Chronicle of a Death Foretold

I am very interested in the naturalization of honor in this text. Honor is constructed both as a sacred social value and as an inherent compulsion. We are told that "affairs of honor are sacred monopolies" and that "honor is love". In actuality, however, honor is completely counter intuitive and has little to no biological or evolutionary value. Creating a punishment for deflowering a family member is logical because if sexual exchange is not physically or socially contained then one has no way of knowing or even guessing the paternity of a child and valuable resources may be lost in caring for another person's progeny. On the other hand, a far more logical response to one of the richest men in town sleeping with your young sister is the one that Flora Miguel assumes: a shotgun wedding. We know from the narrator's reflections that the outcome of the murder is that the brothers spend a lot of time in jail and that Victoria Guzman spends much of her life unwed and doing clothwork with her mother. Had they forced Santiago to marry Victoria, she would have been married to one of the richest men in town and thus well provided for. She could have had children. Pedro and Pablo could have spent the years while they were in jail providing for their families. Instead, because of this unnatural desire to care for their honor, they rot in a prison cell and Victoria lives the life of a spinster.

The language used in the Chronicle does not describe the Guzman brothers as defending their honor because they need to save face as often as it describes them as defending their honor because they must, they have to, it is the only way. Honor is not just a way of gaining social credit, it is a necessity for life.

The female gaze and why it pisses me off

In the process of writing my rough draft for this class, I have been looking into the male and female gaze. In case you aren't familiar with these concepts, here's a quick summary as told my dinosaurs:
All that I keep thinking about when I study the male and female gazes is what one of my profs told me last year. She said to the class that there is no inherent "female gaze" and that when women objectify men and other women they are looking with the male gaze, imitating men. She said that women do not naturally objectify men, or women, or themselves. Apparently women only appreciate physical beauty because men do.

What a lot of bullshit. It seems to me that a lot of new feminist theory is incredibly counterproductive and seeks to completely desexualize women in any way possible, but the worst part in my mind is how degrading it makes all gaze and, by extension, all sex. We are working so very, very hard to make women hate sex and sexuality here! Women frequently and socially deny their gaze because they are told that it's wrong, that only men look with desire. That's ridiculous. Aside from asexual people, everyone has desire for something or someone and there is a visual association. No, girls, don't pretend you don't stare at pretty eyes or pretty arms or pretty butts. We might not all be vocal about it, but we all gaze. Pretending that we don't, or that our sexuality is solely determined through our victimization by men (who you really can't blame that much for staring because if the penis were located in the center of the torso less than a foot away from the eyes, we would stare to).

Ugh. This isn't terribly well written. I'm angry, I'm ranting about this because I'm angry and I know it. My issues with the gaze are very similar to my issues with the idea of holding doors and things like that. Yes, there are instances where it is very wrong, very offensive, and incredibly sexist. We have all experienced that. But that doesn't mean that, in all instances, gazing is antifeminist or holding a door open is degrading. It is a normal part of life. I feel that feminist theory tends to focus on little things like doors in order to keep people feeling afraid and marginalized instead of focusing on bigger issues like salary differences or the right to make informed decisions about your own body. There is such a willingness to be offended that persists. We want to be offended so badly that we degrade ourselves and invent problems. When someone thinks I can't write code or grill a burger because I'm a woman, I get angry. That is a situation where yes, we can get pissed off (and hey, I can't grill a burger because I'm a vegetarian, the girl thing has nothing to do with it. I bet that when I learn I'll be able to kick your ass at burger grilling, though). That's a situation where I start yelling and I work my butt off to prove them wrong. But when someone tells me that I have nothing to do with my physical attraction to someone, that I like this guy's eyes or that one's freckles because men told me I should, that makes me so much more angry.

bad dreams and odd awakenings

I had never had that experience of waking up with a charley horse...until about 3 this morning. Yes, I flailed, yes, I did the weird arm wiggle-y. bug-like thrashing, and yes, I accidentally made the damn things come back after it finally stopped because my poor confused body was still jumping all over. This is a bit too much of a coincidence for me, so I'm blaming you guys. Thanks?

My German copy of Die Verwandlung just came in.

Some German info

As the only German student in our class, I feel the need to share my "expertise". Some of this will be pointless. Some will (hopefully) not. I just feel the need to be more German--I haven't been German enough in class yet.

So, I know that I talked about doors in class, but another interesting thing is the German window. A typical German window has a glass pane (like ours), no screen, and a Rollladen. Many have window dressings like shutters or curtains as well.

