The Education of J.H.S.

Hmm, theory of literature was about the most boring of my literature courses. Unless you want to be a college lit professor it's a waste of time. And the only reason it's not a waste of time for them is because it can lead to a job, not because there's anything really useful from it. It's not just boring, but it's sterile. If you get something useful out of it, let me know.

I couldn't tell. Was this an undergrad or grad course?

Oh one last thing. The only useful theory of literature that is worth anything goes back to Aristotle. Read his Poetics. Trash just about anything else.

Wow. Are you kidding? This stuff is fascinating!

Heidegger and The Deconstructionists have been following me like ghosts for a year! And so has Wittgenstein (not sure Wittgenstein will be covered in this course, but who knows)! So far, the course has been dealing with pretty contemporary thinkers—if an equivalent course were available to me here, it would doubtlessly be more aimed towards more sources from antiquity, possibly starting with Aristotle and maybe only skimming anything past the New Criticism.

Honestly, I feel like this course has so far created a lot of cross-disciplinary connections for me! I feel a great sense of the world “coming together” as it were. The poetics I am most interested in and perhaps most influenced by try to deal with a lot of the philosophies I’ve heard about so far. I must admit that I have felt for quite a while that my world was a “postmodern” one, so maybe my interest is determined by that view. Already, the lectures on skepticism have answered so many questions for me, and the issues of authorship and reader-response are fascinating.

The course is an undergraduate course (300 level).

I definitely have an interest in taking some kind of course on theory at my own university, but I’m not sure they have anything comparable—or that would be so fulfilling. I may just have to find philosophy professors willing to deal with an idiot English major. I’m not sure my mind is precise enough for real philosophical study. I would say my own poetry lacks an exactitude or crystallization of thought, a flaw precipitated by the workings (or un-workings) of my mind. Most who have read my work have found it instead to be very emotional (even hyper-emotional) though not in the usual way one might expect if they had read poems in the Confessionalist mode. Instead, they work more in the realm of “effect”.

One professor of philosophy I had read some poems of mine suggested I read Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics. I did make a go of it, and got pretty far, but found it somewhat boring eventually. He cautioned me against trying to study Heidegger, Wittgenstein, etc. on my own, but being a specialist on Heidegger perhaps has biased him towards knowing the complexities of the work.

I would like to get an MFA eventually after finishing my BA. I somehow think that it would lead to a Ph.D (dreaming here, big time). Of course, I would like to mostly teach creative writing, but would be much more marketable with experience in fields of literary theory and teaching “survey” courses. Of course, I may simply not have the mind for it.

Well, good for you. Here's a tip. If you want an MFA in writing and you want to be a good writer, avoid Theory of Literature like the PLAGUE.

By the way, none of those names you mentioned wrote anything creative. If you think philosophy and literature go together, then I question your ability to write. Actually I question your ability to live.

Virgil, I'm surprised at you. You guys don't have to agree. His response seemed free of annoyance and condesension; could you not have responded in kind? It's his life. It's not up to us to tell him or judge him for the way he lives or what he likes. And who knows? The beauty of it all is that he might surprise us quite a bit with what he learns or accomplishes.

Was I unkind? I guess that last sentence without the wink could be seen that way. shortstoryfan and I go back a few years where we kid around like that. I did put that wink to indicate a poke in the ribs. Perhaps it wasn't as clear as I should have been.

shortstoryfan, I apologize if you felt that was hard.

However, my advice stands. shortstoryfan over the years has indicated a desire to write shortstories, poetry, and beyond. If he thinks he's going to learn anything about writing from taking classes on deconstruction, new historicism, structuralism, and the like, he's sadly mistaken. Frankly I don't think you learn anything about reading literature from that nonsense.

But you may be right Qimi. Everyone may have to learn the hard way and go through it themselves.

Thanks for clearing that up, Virgil, and for being a good sport. Interestingly, I didn't see the wink, although I have been known to be observant on occasion.


I'm sure he values your input, but he just seems so enthusiastic about the whole thing, and like he's having fun. It's not my cup of tea, either, but in the end, yeah, he'll probably have to figure it all out on his own.

Originally Posted by shortstoryfan

I would like to get an MFA eventually after finishing my BA. I somehow think that it would lead to a Ph.D (dreaming here, big time). Of course, I would like to mostly teach creative writing, but would be much more marketable with experience in fields of literary theory and teaching “survey” courses. Of course, I may simply not have the mind for it.

