caroline

Photo

Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:35:39 -0400

Photo

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:30:32 -0400

Photo

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:22:44 -0400

CE #3

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:16:53 -0500

When reading works of literature, I often struggle with the idea that I may not be reading the text exactly as the author had intended. Even though I have always been taught that literature transcends the limits of a single meaning and more often than not, one can never fully know the authors intentions, I suffer from this neuroticism that I could still be interpreting it wrong. It’s a simple concept for me to understand, yet a difficult one for me to put into practice. This year, I have been focused on overcoming this foolish fear and works like Barthes’, “Death of an Author” have definitely helped. However, it was not until I read Henry James’, Turn of the Screw, and Brian McGrath’s critical essay, “Thomas De Quincey and the language of literature: or, on the necessity of ignorance”(5) that I was really able to move beyond this conceived notion of mine and “dare to be ignorant”. What James does is present a ghost story that is a maze of illusions, full of ambiguity and McGrath discusses De Quincey’s problem with his “preoccupation with the vast number of books that have been published and await his reading” that ultimately pose a threat to his insanity (1). In this essay I will examine how Henry James deliberately traps us into a world of the unknown, De Quincey’s “power” that McGrath explores, and how together, these texts urge a reader beyond the limits imposed when you only consider the author’s objective.

James’ novel, The Turn of the Screw, is a ghost story that centers around two children, Miles and Flora and their governess. The governess witnesses these apparitions that nobody else can see. The governess insists that these ghosts are Peter Quint, a former valet for the family, and Miss Jessel, the governess’ predecessor. She is convinced that the children see them as well, but are lying and deceiving her by saying that they don’t. She is also convinced that the apparitions are after the children and have corrupted their innocence. The majority of the novel rests on the governess’ accounts but James makes her out to seem mentally unstable and an extremely unreliable narrator. Throughout the novel, the reader can never be sure that what the governess sees is actually there or just a figment of her imagination. James provides evidence for either stance to be taken, but none that will make you feel one hundred percent confident in your decision. Continuing with his theme of ambiguity, many of the situations James writes about in this novel are unclear, unclear in the sense that they can be taken in two entirely different directions. He accomplishes this through his word choice. He picks words like “intercourse” and uses phrases like “Quint was much too free” which could be read in a sexual or innocent way. “What is was most impossible to get rid of was the cruel idea that, whatever I had seen, Miles and Flora saw MORE—things terrible and unguessable and that sprang from dreadful passages of intercourse in the past” (James 71). Within context, this excerpt seems to suggest that something of the sexual nature went on between Miles and Flora and Quint and Miss Jessel, but it could also be read in a more innocent manner and that Quint and Miss Jessel just corrupted the children with ideas about terrible things. There is a plethora of other examples throughout the novel but they all achieve the same effect—conflicting understandings. While often times the wording practically begs you to think of it in a sexual manner, I felt like a pervert because it is not explicitly stated as that and because there is another, completely different meaning it could also take. All in all, I just got beyond frustrated reading this novel because James made it impossible to deduce his intentions. I was so angry with him as a writer that I missed the incredible genius that James and his piece of work is.

In Brian McGraths critical essay he focuses on how Thomas De Quincey’s definition of literature shifts from only functioning as what he calls “power” to functioning as both power and knowledge. He talks about how De Quincey evokes this power as a means to overcome the “madness that results from the craving for mastery over infinite textual excess” (III). He uses this to apply to literary critics who will suffer the same madness as well. This madness is produced by the impossibility of ever completing the task of reading as we see when McGrath describes language as a tropological system where tropes only lead to more tropes. In order to successfully resist the desire for this mastery of reading, one must become a master of one’s own mind and “‘dare to be ignorant”’ as De Quincey so effectively put. We must dare to be ignorant because the way in which power functions, is the way in which it is not perceptible through the senses. McGrath explains that as long as literature is nonreferential—that is, it cannot lead to knowledge of anything coming from a source out side of the reader himself—then you avoid the madness and utilize power. Power works because it evokes emotions in us that we did not know we could feel. We are ignorant to them and so they do not lead us back to anything.

Reading ignorantly does not allow you to think in regards to the author. It does allow you to get a certain something more from every time you read, however. It’s a characteristic that distinguishes literature from other written works. In my own opinion, it gives me another reason to read a book, as I am not a literary critic, but an English major. Even more, when I read The Turn of the Screw in this ignorant mind set, I was able to get out of the maze of illusions James had woven. The thing about James’ novel is literally all tropes lead you back to other tropes and it drove me into a madness, much like the one that consumes De Quincey. I hated reading James’ novel because it was impossible for me to come to terms with the lack of conclusion. Even when the novel ended where usually the author ties everything together and the reader is supposed to come to a solid conclusion, James’ goes against this. We come to find that Miles has died, but whether or not he saw the Ghost or even how he died we are still left wondering. Luckily for my appreciation of James’, I read McGraths article right around the time I finished The Turn of the Screw and I was not compelled to throw the book into an incinerator.

