paper

and here's my paper

Apology for Literature

In a consumer-driven world, we feel the need to constantly assign values to everything. Nothing is allowed to just stand alone as its own reward. So whether it is money, possessions, or status, the material gain you can get from something is usually what determines its value. Sancho Panza, ever the realist, subscribed to this notion by saying, “nowadays, wealth is better than wisdom: an ass covered in gold seems better than a saddled horse” (589). This idea is applied to fields of study just like everything else. Unless a major can guarantee you a high salary, your choice of job-offers and the promises of “success”, it is generally considered to be useless. English Literature happens to be one of these disparaged degrees, which forces us to constantly be defending it. Sidney wrote his apology for poetry as a defense against historians and philosophers, but today those two schools would be lumped together with Literature in the humanities. Nowadays we must defend our studies against our Engineering, Architecture, and Business counterparts. While some may find this a hard thing to do, I find it a rather simple task, given that the benefits of studying literature are so glaringly obvious to me.
For one, the study of literature teaches one how to think. It could be said that majors like math, engineering, and chemistry are basically the perfection and memorization of formulas, equations and tests. In no way is that a bad thing, but it constrains the mind in a way that prohibits creative and analytical thought. In literature there are no set rules; no equations to follow; no absolute truth or ways to prove something one way or another. Literature is not bounded by scientific reasoning. For this reason, those who study it learn to think in a way that cannot be achieved by studying the sciences or business. One must learn to think for oneself to be a Literature major. Literature students cannot follow a pattern of proofs to come to conclusions; they must use their minds to discover their own meanings. Studying literature teaches us how to think on our own, a skill that is invaluable in almost any profession, English-related or not.
Secondly, studying literature is the best way to develop decent communication skills. Articulation and proper use of language are skills whose values are limitless. What good is an idea if it cannot be properly communicated? Misunderstandings have been the downfalls of civilizations and the causes of war. Literature teaches expression and rhetoric. Without literature, we would have a 1984-style language, with words removed and the language simplified, rendering Earth a boring and expressionless place to live.
Thirdly, literature is one of the most powerful things in the world. Look at the billions of people whose religious beliefs are based on the study of a Holy Book. Look at the effect of Hitler’s propaganda. Look at Uncle Tom’s Cabin and the hastening to civil war that it brought on. Literature can persuade, direct, convince and teach when it is used properly, so it makes sense that we should study this powerful tool to understand how we can employ it in a beneficial manner.
Finally, and most importantly, literature gives insight into the human condition that no other study can. If engineering and business are the practical side of life, literature is the passionate side. Ask someone what makes life worth living, and the answer rarely settles on money or a job, but can usually be traced back to an emotion. The love of family. The joy of skiing. The pride in an accomplishment. Ask them what were the worst times of their life and once again it goes back to an emotion. The pain of death or of a break-up. Guilt from a mistake. Depression. Fear. If the heights and depths of human existence are marked by emotions, why is the one field of study that explores these emotions so often disparaged? We can read a history book and know that we declared independence in 1776, yet we can not understand the fervor and passion of patriotism without the writings of Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin. We are told that the Civil War was fought to end the cruelty of slavery, but cruelty is just a word until we see the suffering of the slaves through the writings of Harriet Beecher Stowe and Frederick Douglas to tell us. We know that 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, but we can’t imagine the fear they had without the writings of Anne Frank. Literature lets us understand each other; allows us to empathize with each other in a way that could not be possible with other studies.

In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, John Steinbeck said:
The writer is delegated to declare and to celebrate man's proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit—for gallantry in defeat, for courage, compassion and love. In the endless war against weakness and despair, these are the bright rally flags of hope and of emulation. I hold that a writer who does not believe in the perfectibility of man has no dedication, nor any membership in literature.

The study of Literature is the study of what is truly important. It can give hope. It can teach. It can create compassion. It can make us laugh. It can make us cry. It makes us understand why we do certain things. So, as long as there are humans and human emotions, literature will be necessary, and the study of it invaluable.

speech

here's the speech in my class, it's slightly different than my paper and didn't touch on everything the paper did

