Orientalism

Orientalism, in ideology, is an “othering” device. To be more clear, in a Hegelian binary, it was a way for “civilized” and “intellectual” Europeans to define themselves through a contradiction of a created lesser being. It defamiliarizes an entire continent into the unprivileged. “Orientalism is a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between ‘the Orient’ and (most of the time) ‘the Occident’ (Said 1867). In every binary relationship, all the parts are quintessential for the construction of the identity of all the others. Edward Said says “[t]he Orient is not only adjacent to Europe; it is also the place of Europe’s greatest and richest and oldest colonies, the source of its most recurring images of the Other. In addition, the Orient has helped to define Europe (or the West) as its contrasting image, idea, personality, experience” (Said 1866).

These images and identities that are created in the ideology of Orientalism are found constantly in Western popular culture. A 1919 silent film entitled Broken Blossoms, but also went by names such as The Yellow Man and the Girl, relied heavily on the ideologies that arose within Orientalism. This movie was one of the first to feature yellow-face, which was a Western depiction of a person of Asian descent or at the time, Oriental. Orientals were considered uncivilized, exotic, passive, cheating, feminist, etc. For the most part, they are viewed as being backwards in relations with their Western counterparts. Mickey Rooney’s portrayal of Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany’s is another example of the film industry’s Orientalism. Under scrutiny, the film industry and advertisement industries continue this tradition as well. Take, for example, the film Prince of Persia starred Jake Gyllenhaal, or Rodrigo Santoro portraying Xerxes in the film rendition of Frank Miller’s 300. Both actors are not of Persian (Iranian) descent, yet they both were casted to portray roles of Persians. This might be overanalyzing Hollywood’s casting procedures, but it could be contributed to the idea that the identity of the other is still crafted by the self.

A Westerner portraying a person of Asiatic descent supports Said’s theory that “Orientalism is premised upon exteriority, that is, on the fact that the Orientalist, poet or scholar [or actor], makes the Orient speak, describes the Orient, renders its mysteries plain for and to the West” (Said 1882). This is to say that no person within the Orient actually aids in creating an identity for themselves. In the Occidental/Oriental dialectic, all mediation of the Oriental is overseen and controlled by the Occidental. The film portrayals, when analyzed, could be seen as silencing the voice of the other, restricting the “Oriental” from gaining a place in constructing their own identity. Othering is still a device used throughout all societies and lingers from the days of Imperialism.

Said, Edward W. "Orientalism." The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Second ed. New York: W.W. Norton and, 2010. 1866-888. Print

The Body as a Battleground

Susan Bordo, in passage from Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body, states that “[t]he body, as anthropologist Mary Douglas has argued, is a powerful symbolic form, a surface on which the central rules, hierarchies, and even metaphysical commitments of a culture are inscribed and thus reinforced” (Bordo 2240). This uses the idea that the body is a sign, and that its meaning is filled with the ideologies of its contemporary setting. She paraphrases Pierre Bourdieu’s and Michel Foucault’s argument that “[t]he body is not only a text of culture,” but “a practical, direct locus of social control” (2240).

This brings up the idea that image of beauty is perpetuated by the privileged side of the binary relationship between Man/Woman. To Bordo, “the discipline and normalization of the female body – perhaps the only gender oppression that exercises itself, although to different degrees and in different forms, across age, race, class, and sexual orientation – has to be acknowledged as an amazingly durable and flexible strategy of social control” (2241). To Bordo and many other feminist analysts, the beauty myth is a construct of a misogynistic and male dominated society. The man has created an expectation of what the woman should look like, and this has translated into a social aspect of control via beauty.

A person can definitely make this read when seeing certain models in advertisements, although there has been somewhat of a rebellion against a model idea of beauty. The restructuring of the Barbie© to reduce breast size and increase her waist can be seen as a way to remove an impossible standard of beauty among the impressionable minds of younger girls. At the same time companies like Dove have come out with a new campaign that uses full sized, or more “normal” body types to sell a beauty product.

Author Chuck Pahliunuk had a short story in his novel Haunted about a transsexual man who is abused by a room full of women for embodying a male’s view on female beauty. (I do not have the text on hand as I write this, so I am unable to quote from it.) This act could be interpreted as a female’s overt reclamation of their own beauty by attacking the standards imposed on them. It mirrors what Bordo has said about the feminine body with a male mind. Everything from the measurements of certain body parts to the make up styles to body language has all been an effort to appease to the male aspect of society.