So when I started reading the last bit of James’ novel, I was going into it with a slightly different outlook, trying to read ignorantly. At first the only emotion evoked in me was still anger but then I thought about what the concept meant to read ignorantly. I realized once I did that maybe I am missing the whole point trying to read James’ ghost story as a legitimate story. I thought that maybe James was purposefully doing this and if so why? Well it turns out James was making a point that it is entirely up to the reader to decide on his own what transpires in the story. James left it impossible for any plot to be completely decided based on his writings. Once I came to this conclusion, I looked back and thought about how stupid I had been trying to think only in regards to James because it never allowed me to come to any conclusions. I was only able to do this by daring to be ignorant. In my case and in De Quincey’s, McGrath was spot on with the necessity of ignorance and James taught me a difficult, yet valuable lesson. Ultimately, I have a new outlook on reading and oddly enough, I have these authors to thank.

smchapm190: Marcel the Shell …with shoes on. Please...

Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:34:23 -0500

smchapm190:

Marcel the Shell

…with shoes on.

Please watch.

this made my day so much better, thank you

something besides stuDYING

Wed, 08 Dec 2010 02:10:00 -0500

something besides stuDYING

Studyy

Sat, 04 Dec 2010 19:18:00 -0500

I want to! Anytime works for me except from 3-5:30. email is cmaass@clemson.edu

sgbaile190:

anyone wanting to get together sometime probably monday afternoon? To compare notes and such since we can use our worksheets :) If enough people take interest I will send out an e-mail…mine is sgbaile@g.clemson.edu

DONT FORGET TO EVALUATEEEE :)

Samantha: CE #2 Knowledge is Power

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:41:13 -0500

Samantha: CE #2 Knowledge is Power:

smchapm190:

Professor McGrath’s article “ Thomas De Quincey and the Language of Literature: Or, on the Necessity of Ignorance” addresses De Quincey’s definition of literature and his obsession with the growing amount of published books that are waiting to being read. To accomplish this, McGrath compares…

So for CE #2 I picked this article by Brian McGrath also! I read your article once I had finished mine and it was really interesting seeing your take on it and why you thought it was relevant to 190. While my essay shares your idea that this article will help advance us as readers, we focus on different reasons why. You paralleled english majors with the student literary critic in that we also have a desire to manage textual excess but differentiated between our purpose and end goal in doing so— that while our aim in managing textual excess may not be to benefit the rest of society, “we will become astute readers”. I thought it was really clever how you did this and it definitely gave me a greater perspective on the article, but also another and even better purpose on why we should read it in the first place. I think you wrote a great essay and I enjoyed reading it

great wall of kitty. this is my miniature kitten! He is...

Tue, 30 Nov 2010 04:12:00 -0500

great wall of kitty.

this is my miniature kitten! He is currently going through an identity crisis.

Questions for the final?

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 02:04:37 -0500

jbfield190:

Reblog with your questions.

Just a few suggestions:

What advice does Phyllis Schlafly give us?

Who wrote The Emperor of Ice-Cream?

What other style is Turabian, as explained in A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Disserations, Seventh Edition, almost exactly the same as?

What was the name of the lady who taught us at the library?

What is Dr. Fishman currently working to do for the field of plagiarism?

What is the Antinomian Controversy?

What field is Lee Morrissey writing for in his article, “Re-Reading in Eighteenth Century Literary Criticism”?

What does Manganelli do in her article, “The Tragic Mulatta Plays the Tragic Muse” that “underscores the powerful connections between the the construction of racial identity and the trafficking of female sexuality in the nineteenth-century marketplace”. (502)

What does the word enthymemic mean from Dr. Katz’s article, ”The Ethic of Expediency: Classical Rhetoric, Technology, and the Holocaust”?

CE # 3

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 01:53:18 -0500

Brian McGrath’s, De Quincey and the language of literature: or, on the necessity of ignorance and Henry James’, Turn of the Screw.

Surely you can't be serious!

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:35:00 -0500

R.I.P. Leslie Nielsen, you have been the source of copious amounts of laughter. This week i’ll be watching Airplane!, Naked Gun, and Mr. Magoo if anybody is interested.