This is what a Rollladen looks like:

This Rollladen is open, allowing some little light to go in.









This one is closed

















Rollladen translates into roll away shutter (there are three ls because German makes a lot of sense--the word for roll away is roll and the word for shutter or shop is laden so they stick the two together. I love German because even if you don't know a word you have a really good chance at figuring it out anyway). Rollladens come down externally (that is, on the outside of the house) and are frequently made of metal (if I'm remembering what I learned in 240 correctly, that is).

A little more on German architecture:
1. While they frequently have a special entryway to mark the transition from the Privatraum (private realm) and Öffentlichkeit (general public), they very rarely have hallways. Rooms transition directly into each other with no wasted space between.
2. Germany is very densely populated, so Germans tend to build up instead of out. They will have several small rooms stacked on top of each other instead of many large, spacious rooms.
3. There are very strict rules for entering a Bekannter's house (that is, someone you know but not well enough to address informally). Just showing up and bursting in is incredibly, incredibly rude.

German is beautiful and completely insane, and hopefully, my German copy of Die Verwandlung will show up early enough for me to read along.

A few of my favorite German words, just because they make me smile:
chillen (past tense : hat gechillt) --to chill or hang out
googeln (past tense : hat gegoogelt) --to google

I'm also a big fan of beobachten (to observe) and Opferbereit (willing to sacrifice, often referring to martyrs). Something about the shapes of those words is particularly appealing to me, I'm not sure why.

abstracts, blergh

I have a very clear idea of what I want to write in my paper. I have collected evidence. I am confident that my thesis is both defendable and debateable.

Still, I'm pretty sure that my abstract sucks.

I know that I tend to be long-winded so I'm trying to correct that, but I'm afraid that I'm over-correcting. I'm also having trouble not giving away the punchline, so to speak.

One way or another, I'm going to end up writing an interesting paper. We'll just see if Harry likes the abstract or not, I guess.

queer theory vs. lesbian/gay theory: a ten minute quickie that I originally accidentally posted to the wrong blog (whoops)

I have ten minutes left on my shift, so this is going to be fast, wham-bam, a quick recitation of my opinions, minus all of the bullshit.

I hate the word queer. I hate hate hate it (and yes, three hates is necessary to fully explain the extent of my loathing). Every time I hear that word, I remember Eric Oberhart sitting on the bus to state Science Olympiad in the 7th grade pinching his nose close and whining on and on about the sick little "queeeeers". I understand that use of the word is an attempt to reclaim it for the GLBTQ community but it feels to me in some ways like an attempt to further hide sexual orientation even within the GLBTQ community and again, every time I hear the word, Eric Oberhart's whiny, pinched little voice echoes in my head.

Okay. 7 minutes left. Time to move on.

Why is queer theory a better term to use than gay/lesbian theory? That's because it's all-emcompassing. It doesn't groom towards extremes. Modern literature is very rarely so completely polarized; a lot of the interest in non-heteronormative literature is in seeing where the subject lies on the unique and varied spectrum of sexuality. Very few pieces of the works that we look at have complete gay or lesbian readings. To read The Lover as a lesbian or a heterosexual text, for example, would be an incomplete reading; if we claim that her feelings for Helene make her a lesbian than we discount her feelings and passion towards her Chinese lover. If we take her as completely straight, on the other hand, and say that she uses Helene as a mirror in which to reflect her own desire for herself and the lover as a couple, then we discount the extremely sexual descriptions of Helene's breasts. Even if this is pure narcisism, we cannot deny her attraction towards the female form. Even Dorian Grey cannot be seen as a "pure" gay man; he has great passion for Sibyl. Yes, he is most attracted to her when she dresses like a man, but he is still intrigued by her female form. Women interest him, as they do Lord Henry, and ignoring that provides an extremely shallow look at the book.

The term "queer theory" is useful in that it does not force us to view things as purely homosexual but at the same time it doesn't assume heteronormativity. We can examine and appreciate the broad spectrum of sexual attraction and then view the intricate social or biological sources that sexuality, "queerness", or "perversity" have.

okay. I'm pretty sure I made up some words here (heteronormativity, anyone?) but I got my point across. I don't function well this highly caffeinated. I'll revise later. For now, that's my post.

Is homosexuality like medicine--you're always practicing, never ready for the actual recital?