The idea of sexism is a very complicated subject. Where is the reclamation of the body by it’s physical and metaphysical owner? This could come down to a reader response and semiotic interpretation of the sign. If the woman abides to the standards of beauty imposed about by the male aspect of the binary, is there any empowerment within that act alone? One can view the realization of the role imposed as a stepping stone to assuming power, or ideally, equality within the binary, although this dialogue will continue for as long as people assume the binary exists.

Bordo, Susan. "Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body." TheNorton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Second ed. New York: W.W. Norton and, 2010. 2240- 254. Print.

A House of Mirrors

The idea of simulacra and the diversion of a reality is something that Jean Baudrillard discusses in his piece The Procession of Simulacra. Baudrillard uses an epigraph in this piece that states, “The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth – it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true” (Baudrillard 1556). This idea is that the legion of copies or simulations does not add depth to the truth of the idea, it becomes the idea. This is a popular belief in post-modern analysis and creation that, in idea, copies something that has already happened but changes the meaning, therefore changing the truth. Television shows such as South Park and Family Guy can be seen as post-modern by relying on pop-culture reference to create comedy.

When the aforementioned shows reference historical or contemporary creations, they broadcast a simulacrum, which I what Baudrillard means when he says that “[t]he real is produced from miniaturised units, from matrices, memory banks and command models” (1557). This real that he mentions is not the original meaning. That original point, or in the case of my analysis, the figure standing that enters a carnivalesque house of mirrors. Each mirror is a one way window with a video camera on the other side. The mirrors consist of a regular mirror and then assorted ones that distort the image. Some reflections become short and stout, others become giants, or like the reflection in a rippled body of water. The camera acts as a public eye, where meaning is created or discussed depending upon what image is seen.

Each of these distorted reflections that a person sees becomes, in essence, a reality despite the original source material. Becky Sharp in William Makepeace Thackery's novel Vanity Fair does a sufficient job acting as a house or mirrors. In the novel, she adjusts her personality by drawing in the “proper” reflections of her surroundings and broadcasting the appropriate image. This act of reflection becomes the truth of Becky Sharp, at least to the reader, while the characters in the book assume the reflection they are shown as the truth.

Back to the television shows, Family Guy, South Park, The Simpsons, and countless other contemporary forms of entertainment reflect/distort an image or idea and create something new. To people unaware of the original state, they will create meaning from what they see as truth. Others that can catch the references will create a new truth from the simulacra depending on what setting the reflections take place in.

The early modernist writers, like Ezra Pound, made an effort to re-craft language and tradition into a new contemporary meaning. To paraphrase Pound, it is only through the knowledge and understanding of the past that a contemporary truth can be revealed. Post modern analysis can challenge that view point to say that truth lies not only within the original, but with the simulation of that original. Or at least the truth evolves with the procession of simulacra.

Baudrillard, Jean. "The Precession of Simulacra." The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton and, 2010. 1556-566. Print.

Zizek get's White-boarded

Public "Illusions" of Private "Realities"

Jürgen Habermas, in The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article, seems to describe the evolution of ideology. Specifically the ideas of the public v. the private. “In the second half of the eighteenth century literary journalism created serious competition for the earlier news sheets which were mere compilations of notices” (Habermas 1574). The piece was written in 1964 and is very relevant today in looking at modern news.

If I were to turn on the television today I would be bombarded with thousands of channels, all vying for an opportunity to inform about or distract from the world today. As a viewer, there is a sense of empowerment, since the remote control is in my hands. Many analysis of popular culture have viewed the potential problem of outlets in both negative and positive ways. The main idea of the news channels is to provide a viewer with complementary views of their own. What the news channels seem to think is that people abide by certain guidelines depending on religious, political, or social ideologies. They, in turn, make these privatized ideas a public mass.

Looking even closer, each of the news channels employ analysts. These people take their own viewpoints and publicize them. A statement by Habermas, “often enough today the process of making public simply serves the arcane policies of special interests” (1576). The special interests could be seen as each individual analysts desire, whether that be to educate or motivate towards their own privatized ideas. This idea of making public for service could be seen in practice when a company goes public, or to some conspirators, the act of voting since they're all rigged anyway.