CE #2: Countering the Madness

Mon, 08 Nov 2010 09:48:00 -0500

Literature’s emergence as an academic discipline was encouraged by Thomas De Quincey’s distinction between knowledge and power, and by his definition of literature that utilizes this difference. However, De Quincey has two works in which he gives two different definitions of literature. This shift in meaning reveals a shift in De Quincy’s purpose of invoking ‘literature’ as a term in the first place. In his critical essay, “Thomas De Quincey and the Language of Literature: or, on the Necessity of Ignorance”, Brian McGrath asserts and focuses on De Quincey’s original intended function of literature– as a method to overcome the “madness that results from the craving for mastery over infinite textual excess” (III). This infinite textual excess is the fact that there are more pages to read than there are minutes to read them and this poses a threat to one’s sanity.

McGrath starts out discussing De Quincey’s preoccupation with the number of books that have been published that he has not yet read and the shock resulting from the ever-increasing amount. Both of which, McGrath notes, come before De Quincey’s introduction of literature, in each of his works, “Letters to a Young Man Whose Education Has Been Neglected” (1823) and “The Works of Alexander Pope” (1848). In “Letters”, he attempts to provide a method of self-education to train a future literary critic that will prevent the student from being overwhelmed and losing his sanity due to the immense volume of books he must read. While in “Works”, De Quincey declares the necessity for literary critics so that the modern public will select books worth reading and not waste valuable time. This begins McGrath’s distinction of literature’s role in each work.

In the paragraphs that follow, McGrath explains De Quincey and his intended purpose for literature. In “Letters” McGrath says that De Quincey, “…opposes literature to knowledge”, stating that literature communicates power and everything that is not literature communicates knowledge (1). De Quincey demonstrates the potential threat to one’s sanity and the need for something to counteract this threat with his recap of when he walked into a library and experienced the mathematical sublime. This sublime correlates with the inability to accept the amount of excess books. Instead of rejoicing in the moment that follows due to the mind’s ability to consider an entirety that the senses cannot grasp, De Quincey realizes in this moment, the impossibility of finishing reading and dying without a final product to show for his life’s work. This results in an enormous desire to read as many books as he can and also to learn as many languages as possible, as not all books will have been translated. This then leads to a mad desire for a diverse mastery over books, not simply reading. The advice that De Quincey gives to avoid the urge for mastery is, “Dare to be ignorant” in opposition to the desires of one’s mind (III). This is when De Quincey offers a solution to this problem by means of literature and discovers the power it conveys. The power transmitted through literature is the elevated emotional state reading literature evokes in us. This power activates dormant and unknown feelings inside the reader. Power makes possible the chance to counteract the madness because power is a medium for ignorance. This is because the only way power remains knowable is through its effect of producing emotion in the reader he was not aware he had. Power cannot lead to knowledge of anything coming from a source out side of the reader himself. McGrath points out how De Quincey distinguishes power from knowledge, in that power is nonreferential and the language of literature is content-less, while knowledge is referential and will always lead the reader to other places and more books. In doing this, De Quincey creates two competing models of language where power opposes knowledge because it does not depend on reference, thus guarding the reader from the madness reference leads to. These two models work to formalize language into a structure, in order to formalize the training necessary for the literary critics. McGrath says that these formalizations are both only possible with the formalization of literature, which excludes reference as one of its functions. This exclusion is what McGrath blames the lack of coherence in “Letters” on. If literature’s sole function is power, then De Quincey cannot write a pedagogical text to train critics because the necessary degree he has to formalize language to achieve this is impossible to reach. McGrath proves this with De Quincey’s inability to finish “letters”.

In De Quincey’s revised definition of literature in “Works”, he says literature depends on an economy of knowledge and power, in which he combines his two previous models of language. In order to come to this definition, De Quincey has to ignore how he previously tried to formalize language because that is only made possible if he supplies two different models. The last thing McGrath does is point out the irony in how De Quincey originally defines literature as a way to make the formalization of language possible, but his revised version does just the opposite and instead, literature formalizes the study of itself.

The relevancy of Brian McGrath’s critical essay in relation to English 190 is apparent from beginning to end. In the course description for this class, it says, “…it [Eng 190] focuses on reading and writing as practices” (1). The class fits this description as we read literature and then we discuss and write literature on our reflections, regarding the literature read. McGrath’s essay is concerned with literature and it’s transformation from a way to prevent madness into an entire area of study– an area of study that we, ourselves explore. Understanding the origin and significance of such a large aspect in our education as English majors, as this essay enables us to do, allows us to appreciate the purpose of English 190 on a deeper level. English 190 is supposed to introduce us to a variety of ways to reflect on the practice of reading and writing. When reading this essay, the idea that literature evokes feelings within us that cannot be aroused in ordinary life and that if it weren’t for the literature, we never would have felt whatever it was we did feel, seriously stuck with me. I had never thought of literature as a gateway to a world of vivid emotion and that idea makes me want to read so that these torpid feelings can be activated. This essay has given me a new method of reflection for reading and I feel that for a lot of my classmates it will do the same. Not only that, but the article is engaging and enjoyable to read as far as academic articles are concerned. I also found it very pertinent to other classes and easily paralleled to articles we have already read. An instance of this is at one point in the essay De Quincey concerns himself with the definition of “reading”, which is what Lee Morrissey does in his entire article we recently read.