Somehow I missed that last sentence when I read it originally. You have the mind for it. Most definitely. I can see you as a PhD.

Eh, I'm used to it. I think I have a somewhat "art school" mentality about the whole thing. Poetry, I mean.

Ultimately, what I am interested in is a poetics which is interesting to me. I am, of course, aware of what is going on in the contemporary poetry world (or have, at least, a better grasp than most) and I feel pretty confident that the direction I seek to go in is not a hermit's path--if anything, I feel it is in response to work of other people, especially at this point. Sure, many of my poems are not in traditional forms or perhaps even "understandable". But this is an aesthetic which has been at work for at least a hundred years in some form and does have an audience, even if it be much smaller than more mainstream poetics.

I understand Virgil sees this kind of work as nihilistic. I can see easily how one could come to that conclusion, and perhaps I even shared that view of the whole affair a few years ago. I think postmodernism is sometimes understood as an “anything goes” aesthetic. And sure, there are some very successful people who simply sit down and write whatever comes out (this mostly results in very bad poems, either entirely cliché and like a bad confessional, or so “experimental” they become artless).

But then I started reading. I never really learned to read poems the way you are “supposed to” in school, and maybe this informed my experience of reading texts whose meaning is debatable (or non-closure texts, as they are called). Perhaps Virgil is right and this is a flaw in me. What I experienced, though, was away from expectation of what was to come, I could meet poems on their own terms and really read them for what they were. Or simply experience them on an emotional level that I didn’t think would be possible. These poems didn’t remind me of any episodes in my life, they didn’t speak to my “self”, I didn’t feel like the poet was recording my own life or illuminating anything necessarily.

Sometimes they were just about the music. Or the way the lines graced the page. Or simply, the language—the use of language. And instead of finding it confusing, I found it beautiful and liberating.

There is a lot more I would like to say, but I still have trouble articulating my experience of language to other people. I began reading this work about two years ago. Before that, I was a music major, who spent the final years of high school performing and singing in shows year round and not really having too many intellectual concerns. It's kind of come upon me quickly, and maybe I am a bit confused at times, but I haven't feel this interested and passionate about something for a long time. So for now, this is what I'm working on, no matter the consequence.

Originally Posted by shortstoryfan

Sure, many of my poems are not in traditional forms or perhaps even "understandable". But this is an aesthetic which has been at work for at least a hundred years in some form and does have an audience, even if it be much smaller than more mainstream poetics.

I understand Virgil sees this kind of work as nihilistic. I can see easily how one could come to that conclusion, and perhaps I even shared that view of the whole affair a few years ago. I think postmodernism is sometimes understood as an “anything goes” aesthetic. And sure, there are some very successful people who simply sit down and write whatever comes out (this mostly results in very bad poems, either entirely cliché and like a bad confessional, or so “experimental” they become artless).

Wait, I never said I find non-traditional form poetry to be nihilistic. TS Eliot writes in non traditional forms and he is most definitely NOT nihilistic. Form does not imply nihilism. Nihilism comes from the content. I think you're confusing fracture with nihilism.

Ultimately, what I am interested in is a poetics which is interesting to me. I am, of course, aware of what is going on in the contemporary poetry world (or have, at least, a better grasp than most) and I feel pretty confident that the direction I seek to go in is not a hermit's path--if anything, I feel it is in response to work of other people, especially at this point.

Great. Study contemporary poets. Study their poetry. Imitate. Practice. Build your skills.

But then I started reading. I never really learned to read poems the way you are “supposed to” in school, and maybe this informed my experience of reading texts whose meaning is debatable (or non-closure texts, as they are called). Perhaps Virgil is right and this is a flaw in me. What I experienced, though, was away from expectation of what was to come, I could meet poems on their own terms and really read them for what they were. Or simply experience them on an emotional level that I didn’t think would be possible. These poems didn’t remind me of any episodes in my life, they didn’t speak to my “self”, I didn’t feel like the poet was recording my own life or illuminating anything necessarily.

SSF, perhaps you can give me an example. Everything you say there is in complete contradiction to deconstruction, new historicism, structuralism. If you want to treat the poem for itself, then you are employing New Criticism. New Criticism is mostly Aristotelian except that it refuses to take into its interpretation biographical and cultural memes (for lack of a better word).

Sometimes they were just about the music. Or the way the lines graced the page. Or simply, the language—the use of language. And instead of finding it confusing, I found it beautiful and liberating.