The act of going public is merely an illusion of an individual's private ideologies, that once bought in to, becomes a reality. People vote for a presidential candidate not by platform, but by party allegiance just like brand loyalty. Publication simply seems to give the closest, most similar outlet of private view.

Chopping at the Capital Infastructure

According to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “It is only by being exchanged that the products of labor acquire, as values, one uniform social status, distinct from their varied forms of existence as objects of utility” (Engels 665). What is presented by both Marx and Engels is that value is created socially. This value is a culmination of all the labor that is invested in to a certain product. Take a stroll down any supermarket aisle and you will find yourself with commodities. The bright colorful packaging of breakfast pastries to the roasted “Fair Trade” coffee beans. Each of these items comes from the work of labor, and this labor is what helps set a value when it comes to the act of purchasing.

The Labor Theory of Value is an interesting way to explore how value is created. There is a structure of labor that flows upwards until it reaches the consumer. Each level of labor is applied to the value in which the consumer then pays for. The end goal is for a manufacturer to provide a commodity to a consumer with a surplus value in order to make profit. Sometimes this surplus value is jacked up according to social standards, which is why the same product, marketed towards different economic groups, have large variations in price. For the most part, the labor defines how much a product will cost. Take for example a clothing item that is produced on American soil in comparison with one that is produced overseas. The value of the laborers is drastically different, according to cost of living, insurance, taxes, etc. This is, in theory, why American made or commodities developed in “first world nations” usually have a much higher market value than those which have been outsourced.

Many multinational companies have moved to outsourcing labor in order to cut production costs, although many times it is in order to increase surplus value. As lightly touched on in the Flight of the Conchords song “Think About It” (found at about 1:26 into the video clip).

“They're turning kids into slaves just to make cheaper sneakers.
But what's the real cost?
'Cause the sneakers don't seem that much cheaper.
Why are we still paying so much for sneakers
When you got them made by little slave kids
What are your overheads?”

Capitalism has driven many businesses into finding a way to lower the cost of labor in the products they produce while offering similar or higher prices. This leaves a giant gap between the laborer and the consumer because the wages paid to create the product no longer effect the value the same way it used to. This is why in some sectors of the labor force there are such large pushes towards a living wage, because as the values of commodities rise with inflation, and the payment of laborers remains stagnant, the entire infrastructure of capitalism will collapse because of its own values.

Works Cited:

Engels, Friedrich. "The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof." The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism. By Karl Marx. 2nd ed. New York, NY: W.W. Norton &, 2010. 663-71. Print.

It's a Free Country and I'll Make My Own Meaning

There are many forms of art in the world for a person to set their eyes upon. As the brain receives signals from the eyes, it begins to analyze and interpret what it is seeing. A consciousness is necessary for this interaction to occur. Jean-Paul Sartre stated that “our perceptions [are] accompanied by the consciousness that human reality is a 'revealer'” and that “man is the means by which things are manifested” (Sartre 1199). Ideas and meanings are manifested within the individuals interaction with an object, “by introducing order where there was none” (1200). Roland Barthes states that “text is not a line of words releasing a single 'theological' meaning (the 'message' of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings […] blend and clash” (Barthes 1324). The idea surrounding this analytical way of thinking is that there is no singular meaning within a piece of art, and that the meaning is found outside of the work itself.

In effort to really look into the reader response style of analysis, I will use examples of a word that is sure to entice controversy but must add that I am in no way attempting to use any of this as a means of offense or hate. Take a sketch by a comedian, Louis CK. In the clip presented, he uses the word “faggot.” Now as the word is presented either in the clip or through the symbols that write the word, the receiver (reader or viewer) will begin to interact. Through this interaction the receiver applies a plethora of catalysts to what is being received. These catalysts range from emotional connections to social ideologies also taking into consideration the context of the situation as well as gauging the tone or manner in which the word is presented. These elements together create an end product, a meaning so to say.

Some receivers will take offense to Louis CK's use of the word “faggot” while others will laugh and still others will have no opinion of the matter. This all boils down to the catalysts the person applies to the word. To some it holds a very negative connotation of anti-homosexuality and hate, while to others it has a completely different meaning as slightly explained by CK himself. South Park also dealt with the meaning of the word in an episode where they labeled loud and obnoxiously intrusive motorcycle riders as being “faggots.” It should be said that the creator of the object of interpretation must know how it may possibly be interpreted by the public before releasing it into the wild. This is why Louis CK explains his use of the word as well as South Park going into detail to attempt to avoid a negative backlash from potential receivers. Although, they have no control once it is exposed to the public. A copper statue begins to oxidize when the metal interacts with the atmosphere, the same may be applied to words interacting with the public consciousness.