McGrath’s focus on the power of literature evoked a feeling in me of inspiration to not only just reflect on the knowledge and figurative aspect of a text but also to consider the feelings provoked from works of literature. It seems like such a simple and obvious thing to cogitate, but I’ve never been concerned much with my feelings and what they have the potential to expose in a text. My hope is that I am not alone in my neglect of this way of reflection and that by reading McGrath’s article, my fellow classmates will realize another facet in the self-constituted, multisided structure that is, the study of literature.

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A172516532&v=2.1&u=clemson_itweb&it=r&p=LitRC&sw=w

CE #2

Wed, 03 Nov 2010 20:12:41 -0400

Writing on Brian McGrath’s “Thomas De Quincey and the language of literature: or, on the necessity of ignorance”

Disposable Dispensables

Mon, 27 Sep 2010 18:12:32 -0400

For the first Cultural Event I attended the Baby Wants Candy: An Improv Comedy Act in Brooks Center on September 13^th. I probably would have gone regardless but I figured this would be a fun way to kill two birds with one stone. This particular comedy act specialized in completely improvised musicals based on title suggestions from the audience. Pretty soon the Brooks Center started to fill with Clemson students looking for free entertainment and a couple of laughs. When it was time for the show to start a five-member team and their piano man took the stage. After introducing themselves, they asked for suggestions for the title and the only audience response was, “Disposable Dispensables.” This then became the sole prompt for the musical being created right before our eyes.

Without a moment to confer with each other, one comedian burst into a song about his life as an underappreciated garbage man. Given the title, the direction taken with the musical made sense but I didn’t understand how they’d be able to base an hour long musical off of it and how I would find it remotely entertaining. Well, he continued his song and was soon joined by the other comedians after a successful hook was established. The plot started to thicken when the comedians acted out a scene as frustrated garbage men who decide to strike against picking up trash. That scene quickly transitioned into a different part of the story line where a boy decides to take it upon himself and pick up all the trash and take it out to the dump on his bike. It is quite a dramatic scene as picking up trash is regarded as a life or death ordeal and his parents say he is too young to deal with all of that responsibility and he shouldn’t throw away his childhood. Sounds like playwriting worthy of a Tony, right?

Well despite the less than inspiring plot, they won me over with their showman ship and delivery. I started to forget that the entire musical was improvised and that the comedians only knew just as much as I did about upcoming events. Despite this, the six of these guys worked beautifully together. For each scene there was one initiator who got the conversation or song started and then the other comedians seamlessly joined in, developing everything further. With clever quips, catchy songs and surprisingly coordinated dance moves to boot, I was definitely entertained.

With that said, the developing plot continued to disappoint, getting increasingly more bizarre with each scene change. The whole play rotated through three separate story lines of garbage men seeking justice, one boy’s growth into manhood, and a creepy hit man’s quest to bring an end to the strike by any means possible, while he also struggles to find himself. The play comes to a close in a battle royale with the hit man against the man-boy. At this point, the hit man has already killed all of the garbage men and I started to wonder if a meaning from all of this would ever emerge. Well during their encounter, the hit man and man-boy find common ground in the fact that like the garbage men, they too have felt like disposable dispensables all their lives. They then made up and decided to do whatever it takes to no longer be disposable. While this is the very condensed version of the musical, in the end, both guys found themselves, a boy became a man, and a hit man got away with murder.

Overall I’d say this was an enjoyable experience, it was free and I did find myself entertained. While the story line was way too off the wall and lacked a clear message, the comedians are talented performers and made it all worthwhile. They were clearly having fun and their energy was contagious. If they ever come back to Clemson, I’ll be sure to have prepared a worthy title in advanced.

The Jersey Circus blog.. checkkk it out;...

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:05:29 -0400

The Jersey Circus blog.. checkkk it out; http://jerseycircus.blogspot.com/

Introducing...

Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:06:00 -0400

Name: Caroline Maass

Major (Minor): English Major, Communications Minor

Hometown: Columbia, SC

Favorite Book: The Holy Man

Favorite Movie: Two favorites are The Rocky Horror Picture Show and The Swiss Family Robinson

Favorite Band/Musician: I really cannot decide but a few of the favorites are Beck, Mika, Modest Mouse, Bassnectar, Gucci, and Curren$y