That's fantastic. That's how you're supposed to appreciate poetry.

There is a lot more I would like to say, but I still have trouble articulating my experience of language to other people. I began reading this work about two years ago.

I hate when you get vague like this. What work are you referring to? Am I suppose to read your mind?

Before that, I was a music major, who spent the final years of high school performing and singing in shows year round and not really having too many intellectual concerns. It's kind of come upon me quickly, and maybe I am a bit confused at times, but I haven't feel this interested and passionate about something for a long time. So for now, this is what I'm working on, no matter the consequence.

Let me guess at your problem. You read a work of literature, perhaps especially poetry, and you feel you're missing something. You think there's a key that you don't have, and that if only you had it, it would all open up.

There are usually two reasons why the reader doesn't get a work. (1) His knowledge of the literary form, technique, style, and genre are lacking and therefore doesn't get it. The cure for this is to learn literature and to delve into the mechanics of the genre. (2) There is some information that the author assumes you should know that you don't. This could be biographical, cultural, cross-textural. Or perhaps the author intentionally leaves it out. The cure for that is to learn about the author, his times, and literature in general. That's what people do when they get PhDs. They specialize. Obviously the average reader can't know that much, and so sometimes you'll have to accept not fully getting a work.

Finally forget Theory of Literature as a key. It's mostly nonsense. If you want my opinion, look into theory of music construction. That's pure aesthetics, and if you can make the transfer from music construction to literature construction, it will be eye opening.

Virgil,

When I said that you found this kind of work nihilistic, I was talking about works with uses postmodern techniques. I actually did a search on the forums the other day for "postmodernism" and found a thread entitled, "WHAT END DOES POSTMODERNISM SERVE" in which you said that postmodernism was nihilistic. Maybe your views have changed, and maybe I shouldn't have really even have brought it up, but I know from talking to you over the years that generally you are conservative.

I can see how some of the things I’ve said would lead you to think they resemble New Criticism. When I said, “I could meet poems on their own terms and really read them for what they were” I was talking about coming to a poem and just observing what it does and appreciating it for what it does do, rather than criticizing it for what it does not. It’s not that I’m trying to validate the work when it not merited—I just try to hone in on patterns of thought, form, etc. I really don’t know if I can explain it much better than that.
Hahah. Specificity. I started mostly with poets that were in the anthology American Hybrid. The next really influential anthology was probably The Iowa Anthology of New American Poetries. From there, I read The L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E Book and The New Sentence by Ron Silliman. The anthology, Legitimate Dangers, from Sarabande Books. The Norton Anthology of Postmodern American Poetry was probably the last anthology I read that had a bit of influence over me. Most of the poets I enjoy are not necessarily Language Poets, but it is clear that most have read the Language Poets and combined it with kind of traditional lyrical verse. I know these titles probably don’t really mean too much to you and I’m not sure if individual names would either.
Instead, I think I will share some things Reginald Shepherd says in his introduction to The Iowa Anthology of New American Poetries that resonated with me. He opens the introduction with an invocation of Wittgenstein—he regards the poets he has included in the anthology as poets interested in both the lyric and experimental aspects of poetry, and calls their work, after Wittgenstein, “lyrical investigations”. He also talks about passion in poetry. “What I value most in poetry is passion, a passion that manifests itself most immediately in the words which are the poem’s body and its soul.” He sees that a lot of contemporary poetry seems to dwell on the commonplace, the everyday and having a fear of “large gestures and major aspirations”. He includes a great quote by Jorie Graham: “we have been handed down by much of the generation after the modernists—by their strictly secular sense of reality (domestic, confessional), as well as by their unquestioned relationship to the act of representation—an almost untenably narrow notion of what [poetry] is capable of.” And finally, he talks about how these poets both think and feel by “thinking feelings” and “feelings thoughts”, and he notes that Eliot saw this as a characteristic of the metaphysical poets.
Maybe none of that makes any sense—but I had read enough of this kind of work to be very excited when I read these remarks. Excited, because someone was able to articulate what I couldn’t. I still have trouble talking about poetry, but I hope as I begin to have a dialogues with other writers with my interests, I will be more easily able to explain myself.
You are right about me feeling that I am “missing something”; however, as much as this frustrates me, it also keeps me interested. And what is more interesting, is that even if I don’t “understand” I still love this work. I don’t need understanding to love this work—I just desire to understand more because of my love for it. And honestly, I am pretty sure that many of these poets not only expect me to not really “get” their work, but don’t particularly care. Not because they are uninterested in trying to convey something or think it is beneath them, but because they see the value of this kind of work. And I guess I do, too.