Moving beyond the aforementioned word and onto art in general. The piece of art itself goes through different phases. The creator of the piece installs their own meaning to it, but as it enters the public sphere, their meaning is not totally discarded, but set aside. The art enters the public sphere as an empty shell. The public, individually or collectively, then fills that shell with their own meanings and ideas, possibly taking into consideration the meaning placed by the creator, possibly not. Each receiver will apply to the object their own set of catalysts, creating different responses to the exact same object. There technically is no wrong when it comes to analysis of interpretation of a text, and it is purely subjective, making a single word a very powerful thing indeed.

For safety sake I must again apologizes to anyone who may have taken offense to the content posted, I chose this subject merely for the controversy surrounding the aforementioned word and the multiple meanings it that have been applied to it in an effort to analyze a Reader Response theory.

Works Cited:

Barthes, Roland. "The Death of the Author." The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism. Second ed. New York, NY: W.W. Norton &, 2010. 1322-326. Print.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. "What Is Literature." The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism. Second ed. New York, NY: W.W. Norton &, 2010. 1199-213. Print.

"MotherBoy" Love

Freud in his studies often referred to the formative years of development that creates the self. The most prominent stage is the phallic stage where the Oedipus Complex comes into play. While the Oedipus Complex deals with a male's fear of castration in some way, whether that is a literal or figurative castration depends on how you read it, it focuses on the relationship between a son and his parents, and how that shapes the self in the coming years.

Bring in Buster Bluth, the eccentric, immature, and inept of the Bluth Family featured in Arrested Development. Buster shows a strong attachment to his mother Lucille, to the point of being unhealthy. He still lives at home with his mother and has even competed in MotherBoy, “an annual dance promoting mother-son bonding. Lucille has gone with Buster over 30 times, and on many occasions, won cutest couple.”

The Oedipal Complex of wanting to make love to your own mother could easily be exhibited in his romantic relationship with his mother's best friend, biggest enemy, and even shares the same name, Lucille Austero. While this relationship could be construed as an act of rebellion against the wishes of his own mother, Buster still is fulfilling what could be considered coitus with a mother figure.

The father that raised Buster is not George Bluth, but his identical twin brother Oscar who shares some of the same mannerisms that Buster does. Since the mannerisms exhibited by Oscar can be seen as those that won over Lucille Bluth, Buster does adopted them as his own.

This is merely a shortened version of what I have gone over in my head, but from a quick psychoanalytical view on Buster Bluth, he fits into the undeveloped Phallic Stage that Freud has discussed.

The Immortal Archetype

A question was brought up during last weeks class that dealt with the idea of archetypes. The archetype in question is that discussed by Northrop Frye in "The Archetypes of Literature". This dealt with the signs or story progressions that are prominent within any story as a universal idea. Professor Wexler asked the class if they could identify a novel or even a movie that had no archetypes. Immediately I filtered through the index of anything that could apply in attempts to gain the extra credit that was promised.

The first character that came to my mind was Patrick Bateman of American Psycho fame. This thought came merely as the idea that the character never goes through a change of sorts. As said in the novel and in the film, “there is no catharsis.” There is no birth or death of the hero and the progression of the plot, while it does go somewhere, feels as though it ends where it began. A similar storyline is that of the movie rendition of A Clockwork Orange. Alex does go through a typical storyline, but it ends with no change in the character.

Even if these ideas confirm a preliminary idea of a story lacking heroic archetypes, by integrating the idea of laws of binaries, the non-archetype idea breaks down. The rule of binaries is that one object, idea, or character is defined by what it is not. When defining anything, a critic has to take into consideration what the object is, and also what it is not. There is an idea that God can not exist without the Devil, that we can not define hot without defining cold, love without hate. Everything requires it's binary opposites.