"H. Montgomery Hyde, in Oscar Wilde: A Biography, cited 'strong grounds for believing that it was with [Ross] that Wilde first deliberately experimented in homosexual practices.'"
hahaha haha I can definitely imagine someone whispering this so no one's delicate ears are offended. Oh research, you amuse me. Some writers are clearly very, very uncomfortable talking about sex. It's fun to watch them squirm. He deliberately experimented in those homosexual practices now. Beforehand he only accidentally did.
haha. I was working on my paper and this completely made my day :D

Die Klavierspielerin/The Piano Teacher

I've been working on my book for my final paper, Die Klavierspielerin by Elfriede Jelinek (commonly translated as "The Piano Teacher", though it actually means "the female piano player"--I guess that piano teacher has a better ring to it) and I have got to say, this is the most screwed-up piece of fiction I have ever read in my life.

This book has it all--incest, pedophilia, unhealthy power dynamics, just about every fetish I can think of short of furries and diapers, violence, and some creative uses for pretty floral dresses. The narrator and the characters loathe and envy men with surprising violence and they act out their misplaced aggression through extremly controlling tendencies, painful, public sex acts, and random acts of violence on public transportation. This is both the most compelling and the most discomfiting work I have ever read. I keep getting caught up in what's happening and reading out of curiosity and without thinking analytically, so I've resigned myself to rereading it later. Right now I'm too shocked to think clearly.

I had expected strong, oversexualized power-play--I was even expecting incestuous overtones between the mother and her daughter--but it wasn't until the main character "accidentally" kissed her cousin's genitals in the middle of the neighborhood picnic shortly after a lengthy description of three generations of dusty steel vaginas that I realized just how overt and excessive this book is. I understand now why some critics called it "whining, unenjoyable public pornography," though I think it's more than that. Regardless, I am enjoying this book, as uncomfortable and intimidating as it is.

The Picture of Dorian Gray chapters 1-6

First off, I feel that I should say that I really, really like this book so far.
Secondly, it makes me so very, very uncomfortable.

Innocent, childish (somewhat obnoxious) Dorian is being used and manipulated by two men, one of whom is entirely consumed with his obsession with Dorian and the other who delights in corrupting him and destroying his sweet nature. I honestly couldn't tell you which makes me more uncomfortable, Basil's wholehearted and passionate fixation or Lord Henry's idle, selfish desire to devour Dorian and spit him back out just to see how he ticks.

I can't decide whether or not I believe Basil, Lady Agatha, and others when they claim that Lord Henry never means what he says. I could see L.H. as being enough of an asshat to mean his horrible and self-centered philosophies. The way that no one ever seems to truly interact other than with projections of themselves in others supports this perception of L.H. If he truly believes that people are as dull and unintelligent as he makes them out to be, then that would explain why his friends and family members are too obtuse to recognise this. On the other hand, I could see him being bored and idle enough to say these ridiculous things just to spark a reaction. His dissociation between what one believes and what is right (pg 10) supports this idea. It also supports the concept of a common morality independent of what an individual believes, however, which really doesn't seem to be consistent with what L.H. says or thinks. I think we'll have to wait and see how he interacts with Sibyl to get a clearer idea of Harry's motives.

I was just flipping through my book and saw Harry's thoughts about how he wants to dominate Dorian Gray (41). I also saw the part where he tells Dorian that it is only the sacred things that are worth touching (58). What a creeper!

Now, obviously the main difference that arises in Dorian from when he meets Lord Henry is his newfound sense of vanity and self. He becomes a sponge for Harry's cynical speeches. I think that the only real difference in his interpersonal relationships, however, is the will to act. He is rude and unpleasant to Basil before Harry starts corrupting him, but after spending time with Lord Henry Dorian stands Basil up, openly contradicts people, rescinds his charitable offers of assistance, and makes flighty and impulsive decisions that he knows will disappoint his family.

I feel, though, that I can't yet really comment too much on Dorian and Sibyl. We haven't actually seen the two of them interact; we have only heard their lovestruck accounts of each other. I find it interesting to note that while they both view each other as parts from a play and have no desire to see each other outside of their set roles, Dorian is able to recognize Sibyl as being in several different roles and knows her name while Sibyl cannot conceive of him as anything other than her Prince Charming. In this way, then, we know that on some level Dorian sees the farce of their relationship for what it is--based on highly unrealistic perceptions. Sibyl, however, seems much more one-dimensional and unable to distinguish the difference between her reality and her fantasy.

I actually really want to read ahead and see what happens when Basil and Lord Henry meet Sibyl. Basil's pathetic little moment of realization in the carriage at the end of chapter 6 was touching, and I would like to learn more about Lord Henry and hope that Sibyl fleshes out a little more. I need to move on to other homework, though, so we'll revisit this in a day or two.