I think contemporary trends in academia are moving away from theory a bit anyway.

Personally, as someone about to start a MA mostly as a curiosity, my only interest in theory has to do with different methodologies for historical research. Such that I'm interested in post-structuralism for the different perspective on historical culture, but that's about it. As to reading texts themselves, I think it is better to concentrate on a text and what it tells you and then only turn to theory to maybe access new ways of articulating what is already in the text. You fall into a trap when you impose theory onto the text from the the get go.

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

I think contemporary trends in academia are moving away from theory a bit anyway.

Personally, as someone about to start a MA mostly as a curiosity, my only interest in theory has to do with different methodologies for historical research. Such that I'm interested in post-structuralism for the different perspective on historical culture, but that's about it. As to reading texts themselves, I think it is better to concentrate on a text and what it tells you and then only turn to theory to maybe access new ways of articulating what is already in the text. You fall into a trap when you impose theory onto the text from the the get go.

I agree. Even the poets who were most concerned with the philosophies of Language Poetry have relaxed their use of those philosophies to help inform texts. Some have found a middle ground of sorts, while others were always inhabiting a middle ground from the get-go. Honestly, very few of the Language Poets have too much in common other than the fact that they are familiar with some of these ideas, and they kind of influence their work in varying ways.

I did a BA in Sociology before I found my way into the world of creative writing and poetry. I suppose what I'm saying is go with the path which you think is best for you at the time. Any study you do is bound to influence and shape your outlook and your experience of that will come in useful if you have a mind to apply it creatively. Good Luck!

Thanks Delta!

I have thought about doing something else for undergrad, but honestly--I don't know what else I would do! There isn't much I can "do", so most of the majors are pretty off limits to me. And I'm also very interested in finding a community of writers to be in, so an English major makes sense for that reason, too. Though, even in groups of English majors, or writing groups, etc. I am still pretty weird. It kind of makes me sad.

Intro lecture. I love it when he says there is a great danger in assuming that every aspect of theory will have an immediate application!

Originally Posted by shortstoryfan

Virgil,

When I said that you found this kind of work nihilistic, I was talking about works with uses postmodern techniques.

Oh, ok. Your pronouns were jumbled in that comment I think and the antecedent seemed to point to modern poetry.

I actually did a search on the forums the other day for "postmodernism" and found a thread entitled, "WHAT END DOES POSTMODERNISM SERVE" in which you said that postmodernism was nihilistic. Maybe your views have changed, and maybe I shouldn't have really even have brought it up, but I know from talking to you over the years that generally you are conservative.

Yes I am definitely conservative, but I'm not sure that's why I think postmodernism is nihilistic. First you have to separate postmodernism when it comes to a creative work and postmodernism when it comes to literary criticism. As to the creative work, it may or may not be nihilistic. It depends on what the author is trying to say. As I said before, form does not stipulate nihilism. But it's certainly subversive, and subversive in either a conservative or radical way. Not sure what I was referring to when I made that comment. As to a work of literary criticism, I would say it is nihilistic. That's probably what I was referring to. And here's why. Until this postmodernist idiocy came along, what was important to a critic and reader alike is the Beauty (with a capital "B") and the sublime quality of a work, the artistry of it. Then deconstruction and the rest came along and said that the text itself is not important but the cultural forces that are underneath it is what's important. The text is not important; the art is not important; the artist himself is not important. Society created the work and we are to understand society from it. Literary criticism becomes an exercise in sociology, not understanding the art. New Historicism takes that so far as to say that all texts have the same merit, so that a telephone book is the equivalent to Shakespeare. That is nihilism. On top of that, the literary critic becomes more important than the artist. It makes me laugh. No talent literature professors have appropriated the importance and honor of an artist. Yeah, talk about justifying their existence.

To conclude, the act of ignoring the Beauty of a work and/or the construction of a work to illuminate on societal forces is to me nihilistic. It undermnines any reason as to why we create art.

I can see how some of the things I’ve said would lead you to think they resemble New Criticism. When I said, “I could meet poems on their own terms and really read them for what they were” I was talking about coming to a poem and just observing what it does and appreciating it for what it does do, rather than criticizing it for what it does not. It’s not that I’m trying to validate the work when it not merited—I just try to hone in on patterns of thought, form, etc. I really don’t know if I can explain it much better than that.
Hahah.