So now, we come back to the idea of a story without an archetype. Within the phrasing of the inquiry itself, there is a necessary need to define what the archetype is. With this definition of what the archetype is within the mind of the critic to point out the lack of, the archetype occupies the negative space within the story. It may not be a concrete idea within the story, but the archetype is there, and it is within defying the archetype that it reinforces the existence of the archetype. The same idea applies to that of the creation of the anti-hero.

So, since the creation of the archetype idea has therefore made its existence prevalent throughout all works of literature and other storytelling devices either in its presence or notable lack thereof. The archetype will live on.

And now for something completely different:

Source:

Frye, Northrop. "The Archetypes of Literature." The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism. Second ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. 1304-315. Print.

Read Between the Signs

There is a major importance of symbolism within any aspect of art or literature when it comes to analyzing anything. The idea of signs falls into the structural approach of analyzing. The term semiotics or semiology (coined by Ferdinand De Saussure) are two common phrases for the study of signs. The sign is not specific to the tin metal bolted to staple riddled wood posts on the highways. It can range from an object to an action. De Saussure implied that using semiology aids in making critical analysis a scientific procedure. The picture above is one that has been recreated in many contemporary mediums. A stock photo of a protests that took place in the 1960s. A standoff between two forces, one in black and one in white.

One of the first things that the eye notices is the contrast of colors, emphasized even more since the photo is in black and white. An understanding of archetypes can be seen when we remove personal politics and allowed to only speak to us through the signs being shown. The police are lined up in dark gear with helmets and guns. Black is a sign that has constantly been synonymous with evil or oppression or, simply stated, bad. The guns are also strong images of force, oppression, and death. Already the police line is type-casted as the villains, the antagonistic force.

Then there is the gentleman delicately planting flowers into the barrels of the guns that could very easily ruin his day. He is in a white sweater, has lighter hair, and overall gives the impression of innocence or purity. He is not using force, and within the boundaries of the picture, he is easily outnumbered. Both the flowers and the color white would automatically align him with the good or the heroes, the protagonists.

These signs which help create the archetype's of literature are important to understand because it gives a good basis for critical reception. A sign has the potential to change over time, but Northop Frye attempted to pinpoint an archetype that remained constant, or at least that was the impression I got from his article. If these archetype's, which are based off of an objective understanding of signs, are defied, it helps create genre. A satire would defy the conventional ideas surrounding the sign. For narrative sake, if the police suddenly began to open fire on the white clad person and impaled him with the same flowers he had just planted in their gun barrels were portrayed as the heroes, how would the interpretation of the signs change?

How would the signs read if the guy in white was actually a mass-murderer or cult leader like Jim Jones who was finally tracked down by police to face judgment for the crimes he committed?

A better understanding of signs would have come with the narrative. I couldn't think of anything clever enough to fulfill the small narrative, so I am just going to ask questions and make statements that I think are educated from my interpretation of the readings. One big indicator for symbolism is the point of view. Who is telling the story and what are his characteristics? Who are the other characters and what significance do they play into the story? What is the placement, displacement, replacement formula that creates the plot? Who is really being wronged or righted in this story? Am I doing this right?

Discussing the Discussion Group

I was part of the group that instigated a discussion about Longinus and The Sublime during class on February 15^th. When we first began to plan for the discussion we were a little torn on how to go about presenting the material, but settled on the loose idea of pulling up Youtube or movie clips that dealt with the sublime.

My contribution to the discussion was to pull up clips of what I though was sublime in the world of sports. This was mostly due to the fact that when I think of sublime, the first thing that came to mind was the feeling that ran through my body during the USA v. Algeria game of the last World Cup. I immediately went home and began pulling up clips of the game and reactions from fans. I also compiled a long list of other possibly examples of sublime in sports, mostly focusing on unlikely wins or unimaginable comebacks.

In the discussion we showed the clips and then proceeded to ask the class what they thought was sublime about any of the clips shown, or, what wasn't. We attempted mainly to present our own ideas of the sublime and see how the class reacted or thought to the examples.

I can't really say that we conclusively figured out what the sublime is, but there seemed to be a general consensus that it is subjective, and that if anything that is considered sublime is analyzed deeply, it would fail to fulfill Longinus's qualifications.