In a consumer-driven world, we feel the need to constantly assign values to everything, usually based on material gain. Something is not worthwhile if it doesn’t lead to money, careers, possessions, or status. Obviously this applies to college as well. If a major does not guarantee multiple job offers and a high salary, it is supposedly worthless and unpractical, which is usually where literature falls. Sidney defended his poetry against historians and philosophers, but today we must defend ourselves against Engineers, Businessmen, and Architects, those “practical” majors. But I say this, if engineering and business are the practical side, then Literature is the passionate side. Ask any reasonable person what makes their life worth living, and their answer undoubtedly reverts back to an emotion. The love of family, the joy of skiing, the pride of an accomplishment. Ask them what makes their life miserable, and again the answer revolves around emotions. The pain of a death or break-up, the guilt of a mistake, depression, fear. Intangible things, not material possessions. So if the heights and depths of human existence are demarked by emotions, why are studies that deal with bridges and drain fields and math (the practical) so highly-valued, while literature is not? Literature IS emotion. History tells us that we declared independence in 1776, but we can’t understand the fervor and passion of patriotism without reading Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry. The Civil War was fought to end the cruelty of slavery, but cruelty is just a word until we see the suffering of the slaves through the writings of Harriet Beecher Stowe or Frederick Douglas. We know that 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, but we can’t imagine their fears, or their hopes, without the insight of the Diary of Anne Frank. Literature gives insight to the human condition like nothing else. It teaches us compassion. It makes us laugh. It makes us cry. It makes us understand the world around us. It gives us hope. And all of these are worth far more than a job at Boeing, or an internship at the Gap.
So, as long as there is laughter, we need literature.
As long as there is adventure, we need literature.
As long as there is suffering, we need literature.
And as long as there is love, we need literature.

on first round of apologies

we had the first round of apologies today and I thought overall they were pretty good. However, I think there is obviously some confusion on what an apology is and what exactly we are defending I think. I thought we had established that this is not an apology like we are sorry for something but rather that we are defending something (apologetics for anyone familiar with high school Bible classes). The presenters were right in saying that we shouldn't apologize for being English majors because there is no reason to. Most of them apologized for literature by saying that it was entertaining and that it was inspiring. That is all well, but I think someone needs to establish a concrete answer for why the study of literature (not just literature in general) is worthwhile. Why it is important to read and look at literature and why that is just as important if not more so than more "practical" field like architecture or engineering. I found even Sidney's apology didn't do this because he was defending poetry against philosphy and history, two fields now considered to be just as worthless as literature because they all fall into the humanities. I'm trying to come up with a defense that can be given to business majors or engineers because those are the type of people I find myself trying to defend myself against. I haven't totally formed it yet, but I have a few ideas, mainly relying on the fact that these other fields look at how we live our lives (careers, money, "success") while literature can teach us why we live our lives (emotions mainly). Anyone who answers the why with the answers for the how is a pathetic dolt. I find one way to explain this is that when you ask people what makes their life worth living, the answers usually can be traced back to some emotion (love of family, joy of skiing, comradery of friendship, etc.). So once it is established that non-tangible things like emotions make life worth living, doesn't it make sense then that the most valuable field of study would be the one that deals with these things? Engineering can't explain love. Business can't teach us about the joys of adventure. Architecture doesn't teach us morals. Chemistry doesn't instill compassion for those around us. Literature does all of these.

Not to sound too idealogical, but:
People are too caught up in material things. Possessions, money, "success" can all be had with a business major but we all know those things are not what are really important. If studying literature isn't important, then what is?

on Philip Pullman, part deux

I feel I must backtrack slightly on Mr. Pullman. Dr. Sexson's (and Frye's) explanation of the negative god has made me look at Pullman a little differently. They have enlightented me about the myth of a negative god which liberates people from ignorance. I believe the term "demiurge" was used, at least that's what I have in my notes. Much like a demiurge or Nobadaddy, Frye (confirming my earlier suspicions of his being a devil of sorts) has liberated me from my ignorance and shown me that Philip Pullman isn't quite the hack I took him for. Apparently he has actually done some sort of mythical studies and based his works on those, even going so far as to use daemone in his books. Clever. I mistook his poor writing for lack of knowledge. My bad. This kind of takes the wind of my "uninformed about Christian myth" sails because he was writing about a different myth apparently, so I am left with only the quality of his writing as a reason to dislike him. There is still our obvious theological disagreement, but, much like my demiurge Frye, I don't believe that should be used as a basis for determining the quality of a book. My apologies to Mr. Pullman

on Don Quixote 7

I googled "Don Quixote: illusion and reality" just like I was supposed to but I'm not sure what exactly I was supposed to come up with. I didn't find anything specific but I found one article that talked about DQ and Sancho representing illusion and reality. That is the interpretation many people can easily come up with, based on Sancho's ability to see things for what they are while DQ sees fanciful illusions. Anyone with a brain will see that this reading really isn't that accurate though. Sancho may be able to see that windmills are wind mills or be able to trick DQ about Dulcinea, but his loyalty and belief in DQ shows us that he really isn't that with it either. Even though he knows that DQ is mad, he somehow believes that he will still get an insular to govern. In many ways this makes him almost as mad as DQ, because he knowingly puts his faith in a lunatic. The article kind of confirmed this, but I think it's such an obvious assertion that an article wasn't really even necessary.... which leads me to believe that it was not the target of our assignment to google "Don Quixote: illusoin and reality" and that I have failed. The rest of the stuff was even more worthless though. I shall investigate more.

on Don Quixote 6

On page 476 Sanson the bachelor says, "That is true, but it is one thing to write as a poet and another to write as a historian: the poet can recount or sing about things not as they were, but as they should have been, and the historian must write about them not as they should have been, but as they were, without adding or subtracting anything from the truth."

