment buffet.” Don’t we all want to stand out? Isn’t that something a writer must do to make a living? Like B.R. Myers writing a negative review of Franzen when all the others have been positive?
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The Real Blog #2: "The Boondocks"
We talked in class today about whether some things are off limits and can't be joked about. I think there are some things that are not appropriate to joke about, but that has more to do with the concept of a joke and does not mean things cannot be viewed humorously. Humor is a great coping mechanism and there are some people who have weird, often humorous ways of seeing the world. Who are we to say these people cannot express their viewpoints. A joke I see as a construction or words aimed at provoking laughter. It may not be right to sit and try to think of ways to make a tragic event funny, but we also can't deny that even in tragedy the opportunity for humor exists. When Courtney mentioned in class today that September 11 was the first time more news was viewed on the internet than porn, it reminded me of something I hear the comedian Louis CK say. He lives in New York and after the towers fell he questioned how long is it appropriate to wait before he can masturbate again. That's funny. It's not a joke made at anyone's expense, though I'm sure it offended many people. But it's an honest question that the man had. So my opinion on the matter is that if the humor is coming from a place of truth, anything is acceptable.
And, yes, this all relates to the Boondocks. Hurricane Katrina is real event. People were forced to take in family members they did not want to have. To say that everyone was happy to help would be a lie. Many people, like Granddad, helped begrudgingly. It takes a lot of courage to admit this and I think the people that have the courage to be completely honest should be applauded not vilified. But a lot of these bad thoughts if just explicitly stated would be to off putting for most people to listen to. In this way humor is essential to dealing with the difficulties of real life. Now, I would like to strengthen the assertion that I begin this piece with: not only is humor acceptable way to cope with tragedy, it is essential. I think we saw this in "1 Dead in Attic" and in "The Boondocks."
And, yes, this all relates to the Boondocks. Hurricane Katrina is real event. People were forced to take in family members they did not want to have. To say that everyone was happy to help would be a lie. Many people, like Granddad, helped begrudgingly. It takes a lot of courage to admit this and I think the people that have the courage to be completely honest should be applauded not vilified. But a lot of these bad thoughts if just explicitly stated would be to off putting for most people to listen to. In this way humor is essential to dealing with the difficulties of real life. Now, I would like to strengthen the assertion that I begin this piece with: not only is humor acceptable way to cope with tragedy, it is essential. I think we saw this in "1 Dead in Attic" and in "The Boondocks."
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Blog Post #2 - "1 Dead in Attic"
The two passages I will be comparing are The Elephant Men (48) and Shooting the Rock (229). Chronologically, The Elephant Men was written first. It concerns Rose’s neighborhood in the weeks just after Katrina. The men have started to come back to the city to clean and salvage what still remains of their possessions. These “displaced dads” (48) return without their families due to concerns the city will not be safe for their children. Shooting the Rock was written about ten months after The Elephant Men. Children have now returned to the city. In the article, Rose describes an afternoon of shooting hoops with two boys in a rundown park. He is discouraged about how “kids are pretty much the last consideration in just about every public policy decision around here” (230).
The connection I see between these two articles is that of a father wanting to provide for his children. In The Elephant Men, all the fathers have returned without their families in order to make sure everything is safe and that their family will have some kind of home to return to. In Shooting the Rock, Rose tells the young boys, “You are just like my kids” (232). He feels responsible for providing these children, as well as his own, with some semblance of a normal childhood during a very difficult time. He is dismayed that the city chose to build the emergency housing on the playgrounds instead of around them which would have allowed them “to serve as de facto community centers (allowing) places to play other than debris-strewn streets and sidewalks filled with rotting garbage, roofing nails and rats.” (230).
Every father wants to be able to provide for his children. In the days and months after Katrina the fathers of New Orleans had to go to extreme lengths to do this, and Rose seems discouraged that the local and national government did not do more to help these elephant men and their families.
The connection I see between these two articles is that of a father wanting to provide for his children. In The Elephant Men, all the fathers have returned without their families in order to make sure everything is safe and that their family will have some kind of home to return to. In Shooting the Rock, Rose tells the young boys, “You are just like my kids” (232). He feels responsible for providing these children, as well as his own, with some semblance of a normal childhood during a very difficult time. He is dismayed that the city chose to build the emergency housing on the playgrounds instead of around them which would have allowed them “to serve as de facto community centers (allowing) places to play other than debris-strewn streets and sidewalks filled with rotting garbage, roofing nails and rats.” (230).
Every father wants to be able to provide for his children. In the days and months after Katrina the fathers of New Orleans had to go to extreme lengths to do this, and Rose seems discouraged that the local and national government did not do more to help these elephant men and their families.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Introductory Blog
Hi Classmates and Readers,
This is my blog for English 745: Contemporary American Literature at the University of New Hampshire. The focus of this class for Fall 2010 will be on 21st Century Literature.
Here you'll be able to read my thoughts on the assigned reading this semester. You'll also see how my classmates respond to my posts. Feel free to add in your own comments as well.
Thanks for stopping by.
This is my blog for English 745: Contemporary American Literature at the University of New Hampshire. The focus of this class for Fall 2010 will be on 21st Century Literature.
Here you'll be able to read my thoughts on the assigned reading this semester. You'll also see how my classmates respond to my posts. Feel free to add in your own comments as well.
Thanks for stopping by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)