A Week in Review (2/15)

This week marked the movement from Classical Theory into the the period of Enlightenment. The class time was spent more on summarizing the later Classical Theorists, and we spent time talking finishing up with Longinus before the first group presentation. To quickly overview Longinus's idea of the sublime, he noted five sources of sublimity. These sources dealt with two distinct types of sublime. The ability to conceive great though (1), and strong and inspired emotion (2) dealt more with an innate sublime while containing certain types of figures (3), having noble diction (4), and dignified and elevated word arrangement (5) dealt more with the sublime as a product of art. The presentation was on Longinus's idea of the sublime. I was one of the members in the first discussion group, but will cover that within the words of a following blog.

To begin the Enlightenment age of theory and criticism, we briefly discussed Rene Descartes's “Cogito ergo sum,” or in English, “I think therefore I am.” This ability to suggest that there is a self that thinks was the rise of rationalism, which lead to empericism which lead to skepticism. Before the 18^th century most ideas were based out of romance and idealism which was correlated with the Aristocracy. With the shift in social structures, an idea of knowing through sensual experience that was grounded in detail and fact arose with a more progressive society. This eventually gave rise to skepticism that was a slight throwback to both aristocratic and progressive social structures.

In class time, we were only able to cover two of the philosopher's readings. One of them was Alexander Pope who had an essay (poem) on criticism. His ideas about criticism were harsh towards those who did not know how to criticize works properly all within the delicious shell of a criticism. The main points Pope made was that a critic should focus on the entirety of a piece and not it's segments, that he must try to view the piece in the same way a writer wrote it, and other seemingly contradictory and situational views.

Then we discussed Immanuel Kant, who covered the ideas of a priori and a posteori knowledge coupled with analytic and synthetic. He was also noted for saying that beauty was disinterested and only appreciated while desire was the big thing. He also noted uses of reason and aligned them with maturity by saying there were private and public uses of reason. Of these two, public reason showed the more maturity since it required socialization with others.

My impression on the subject is still a little lost, since the readings can be dense and slightly pretentious, but since we didn't get to fully discuss all the readings, I'm hoping for some clarification in later discussions.

The Sublime World of Sports

What is the sublime? First, no, this is not about that apparently quintessential 90s genre bending band that is now eulogized in bar room karaoke and backyard party sing-a-longs. A dictionary definition is more in tune of what this discussion will be about. Something sublime can be said to inspire awe because of a lofty or elevated manner and is enlightening. In simple terms, it is something that wows. It is that moment when the sun bursts through and stops the clouds that were literally pouring cats and dogs with attitude problems, illuminates a triple rainbow as birds begin to chirp out a tune that a certain large corporation may have grounds to sue on violation of copyright laws, and everyone stops to admire the scene knowing that life isn't so dreadful after all. In more modest terms and without the sense of sarcasm, it is a moment where your hair stands on edge, your heart may jump in your chest or even skip a beat, or chills roll down your spine. The sublime can be cathartic, euphoric, a pupil dilating mental orgasm.

The idea of something awe inspiring leaves a very subjective interpretation of what the sublime actually is. Is there a universal idea of the sublime? Can something really have a universal Keanu Reeve's “Woah!” moment? Is there a single scene that could bring about an enlightening feeling shared by every single being of every single walk of life? The Longinus piece On The Sublime, was referring more to literature, and not to other mediums. This could be grounds for saying that nothing in modern media or even real life is or can be sublime; at least in the sense that Longinus was attempting to capture. By using Aristotle's idea that poetry (literature) is merely a representation of probability of truth (life), then by judging the real life sublime is merely judging literature that has actually happened.

The world of sports is filled with moments that are fueled with moments that could all be classified as sublime. Those times where all probabilities seem to work against a team yet they manage, by passion, pride, and sheer determination, and maybe a touch of something called luck (or fate, or destiny to some) come out victorious. The important aspect of judging sublime within a realm of sports is that it must be looked at objectively. The viewer must disregard any biases against the sport, a club, a player, and try to view it for what emotions it stirs up. Emotions never create the sublime, but the sublime can create emotion.

There are two clips below that seem to capture a sublime moment in sports history, as well as links to other clips that can be viewed and analyzed in the same way. For all of those who recognize the clips, you may proceed to them. For all those who did not watch or pay attention to the FIFA World Cup 2010, allow me to set the scene. For all those who do not know the rules of the tournament, please contact the nearest football(soccer, futbol) enthusiast or Wikipedia.

