http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAl8sL-_E1k

As I read "The Mirror Stage" by Lacan, his tone seemed instructional, informational, a defining of his theory that was presented with supportive evidence. However, suddenly I felt as though the tone changed when Lucan got to his mention of existentialism. Of course, one of the prime examples of existentialism in literature is The Stranger by Camus. It had been many years since I had read the book, and yet as I read Lucan's description of "freedom that is never more authentic than when it is within the walls of a prison; ...the impotence of a pure consciousness to master any situation; a voyeuristic-sadistic idealization of the sexual relation; ...a consciousness of the other that can be satisfied only by Hegelian murder," I was immediately reminded of the book. I sensed an antagonistic attitude in Lacan's tone that was contrary to the neutral voice that had narrated the text (445). Since Camus is a Twentieth Century artist, I went to Youtube.com in hopes that there might be some insight. There was a clip from the film, of which I was not aware, but it did not really capture the mood that was most relevant to Lacan's thesis. I thought that this video clip was an interview with Camus, but it was not. However, I did find it interesting to see how the generations reacted so differently to the work.
After reading. the opening of "The Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious or Reason since Freud" I better understand why Lacan was so hostile to the views Camus expressed in his book. The themes that Camus puts forth are opposed to the theories Lacan states as certainties. Camus paints his protagonist, Meursault, as having no feelings about the loss of his mother, no interest in seeking an object of desire as a way of restoring what was lost, no motivations, no reaction, except those that are considered atypical. Yet, Camus paints his hero as the Muse of the modern world. Certainly, this lack of self awareness, the refusal to have hopes, dreams, or emotional attachment to anything violates the concept of being driven by any unconscious desires. This accounts for the feelings of animosity that emerge as a challenge to the popularity of Camus' work.

Eagleton - An interruption with commentary

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjRaU8hRVJs

It is difficult to read Eagleton and be introduced to theories that are new to me and try to assimilate their meaning and the author's intent while simultaneously trying to avoid the biases contained in the commentary by Eagleton. Although the original texts may be dense, they are more pure. This example above shows how the original intent of the screenwriter, or at least the studio, can be subverted by presenting highlighted sections out of context. Without words, the first clip presents the author's message, to suggest that Joan Crawford is a victim. Of course, I am giving my interpretation to the script, but the author's intent seems to be clear. If you view the entire movie, which I am representing by the second clip there is a different mood, a different impression, and a different message that comes through. By having Eagleton introduce a theory, only to overlay his ideas of the shortcomings of the theory does not give me the opportunity to ingest the material and make my own assertions. I am sure, however, that I am shortchanging the graduate student by an implication that one cannot see that Eagleton is overlaying a Marxist philosophy onto his critique of early theorists.
Eagleton makes the point that Hirsch's attempt to safeguard the authorial intent of the text is parallel to the protection of material property. However, I argue that intellectual property has a meaning, a content, and a value of their own. As the reader searches to find meaning in the text, the reader has a choice: to discern what is the original intent of the author, as best as one can, or to establish what significance that piece of writing has for the reader. I am not sure that I am fully understanding what Eagleton is trying to say, but I am only offering my interpretation so far. I am only half-way through the reading; however, I have read this same selection as an undergraduate. The second time around, I am hoping that I come to the piece with more understanding. Eagleton also criticizes the idea of the meaning as a Platonic "ideal" which exists ina perfect state in the realm that exists before language. At this point in time, I think that I agree with Hesserl. The first video clip could be represented as the way that Joan Crawford would see the act of her mothering one of her adopted children. In her neurotic, or seemingly psychotic, break with reality, Crawford responds to her innate sense of mothering, most likely as this concept was imprinted on her. The second clip offers the same circumstances presented from the authorial ideal of the daughter. Here, the daughter offers her world mediated through the language of film. The emotions that are tied into the mother-daughter relationship in a dysfunctional family are clearly presented. It is difficult to see how changing social conditions would affect what the author's intention was.
I went searching for the clip of the "No more wire hangers!" scenes of the movie. At this point, I cannot even remember why, except that I felt it was reminiscent of the heavy-handed control that Eagleton offers up with his introductions to theory: No more transcendental philosophies! In the meantime, as I "surfed" the possible clips to use, I discovered an intentional misinterpretation of the original intent of the author. Does a fan of Joan Crawford have the right to offer the original intellectual property of the author as a statement that is in direct opposition to the original intent? I think not. Does a artist have the right to offer a distorted version as satire? Yes. The difference, I feel is in ignoring the author's intent and using the author's intent to make a point that is relevant.
I am sure that my opinions will change one hundred times over as I continue to read, but at this point, I feel that there are ideals and emotions that are intrinsic to the human condition. These exist apart from language, such as the fright or flight response. There are certain principles that exist without language. We can then interpret them by using language, but whatever words you use, the author has an intent that does exist in the fiber of his being, the framework of human existence, yes, the very soul of the individual that has a purity, an "ideal" if you will. Whatever significance this has for me is what I can choose to take away from the exposure to the text. (I guess that I am basically an Eiser reader response theory supporter.) If Shakespeare makes the point that overarching ambition can lead to the downfall of both the individual and the state, does it matter if I apply his meaning to Macbeth, Hitler, or Stalin?