Sturcturalism

My problem with structuralism (and bear with me, because I'm writing this as I read instead of as a reflection on the chapter later on) is that it rejects the idea of individual works as groundbreaking or bringers of change. If you only view a literary work in terms of what it tells you about the context in which it was written then you never have the tools with which to observe context as it changes. Something radical or insightful or incendiary can only be viewed as first deviant and then normal but never as inspiring mass change.

Problem #2 with structuralism: it assumes a definite truth. BT includes phrases such as that the work "does not make sense" or "cannot be understood" outside of the larger context, but this is going with the assumption that the author had a definite purpose when writing the work and that meaning is given to the work by the author (or god, fate, truth, some higher external power) and that meaning is not "jointly constructed by reader and writer", as critical theory states. If meaning is always outside then couldn't we also draw structurally based conclusisions around the context that we impose upon the text when we read it?

I know that that isn't the point of literary criticism, so let's look at this from a different angle. The text states that literary works do not make sense unless you look at them from the most abstract contextual view. This conclusion is incorrect. It's human nature to extrapolate meaning beyond the given and to warp what we interpret into social norms that we understand. Some texts count on these properties. First person narratives or texts that exclude context and description outside of dialogue count on these qualitites in order to be understood (The Sound and the Fury and A Farewell to Arms come to mind, but that's probably because I like them so much). So if books frequently depend on our ability to understand beyond our means, basing a form of literary analysis around the idea that you cannot understand this without the greater context seems a little off to me. It glorifies the author's intentions while at the same time pretending that the author has little to no autonomy.

hey look, it's an entry. Liberal humanism, literary theory, all that jazz.

I want to start this off by saying that I fully intend to take advantage of the fact that this doesn't have to be a summary. If this is too specific, I'll broaden it, but for now I'm going to talk about the aspects of the reading that interested me or confused me or made me think and I'm going to avoid topics that don't. Why? Because this is the internet, the throne of arrogance, and because I don't like to write things because they're expected. It makes me feel slimy. Anyway--on to more academic things.

When I read the first chapter of Beginning Theory, the thing that really popped out to me was Matthew Arnold's confused sort of classism. Maybe I was fixating on the thing that really offended my lower-middle-class sensibilities; maybe the caffeine just kicked in at around page 26. Regardless, I have been having trouble wrapping my head around Arnold's views on the role of the critic in society and his views on the relative capability of amateurs.

On page 26 of BT, Peter Barry explains to us that Arnold essentially believes in a central truth that is acquired through the ages. It is passed on or revealed, not discovered. We see too that the critic is the priest of his literary church. The intermediary revealer of knowledge, the critic draws back the curtain and enables individuals to "give individual assent to the canon of great works". So here, the common person needs an expert in order to understand great works (which also implies that the work cannot speak for itself and it requires context in order to be understood. Oops).

Later on, however (page 29 if you're following along in your books) Barry says that Arnold "seems essentially to license and encourage the amateur". He says here that the simple act of reading great works allows someone to reach a "true judgement on it". So...is the average person capable of understanding on their own, or do they still need an intermediary? Maybe he's just using illogical logic to justify the existence of his own profession--heaven forbid he disprove his usefulness and get fired. Maybe I'm doing exactly what he wants by questioning his motives and leading to more things for him to write later on. It's self-perpetuating job security.

I do feel, at least a little bit, that the eruption of English as a literary study genera is kind of like what the creation of internet blogs did for the poetry world. Go check out my emo poetry blog for further intel.

Despite that, I found the sterylization of literary studies pretty peculiar here. I was floored by Edward Freeman's statement that English could not revert to pure literary studies because "examiners must have technical and positive information to examine" (that was on page 14 for those of you who are keeping score). Technicalizing literature? Count me out. I think I fall somewhere in between the liberal humanists and the critical theorists. Context is important, and looking at literature from a specific analytic angle can be fascinating, but when reading I tend to ignore contexts (other than the ones I superimpose--it's human nature to warp our vision of things until we can relate) . While I read the text, I don't look for certain things. For me, critical theorist-type analysis often comes later.

Okay. That's it. That was a lot of literary theory in a short amount of time and my poor brain needs rest.

testing 1 2 3

This is the super boring first post for my new class blog. Later I'll actually play with formatting and post something of substance; for now, you must look elsewhere on the internet for entertainment. I'm sure you'll manage somehow.