It was the last game of the group stages for Group C. The United States v. Algeria and England v. Slovenia. Slovenia was on top of the group with 4 points, the US and England were tied with 2, and Algeria bottomed out the group with 1. The United States was hoping to advance to the round of 16, and due to events in the England v. Slovenia game, England taking a 1-0 lead, the US needed to win in order to progress, since a draw would only give them 1 point. Supporters watched on for an painfully exhilarating 90 minutes watching chance after chance pass by or were quashed by a superb showing of Algeria's defense. It looked as though the US was going to dwindle out of another world competition before...

(Ignore the blatant sense of nationalism. The World's Reaction?)

What were these people reacting to?

On a personal level I remember exactly where I was watching this match and I can remember the exact feeling when the ball hit the back of the net. The moment when nothing else mattered. To this day watching this still brings tears to my eyes. Unfortunately, there was the other teams that were negatively affected, and it seems unfair to say that this was sublime if we are to assume Longinus as being correct when he said it is a universal. But it begs the question...can there be sublime loses? What emotion went through Goliath's fans' hearts? Does this refute the idea that there is a sublime world of sports?

Links to other Sublime? moments (not limited to only these):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKWWhswwZog

- The Miracle on Manchester

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwyUpOCfpo8&feature=related
- Champions League Final 1999 (Manchester United v. Bayern Munich)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aCDfJH6eRY
- Stanford v. California NCAA Football

Literary Deathmatch (A Reflection)

The third week into the semester we were treated to a rather informative lecture by guest speaker Dr. Kevin O'Neill on Classical Rhetoric. He discussed the rise of rhetoric in Ancient Greece, sprouting from the human tradition of distinguishing themselves from other beings by asking questions about life and death and how speech and action turned the human body into an instrument of self-expression. Speech was so important that objects like the city (polis) only existed on the grounds that people discussed and talked about the city. This was a world that cherished the sense of competition by founding sporting events to test physical prowess to starting wars between cities just for the fun of flexing some muscles and being able to call the other cities mother by inappropriate names. It was only natural that when the importance of speech came about that it would be social suicide if one could not speak with strength and conviction, and also look rather good in the process. I'm sure Monty Python has a sketch about literary deathmatches somewhere. This was the rise of rhetoric.

Dr. O'Neill focused mainly on Aristotle and his views on rhetoric. To Aristotle, there were three types of speech: deliberative(future), forensic(past), and epideictic(present). Deliberative speech focused on persuading people about what will happen in the future, forensic speech was focusing on what did happen, and epideictic was more for eulogies and encomiums. Then there is a breakdown in type of rhetoric. One one hand there is epagogue, which is inductive. For example, if I observed a thousand fall ill after eating a certain brand of microwaveable confectionery, I could come to the conclusion that people should not eat such confectioneries or risk a date with a porcelain prince. The other type would be dialectical, which is deductive. This is the concept of A=B, and B=C, then A=C, which is a much more persuasive form of rhetoric, although, it gets tricky depending on what is omitted or questioned, especially if the speaker removes certain parts for the sake of keeping his listeners awake while proving his argument.

Dr. O'Neill continued with discussing Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in order to appeal to the listeners and to not lose validity. After the lecture, we resumed normal class and analyzed a speech found in Wall Street, the movie. We broke down what we observed and analyzed how rhetoric was used. It was a rather informative class period that helped me understand some of the previous readings, and also reviewed on speaking techniques that I had glazed over from years ago.

Two Philosophers Walk into a Bar...Why Does My Head Hurt?

Philosophy, while fun to philosophize, gives me a headache. I play out a situation in my head of a dinner part from hell, where all the basic rules of dinner party conduct are violated by talking about religion or politics. Before this class started, I never thought we would be digging through works by Plato and the word Gorgeous only was something I blurted out in pseudo pretentiousness. I'll put this down as my own lack of knowledge of the subject and continue forth.

