The “English” Department

The “English” Department

While reading the little biographical information right before the essay “On the Abolition of the English Department” by Ngugi, Liyong, and Oquor-Anyumba, I had an epiphany when I read these lines:

“… English was enmeshed with nationalism and designed to instill national pride- hence the subject was “English” rather than simply “literature”- particularly in the face of European conflicts (such as those leading up to World War I) and competition for colonies. Morever, the teaching of English language and literature was a prominent part of the administration of the British Empire in its many colonies around the globe- in India, Africa, and elsewhere” (2089-2090).

Wow. Suddenly it all made sense! I hadn’t ever really thought about the “English” major before, and the root of how it got its name. I always thought hey, English is the language and therefore the English major is the study of the language and literature in general. After reading those lines up there suddenly it did make sense, if it weren’t for England and their nationalism I would probably just be a Literature major. That’s funny to think about especially because I’m American. I didn’t think my major carried that much history with its name. It’s also intriguing to think that, especially in relation to the essay, that the English major could be seen as colonialism, especially in other countries. Is the English major really a form of colonialism, when all it is learning how to write, read, and critique language (specifically English) well? Is that a fair assertion?

Lots of intriguing stuff there, and I didn’t even get into the essay yet!

Authors should write for today or forever?

Authors should write for today or forever?

So I was browsing through some blogs and I stumbled upon a question that Anne Marie poses in one of her posts: “need a writer acquire some eternal value in order to be considered an author, or need he be simply/merely/only contextually relevant?”

I stopped after that question and thought. Does a writer need to be writing something with eternal value or can he just be writing something for the times to be considered an “author”?

My answer is this, it is a mixture of both. I think that a writer could/should write for the times, write about things that are relevant to him and to his audience. Now this doesn’t mean that it has to be about characters set in 2008, it could be a novel set years and years ago, but as long as the subject matter at its heart is relatable and relevant to today’s era, it can work. With that being said, with current relevancy helping a writer reach author status, I think that when a writer talks about things that matter, these things are ultimately universal and transcends time. So therefore, the subject matter is not only relevant to today’s generation but will be relevant in the generations to come. If it has a piece of truth that is good today, why wouldn’t it be good 200 years from now?

Binary oppositions

Binary oppositions

When I first heard this word I remember thinking what the heck is that? It sounds heavily intellectual, that maybe my poor brain would have trouble comprehending something so high and above me. When in class we started to name a few on the board, suddenly the concept didn’t look so bad. It wasn’t scary, it was easy.

After reading Maris’ blog, I realized she had it right, “binary oppositions” is just a glorified term for “antonyms.” I mean really, day/night, boy/girl, I realize that binary oppositions is all about defining one by relation to the other, but it’s the same stinking thing as an antonym! Maybe English major intellectuals needed to come up with a more intellectual sounding term to make things sound a bit better and even more scholarly, haha.

But the most interesting thing about these “binary oppositions” is the connotations they are inherent with each set. In class we classified the binary oppositions one as “man” and one as “woman.” It was interesting to see which words were classified with “man” and the others as “woman.” The words that went under the category of “man” were more positive words in their connotations, and the words that went under “woman” were more negative in their connotations. This was very intriguing to me, it is fascinating how a word has come to take on a connotation that may have nothing to do with its meaning. Let’s take day/night for example. One could say that day carries positive meanings, because it is light as opposed to the negative connotation of darkness that is involved with night. When in reality what makes the night any worse than day? Are they not just periods of normal natural occurrences? Is one more positive than the other?

All in all, binary oppositions, antonyms, whatever you want to call them are fascinating. It just goes to show how society has placed these connotations on language, and how sometimes we need one word in order to describe another. Because without day, how could we even know what night was?

Is authorship dependent on training?

Is authorship dependent on training?

This is a good question. Is one’s ability to write dependent on training and schooling?

Part of me would like to say that writers are just born writers. That they can’t learn how to write, but rather it is already instilled within them. As I started to write this blog I remembered something that I had read when looking into graduate schools for writing and I came across this statement from the University of Iowa in which they state what their philosophy is on the “learning” to write:

“Though we agree in part with the popular insistence that writing cannot be taught, we exist and proceed on the assumption that talent can be developed, and we see our possibilities and limitations as a school in that light. If one can "learn" to play the violin or to paint, one can "learn" to write, though no processes of externally induced training can ensure that one will do it well.”

I agree with this assertion by this school. I don’t think writing can be taught, but I think the skill that is inherent can be developed and this skill is developed through training and school work. The talent is there, now through class work the skill can be honed, challenged, stretched, molded and brought even more to life.

Is it dangerous for women to write with an awareness that they are women?

Is it dangerous for women to write with an awareness that they are women?