You sound confused.

What you said in the latter part of you comment sounds pretty cool. I don't know those poets. I have not really kept up with the latest poets, though until recently I was getting Poetry magazine. Names don't stick in my head. I recommend that mag. Here's their website:
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

I think contemporary trends in academia are moving away from theory a bit anyway.

Well I do hope so. I graduated back in 2000 and have had no contact with literature trends. And even in 2000, I was a bit out of the loop. Most of my course work was in the early 1990's. (It took me ten years one class at a time at night to get my Masters degree.) So I just don't know how strong it's in colleges these days. But even in my day it was hit and miss with a professor on whether he adhered to post modern criticism. I would even say most didn't, but they were of an older generation. I bet it also depends on the school and the head of the department. But it didn't take a genius to see this would not last. A literature department exists to teach literature and the artistry of it. If it is fading, it's faster than I thought. I thought it would be a good generation of critics before common sense won out.

Personally, as someone about to start a MA mostly as a curiosity, my only interest in theory has to do with different methodologies for historical research. Such that I'm interested in post-structuralism for the different perspective on historical culture, but that's about it. As to reading texts themselves, I think it is better to concentrate on a text and what it tells you and then only turn to theory to maybe access new ways of articulating what is already in the text. You fall into a trap when you impose theory onto the text from the the get go.

I think that's a sound approach.

Originally Posted by Delta40

Intro lecture. I love it when he says there is a great danger in assuming that every aspect of theory will have an immediate application!

I wonder when that application will come about. Probably it will have an application when Godot finally shows up.

Originally Posted by Virgil

I wonder when that application will come about. Probably it will have an application when Godot finally shows up.

You just made one exhausted Lit-Netter laugh! I've been invited to do my MA but it's a 2 year commitment and I don't think I'm ready for it just yet. There are alot of pros and cons to be weighed up. Freedom, other interests and plain selfishness to consider. I do like study but I am hoping to become more disciplined in my spare time.... Is that even possible??

Virgil,

I think the problem may be that my mind is interested in one thing, and my heart is interested in another--I see them as connected, but maybe other people don't? I think as far as my creative writing views go, I kind of seek to inhabit a middle ground. Maybe it would be easier to say what I am against rather than what I am for. I don't know. There is a great online journal called "Anti-" which asks the poets to submit an "anti-thesis" as a kind of gimmick I guess. It's a pretty interesting site.

And yeah, I'm not sure the socio-political aspects of the Language Poets and Deconstruction appeal to me so much. I'm more interested on what the subversion of language and meaning communicates about people as human beings on an individual level rather than what it communicates about society.

And yes, I love Poetry! Can't wait until the June Issue comes out! Sometimes every poem in the entire thing leaves me cold, though. Sometimes the work is too formal or sterile for me to know how to appreciate it. I don't subscribe, even though I should, but every time I go to a bookstore, I make sure to get a copy. From what some acquaintances in my poetry group tell me, they have actually made many strides towards including different kinds of poetry the past 10 years or so. I always like the Ruth Lilly Fellowship issues, and the Q & A issues where they ask the poets questions on the poems. They also recently published a poet who I have followed a bit for the past couple of years, Eduardo C. Corral, who is the winner of this year's Yale Younger Poets Prize for his book "Slow Lightning". The poems they chose to include were kind of different from the rest of his work, but strangely right for Poetry, I think.

I also like New England Review (they have beautiful covers, too!) and The Southern Review has published some things I have found interesting. All three of those are somewhat conservative, though--but I still get something out of the work and they really do try to mix it up.

And as for antecedents and pronouns and all of that--I really don't understand it at all. I can do pretty well on tests where they ask you what is correct, but actually understanding the mechanics and how to make sure everything is in grammatical order, I have no idea! I went to the writing center at school once, but they seemed to think there was nothing wrong with the paper I took. I feel like I'm at this level where I need to improve, but not bad enough that anyone knows how to easily help me--same for reading. It's very frustrating. I thought about going to adult education, where they help people get their GEDs--but they would probably not know how to help me/think I was crazy for asking them for help. Honestly, it's very upsetting to me, because I would like to improve myself and take my writing to the next level, but I don't know what the resources would be to get that done. I know people always advise you to read, but I don't know--I think I need something else. The whole situation has made me cry before, actually. Ah, well.