Gorgias's Encomium of Helen was an interesting piece that attempted to question the public sentiment around the reputation of Helen of Troy. The beautiful Helen of Troy that started the great Trojan War that Homer wrote about in The Iliad. Gorgias works on changing the negative public sentiment about Helen into one where we are supposed to forgive her, or in the dictionary definition of encomium, praise her. The piece is a perfect example of the power of rhetoric to shape public ideology. In following the content and context of time that the encomium was, I have to agree with Gorgias, although my knowledge of how life revolved in those times is misinformed at best. In the context of its time, and without a contemporary mindset, we all but have to forgive Helen. She was merely a puppet to forces much stronger than herself. Whether these forces be a god's influence, a stronger and more persuasive human being, or even a human emotion, we shall be forgiven and praised. Although one line stands out strong that makes me question the intent that Gorgias actually had. When he ends the encomium he states that he “wished to write this speech for Helen's encomium and my amusement” (41). Did Gorgias just write this to show the power of persuasion or was he like many other philosophers who just liked to ask questions for the sake of asking questions? It's in the pursuit of knowledge! All I know is that I intend to use his examples to absolve myself of all responsibility for my actions, since I am merely subject to influence more powerful than myself.*

Then it we have Plato. The man behind the words that formed The Republic, which later went on to influence ideas that are prevalent in many contemporary and modern pieces of literature. Dystopian or utopian, that is the question. Many themes that Plato recommends the republic take up are found anywhere from novels like Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451 to movies like Equilibrium or more obviously, The Matrix. Plato pushes for the banishment of all poetry because of it's inaccurate portrayal of life. It is merely a reflection of a reflection. Plato never once mentions what would happen to poetry if people knew they were just mere reflected reflections. I wonder what Plato would think of movies based off of literature. A reflection of a reflection of a reflection. Are we taking into account the screen play adaptation? Plato deems that there is a universal understanding of what qualifies as good people, and this entails stripping people of the nature we contemporary people see as individual freedoms and human nature. Tom Hanks echoes Plato's ideology in A League of Their Own when he says, “There's no crying in baseball!” In the eyes of the republic, the perfect citizen is a docile and mouldable citizen who does not read misleading literature, practices discipline from animalistic instinct, and has no emotions.

Plato takes on a stance that literature is mimetic, in that it reflects real life. In an age where the purpose of life is questioned in order to gain a better and deeper understanding of it, it makes sense that literature is then questioned to validate it's existence. From this idea, Plato could be considered the great grandfather of literary criticism and theory. He could possibly go down as the worst dinner party guest in history too.

*Disclaimer – If there are any fallacies in this post, the author should not be blamed or punished for it because he was misinformed by more persuasive and powerful beings.

The Purpose of Everything (Pertaining to This Blog)

I never really kept a blog before, so it feels strange that the first time I venture into the bounds of this realm of cyberspace it is a mandatory portion of a college course. This is not to imply that I do not enjoy the assignment, I am just stating fact to further postpone the part where I actually get some work done, and possibly take up a few more of those crucial words to fulfill a certain obligation...

Welcome to the introduction. This blog, as stated numerous times before is going to be about topics discussed in English 436: Major Critical Theories. On these sacred pages of cyberspace I will be presenting the anonymous masses, with my interpretation on the theories discussed in class. I have to say that my knowledge and education on theory is not my strength. I have limited knowledge in a few of the theories that are listed on the syllabus although there is the possibility that I know the theories we will be discussing and I have just mislabeled them in the file cabinet of my mind.

When discussing what our theory on theory was on the first class meeting I could only say that I didn't have a theory on theories. I just liked to read. After reading the selections from Plato's “The Republic” and Gorgias's “Encomium of Helen”, I came to the conclusion that I might not know where I am regarding my understanding of the texts and that it might be important to try to understand. I will continue on the actual content of the class in the next post.

I am really going to put forth the effort to continually write in this blog in the attempts to vocalize what I think I interpret from the readings in the hope that my thoughts will be validated or refuted by someone other than myself. With the slight veil of anonymity that the internet provides, I am hoping that I will be more comfortable voicing my opinion without the awkward feeling of embarrassment when an entire classroom's eyes are bearing down on me.

I am a major in creative writing, so I sometimes stray from a formalized structure and I will attempt to keep a more professional relationship with whoever happens to read whatever is published here.

While theory is not my strength, I am hoping to gain a better understanding of it in order to improve my abilities to write, read, and interpret the many forms of literature that will pass through my life. I am encouraging anyone who wonders upon this page and takes the team to read whatever I post engage my theories on theory with active participation in some way, whether through comment, email, or even face to face communication.

Stay tuned here for the wild adventures of your dear blog author and the deep, dark world of literary theory. Maybe by the end of the semester, he can finally say loudly and proudly that he has a theory on theories.

Just to Break the Ice