Revisionist Blogging

I suppose that I am forced to revise my last blog, thanks to the intercession of Dina. While bemoaning my fate of still having to read the Bakhtin and Rabelais assignment, I bemoaned wading through the Norton Anthology version of Bakhtin's ideology on the novel. Dina asked me why I did not use the links provided, since they offered a much more clear and succinct analysis of his work than attempting to read the scope of his work presented in its entirety. As a graduate student, I should be able to wade through the seemingly endless repetitions and diversions that Bakhtin offers in his work to extricate the kernels of theory that are critical to a unified and complete understanding of the subject. However, perhaps it is this attitude that makes so many of the students respond with fear and dread to the required theory courses. It becomes the equivalent of my grandmother forcing me to take a heaping tablespoon cod liver oil as a child who looked "peaked" - it is so unpalatable going down, but it is so good for you.
However, after reading the links on his life, his world, and finally his theory I will admit that it was clear and painless. Ironically, the concept of carnival is timely, since we Mardi Gras is close at hand. The concept of carnival seems to do something else at this time: it situates our world with the period that is to come. For a period of 40 days, Lent, the mood is somber. However, the two times of celebration are like a pair of bookends that enclose this time period. There is the Mardi Gras, which is a recognition of the time to come, and Easter, which is a celebration that the time of deprivation and solemnity is over. It recognizes the needs of general populace in many ways. It also breaks down those barriers between individuals and classes to unify in laughter and celebration. So, I will recant my former impressions of Bakhtin and reluctantly admit to his relevance and importance in understanding the novel. Thank you,
Dina.

A Rivkin and Ryan Reprieve

After wading through Eagleton, the reading in the Literary Theory: An Anthology book was such a straightforward pleasure to read. However, this respite was short-lived when the venture into the Bakhtin section of the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Thirty pages on "Discourse in the Novel" seems to be about twenty-five pages too long. The topic gets diminished by the generalities and meanderings of logic. Each sentence feels excruciatingly convoluted and biased. Bakhtin is not content with conducting a dissection of the language in prose, but he feels the need to repeatedly contrast the merits of a novel to the dubious distinction of privileging poetry. For some strange reason, I wanted to see a picture of the man who had stolen so many hours of my time while I laboriously attempted to assimilate the main principles of his theory. This is the first picture I could find, and I recognized the mirror image of myself reflected in his eyes and mouth. I realize that the expressionless eyes and downturned mouth could only have come from Bakhtin reading his own work. The words have the same effect on me, as I slip into comatose state each time I turn the page and realize that there are at least two more pages of text to decipher. I feel that I have drunk from the river Lethe; all traces of a former life have been washed away as I slip into a catatonic state brought on by the closing down of any synapses that can retain what Bakhtin has to offer.
I do realize that this is not the formal tone that I had been searching for, but the realization that, while not writing a novel, Bakhtin is writing in prose makes my soul cry out for a piece of poetry. I beg for writing with a centripetal force guaranteed to suck me into a vortex of unity.

Eagleton

I had read these same chapters for undergrad theory. I thought that it might seem familiar, but since this is a new update of the book, either a lot has changed or I remember nothing. There are a lot of interesting points made about how literature evolved, but there was a poignant sadness that settled over me when I read how literature was used to control and pacify the masses. Instead of using literature as an inspiration, Matthew Arnold and the like chose to exploit English literature as a source of vicarious experiences meant to replace the need for first hand experiences. It was meant to anaesthetise rather than stimulate.
Two of the statements made by Eagleton seem seem to sum up "Introduction: What is Literature" and "The Rise of English". The first is the observation that even that which appears on the surface to be objective is actually subjective. The second statement is that politics are at the core of much of literary history and criticism. Underneath this second statement is the implication that those who determine the literary canon or the latest form of accepted critical analysis are self-serving. Somehow, in my naivete, I had missed this point. I had felt that there was a removal of the self in an attempt to make literature more understandable and accessible to others. Instead, there is one wave of accepted forms of criticism and authors that seems so contrived and such a construct that all credibility to the craft seems compromised. When it suited their purposes, it seems as though the leaders of movements in the literary field were able to selectively ignore the obvious when it went against their personal agendas. According to Eagleton, many of the pioneers in literary criticism had less of the ideal and more of the pragmatic frame of mind in their motivations. Somehow I feel manipulated by Eagleton's agenda, since I have felt like other books on literary criticism have been much more objective than his presentation. Although they may be cut and dried in comparison, somehow they seem more palatable.