This is almost the exact same thing Sidney said in his defense, except he mentioned how a philosopher tries to moralize but fails because no one can understand him. The poet can write about how things should be and make it so people can understand it.

Talk about intertextuality!

on Don Quixote 5

I swear i'm further than this, I'm on 600ish, but I sometimes forget to blog on something I find interesting. On pages 414 and 415 I found some passages that made me think. It is the canon speaking about quality in literature and he says "it is better to be praised by a few wise men than and mocked by many fools." and then he says "as far as authors and actors are concerned, it is better to earn a living with crowd than a reputation with the elite." This brought to mind the idea of popular and elitist literature and how we define the two. I'm kind of on the fence when it comes to this question because I can defend either side I think. I try not to be an english snob but I admit that when someone tells me they really love Tom Clancy novels or Stephenie Meyer I make a sour face. Yet I must also admit that I happen to like Mitch Albom books like Tuesday's with Morrie even though those could never be considered exceptional literature. So where do we draw the line? how do we decide what is quality and what is fotter for the masses?

If we're to go by what the canon says on pg. 412, perfection in writing is constituted by using both versimilitude and mimesis. He says that chivalric books don't do this because they don't contain any truth and aren't realistic and "are totally lacking in intelligent artifice." Applying this to today's literature, I can easily use this to justfy why I think Stephen King novels suck, because they fit the same bill as chivalric literature. But if it's mimesis and verisimilitude that we're relying on, why is Alice in Wonderland considered good literature? or Kafka's Metamorphoses? So there must be more than just truth and realism that determine good literature. Perhaps it is the canon's later comment about intelligent artifice. If literature doesn't contain some intelligence in its structure, in its story, in its motifs and themes, then it can't be considered good. Not only that, but we should have to work a little bit to enjoy this literature. Most great books are not easy reads, and one must work to understand them. But that raises the point of whether or not difficulty is a valid reason to hail the author as a genius and the work as quality. Just because Henry James uses long sentences and buries his psychological musings so deep that one must work especially hard to understand him doesn't mean his writing is that incredible. I admit that he is very smart and some of his stuff I like, but most of it I find way over the top and almost like he's trying to show off. What good is a story if only highly-educated people can understand it? Wouldn't it be better if everyone could understand it?

I haven't really figured anything out. I guess there's no set rules on what makes quality literature but it's interesting to think about.

on seasons woo woo, though not literature

Frye's writings on seasonal patterns gave me a real woo woo moment because I immediately thought about a movie called "Requiem for a Dream". Apparently it's adapted from a book of the same name so I guess my woo woo is kind of related to literature, but I've only seen the movie. The movie follows the story of Harry, his girlfriend, his friend and his mother. The movie is split into 3 seasons (leaving out spring for some reason, although i think it's kind of combined into summer) and the trajectory of the movie follows the patterns of Frye almost exactly!

Summer: Harry and his friend begin to deal drugs and start making lots of money. They dream of the better life they are working towards. Harry's girlfriend dreams of being a fashion designer with all the money they'll make. Harry's mother, a lonely widow, gets a letter saying she might get to be on TV so she begins to take pills to lose weight for her appearance. All is well, and everyboby is excited about their prospects. Jubilation.

Fall: Harry, his girlfriend, and friend all begin to become severely addicted to heroin, and they begin to focus on that more than their business aspirations. Harry's mother becomes addicted to the pills she's taking and it becomes increasingly obvious that she won't be on tv. Harry's friend gets arrested and they lose all their money so Harry's girlfriend sleeps with a guy for some money so they can buy more drugs. harry's mother begins to hallucinate. Mortification. Descending into chaos.

Winter: Harry and his friend get arrested and Harry ends up getting his arm amputated because it's so infected from shooting up. His friend remains in jail. His girlfriend begins prostituting herself to get heroin. His mother goes crazy in the streets and ends up in a mental hospital where she receives electro-shock treatment. Purgation.

I wouldn't say the characters reach atonement or purification; the movie ends on a very depressing note showing them each in a different bed in their respective places (hospital, asylum, prison, dirty apartment) in the fetal position crying. But, we could say that they are on the path to purification, or at least purging I guess. I don't know, I found that interesting though that this pattern can be found in movies as well as literature.

touchstone

As far as I am able to understand, a touchstone is a passage that is particularly enlightening or leads us to the sublime. From talking in class I thought maybe it had to have some relevance to literature (like it had to comment on literature) as well but I don't really see why that would be necessary. In that case one touchstone of mine would be from Elizabeth Barrett Browning's Aurora Leigh where Aurora says,

"All heroes are essential men, and all men possible heroes."

Another one would be from Steinbeck's East of Eden where he says,

"And this I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected."

Those are two that I can think of right now, if I think of anymore and can find them I will report back