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.