Post Colonialism

This past Wednesday in class we discussed the idea that in BT the author presents this idea that we are meant to reject eurocentric ideas and the universalism created by colonists. Yet, as our "guest speaker" reminded the class he goes on to categorize post colonialism into the adopt, adapt, adept stages (if I recall). Would this not contradict the original statements made earlier in the chapter? 

I feel however, that you are who you are, although the author is supposedly contradicting himself, because he most likely is using a eurocentric view, he can't change that. One aspect of this criticism was the idea of duality in persons. It seems that most people whether they are a "colonist" or one who was "colonized", may have a little bit of both. Where is that boundary? Where does it end? How can one person not have influences from their ancestors or the people who colonized them? Is that not history as well? 

But maybe I am also just thinking way too much into this theory. I feel that in most of these chapters I don't agree with the theory or I find something wrong about it, whether I feel it is not realistic or not plausible, etc. Perhaps I just can't truly except just one "theory" or a categorized theory to interpret literature. I think that one theory will never be able to fully help readers understand literature and even labeling them, may not help. 

It also could be that after reading so many chapters of different theories I am completely turned around in each different direction. Or most likely, because it is April and so close to the end. 

Chronicle of a Death Foretold

As I go through this novel once more I continue to find little details that truly perplex me. For instance, Bayardo intrigues me a lot, for the reader is able to divulge that something is hidden behind this unordinary man, he is too much of a man and no ordinary man (34). Plus, he plays his cards just as Santiago does (41). Not sure what cards are being played, but something is going on. 

Also it mentions that he is the true "victim" because he has no destiny to fulfill. Santiago fulfills his destiny by being murdered, the twin brothers fulfill theirs by murdering,  and Angela fulfills her by regaining her honor. Yet, why is it that he falls victim, solely because he does not have a destiny? 

It is also interesting to note that on page 85: "I remember thinking that distress like theirs could only be put on in order to hide other, greater shames." I have been looking through this text to try and figure out what this shame is and trying to think about other possibilities. At one point I thought, is he gay, is he inadequate in bed, etc. 

Hopefully, my next blog will be able to divulge some more details. 

The Lover

In our group discussion in class we talked about how Duras' The Lover illustrates or exudes the "feminine style". I think that one of the main thoughts that really struck me was the idea of the fragmentation of this novel and the idea of emotions. 

Women are stereotyped and maybe for a reason to be more "emotional" creatures. I think that this style of writing, with the fragments, lets the reader travel emotion to emotion. There is no build up or climatic climb towards one emotion. Duras goes from one emotion to the next, or one memory to the next. The non-linear narrative keeps the reader and the "emotions" of the narrator on their toes. 

I think that unlike other novels, where suspense, surroundings, characters, and other techniques are utilized to keep the reader entertained, emotions are key to Duras' stylistic writing. These emotions which are used to describe certain instances, when no emotion is needed, and to subtly imply certain family dynamics, etc. power the novel and the "female style" of writing. (If that can be defined). 

Feminist Criticism?

While reading over the chapter in BT on Feminist criticism the explanation of "...that between the terms 'feminist', 'female', and 'feminine'. As Toril Moi explains, the first is 'a political position', the second 'a matter of biology', and the third 'a set of culturally defined characteristics'". This reminds me a little bit of how the word and language we use for things is in itself almost insignificant at times, in regards to why we call a table a table, etc. 

I related these two ideas because in dealing with the idea of feminine, how can we really define this word, or even a feminist? Female even to an extent can be argued, but due to the inherent biological requirements is easier to define. It seems that literary criticism should be able to cross cultures and societies by using tangible ideas/ways of looking at literature, etc. But with the feminist approach, it seems that you may not be able to fully achieve this. 

Because if feminine and feminist are defined differently, depending on the culture and society, the pressures put on females or the independence, would you not also have an imbalanced way of criticism that may not be able to "cross" those cultural divides? I guess what my question is coming down to is if a society or culture has not been able to fully express female independence or thought, can they have feminist criticism?  

The Picture of Dorian Gray

The first 6 chapters of this book have been very interesting and especially entertaining. I find Lord Henry to be extremely comical in that a majority of what he says contains two opposing ideals. Or in some cases it seems as if everything the reader thought was "true" about intellectuals, art, the upper class, etc. is actually not true at all. 

Dorian Gray interests me, as well, and I am curious about why he is so influential to Basil's art, to Lord Henry (he has 17/18 portraits of him). I think that his influence, specifically on Lord Henry grabs my attention. Because it seems that Lord Henry at the beginning tries to manipulate or push DG in a certain direction, making him think of new ideas, etc. But as Lady Henry says, he has over 17 portraits of the lad hanging in his house. 

This is very weird, because for someone who usually feels in "control" or the person that does the manipulating, having almost a relic or infatuation with someone else is uncommon. Or maybe it is not? I just feel as if Lord Henry is hiding a lot more than he leads on and that these portraits he keeps are a sign of how much influence DG really has, unknowingly. 

Structuralism

I can agree that to a certain extent words are arbitrary. As we discussed in class, the idea of naming a table a "table" is something that does not make sense. At least, we could have named anything something other than it is called. 

This idea goes farther into languages and how many things we say in one language may not translate into another language. However, I think that in terms of literary content when a book or a movie, etc is in one language and it is translated you lose something. I think many people agree on this, due to the translation error. 

Yet, when you try to analyze a piece of work without the language, you still lose something. I think the only way to truly interpret or master a piece of work is if you can understand the original language, the culture, etc. But than again, no piece of work can ever truly be "mastered". 

Liberal Humanism

Points #2 and #5 that are described in the liberal humanism chapter seem contrary to each other. Number two states that whatever text you read has its own meaning within itself. This own meaning than speaks to each of us due to our individuality. Yet, my question is, how can there ever be a true reading critic? Or, how can you have critics that are more "correct" than others? 

I guess I am just confused, because if the book has its own meaning and we all have our own individuality and each interpret a book on our own personalities/experiences, etc. how can a book truly be interpreted by "experts"? 

Yet, we also seem to somehow interpret and see similar meanings in books. Are these points/meanings that we see in the book, the only meaning we can consider valid? (Because it is the only meaning that is universal?) 

I think that these universal "truths" we read in books can only be considered good criticism when others also acknowledge these truths.