Whoa, hold up. Is it dangerous? This question makes it sound like the world is going to end or someone might lose their life if a woman writes a novel with a clear and distinct understanding that she is indeed a woman. How could this be dangerous?

Now this makes me asks, well could we not say the same thing about men? Could I not turn the tables and say, well is it dangerous for men to write with an awareness that they are men? I’m not a feminist, but I do think that men and women should have equal rights and be on the same level, so what makes it so bad if women can write with an awareness that they are woman when men have been doing it for years?

And what does it mean exactly to write with an awareness that we are our own sex? That’s just like saying it’s dangerous for a white man to write with an awareness that he is a white man or a black man or (thrown in any kind of self-defining characteristic here).

In the end, there is nothing dangerous about writing with an awareness of one of your self-defining characteristics. We all have them. We all have a sex. We all have a race, etc etc etc. There is no escaping that and it’s bound to work its way into our writing as well.

Do men and women write differently?

Do men and women write differently?

This question just sends up a red flag for me right away. I mean, yes, men and women are different, I’m not going to deny that. But aren’t we being a bit stereotypically if we lump ALL men and ALL women into two distinct categories saying that everyone in their sex writes the SAME way?

Sure, there might be some dominant traits of men and some of women. Men are more direct, and women go around in circles and are more subtle. Sure, you could say that. But I know the reverse is true.

I don’t think it is okay to make one big blanket statement for each sex when it comes to writing style. Each person is different, each person, forget the sex for a minute, writes their own way. They have their own unique way of weaving words together, and yes, this can be influenced by their gender or their economic class or their upbringing, but the truth is gender isn’t the only thing that influences their writing. So let’s not lump them all together in one blanket statement of writing skills. Let’s look at everyone individually shall we?

Are the best works of literature those that balance female and male components?

Are the best works of literature those that balance female and male components?

Thinking back on all the books I’ve read, you know the “great classics” like The Scarlet Letter or Crime and Punishment, I’m left asking myself: did these books balance female and male components?

Well then I ask: well what exactly are female and male components? Are we talking about flowery details and descriptions or moral lessons? Are we talking about subtle tactics or more blunt and direct?

I don’t think great works of literature are a balance of female and male components. I think it is rather that both sexes can get something out of the book. The book could be predominately male (whatever THAT means) and yet a woman still could get some satisfaction from reading the book. I don’t think a great book needs to have 50/50 gender wise with each page. If it is a good work of literature- based solely on words, on language, on story, on plot, and on meaning- then that is ALL that matters. That is what constitutes a great work of art, not the male of female components or the balance of each in a book.

Is clothing art?

Is clothing art?

I was intrigued by reading Maris’ post about Aesthetic pleasure in which she talks about clothing and how her fashion sense has been influenced by her family and thereby their economic class. Maris brought up the quote from Pierre Bourdieu essay From Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, which states that “And nothing is more distinctive, more distinguished, than the capacity to confer aesthetic status on objects that are banal or even common (because common people make them their own, especially for aesthetic purposes), or the ability to apply the principles of pure aesthetic to the most everyday choices of everyday life, e.g., in cooking, clothing, decorating, completely reversing the popular disposition which annexes aesthetics to ethics.”

After reading her post I realized just how much we, as humans, take common everyday things, such as clothing, and exalt them as art. Now in Bourdieu’s essay, he is stating how different economic classes have different aesthetic values about art. The upper class has a “pure” vision of art, it is not connected to banal everyday things. The working class says that art is practical, it is about the everyday things.

This really made me think about clothing and art. When I think about the upper class, I think about high fashion, Prada bags and designer jeans. I think the upper class is wearing their art. Yes, I do think the upper class has different aesthetic values than the working class, but I think it does reflect in their taste of all things aesthetic, especially the everyday things like clothes. I think that the upper class’ vision of art is connected to everyday things, because their lives are based on everyday things like clothes and cars and food. The presentation of all these things must be top notch and speculator, each everyday things must be its own work of art. And then we come to the working class. Art to them is more practical yes, since they don’t have as much money to spend on Prada bags they look for what is practical, what is good and reasonable to them. Their vision is based on their economic status. But look at Walmart of Target, they are trying to sell cheaper versions of higher fashions. Sure it’s not the same, but yet they are trying to emulate the fashions of the season for reasonable prices. I think the working class is influenced by their economic class and pocket book, but have aspirations to higher economic classes. They want the designer jeans, but will settle for the Walmart imitation. They want the best, but will settle for what they can afford in their pocketbook. So, all in all, I guess what I am trying to say is that while we are influenced (and confined) by our economic classes and situation, we still always have hopes for higher and for more. I think as humans, we want the best. Even if we can’t get it.