Liberal Humanism is the idea that we read literature to learn its messages (the truths about human nature). I feel that the 10 tenets of liberal humanism and the 5 recurrent ideas of theory effectively supported the theory and provided a solid grasp onn all of its components.

Marxism involves assessing and analyzing a literary work in terms of ideology while questioning and/or supporting that ideology to promote hegemony. This hegemonic power is conveyed through the dominant and dominated in terms of literature.

Structuralism is a theory that says that language is a system that works in specific ways and this language is arbitrary. This theory goes against liberal humanism. It says that meaning is not essential, but reality is meaningful. Signs are read within a literary text with the signifier and the signified. The signifier is represented as a sound or image and the signified is represented as a concept. The equation of the signifier and the signified resulting in the sign is arbitrary. This aspect of the theory especially stuck with me because of the example that was used in class. With the example of the tree, I could visualize what was trying to be conveyed and use that as a reminder of what structuralism says. Structuralism looks at the instability of a text and gives meaning to things based on the differences that surface.

Post-structuralism deconstructs the text to find controversies and conflict. It says that meanings are at odds with eachother to produce new meanings. Derrida is interested in decentering texts and challenging Strauss's Structuralist theory that the study of reality is a tangible presence. Derrida wants to know know why being and presence exist together as the center.

Pyschoanalytic criticism is a language of differences with no positive terms, but gives meaning to "I" within symbolic network. Its simple and straightforward, but we cannot know the unconscious; it affects us but we have no access to it because its unknowable. The center of your being in the unconscious and the subconscious is where dreams happen. The subject is divided into 3 fragmented parts: the imaginary, the symbolic, and the real. In terms of literature, the focus of the text is an expression of the unconscious; an answer can be found regardless of the complexity of a dream.

The theories that I mentioned are the ones that I feel posed the most questions. Whether it was me questioning everything about the theory or it was me questioning why some things about the theory are the way they are, these are the points that made me think. But overall, I really enjoyed reading Mantissa. It was a good book to read because of the engaging and interesting plot, which also made it easier to analyze in terms of literary criticism. The novel includes many of the areas that we discussed in class, such as jouissance and psychoanalysis. I would say that reading the novel was one of my favorite components to the class, I think that it was very helpful for me personally to be able to relate the theories to a text.

Hasta luego,
La Sonrisita

At this point in the semester, I will say that the guest posts have been incredibly helpful. This post was no different! Dr. Krouse, thank you so much for you insight!

When we often think of the term ‘feminist’, there are definitely some negative connotations that surface that seem to fuel the fire of stereotypes. I admit it, it too have found myself jumping to the common stereotypes that can be heard at any given time. But I also don’t think I’ve really ever given it much thought to create new terms, in my mind at least. I've heard people refer to feminists as man-hating butch lesbians who are hairy and unattractive and are more masculine than feminine. Some assume that all lesbians are feminists and are furthermore simply failed heterosexuals. Honestly one term that immediately comes to mind when i hear the word 'feminist' is extremist. I think of someone who is willing to protest very vocally in an attempt to praise women and show that women should be valued for who they are, not for who they are not (men). But like I said, I never really gave it much thought to expand my opinions to any other degree.

After reading Barry's comments on feminism along with our class discussion and the guest blog post, I will say that there is much more to feminism than I really expected. Its more than just yelling and demanding for women to be thought of as the omniscient species of the human race. Feminism is the belief that women should have equal rights as men. And the fact that women in our history have fought for the rights of all women makes me both proud to call myself a women and ashamed that any women would ever have to feel that she needed to make it an effort to be thought of as valued. I also had no idea that there is no law in the United States that says that women are to have equal rights as men; I just assumed it was a given!

Dr. Krouse's post on feminism not only provided me with insightful information about feminist theoretical perspectives, but also about how I personally define feminism. I can gladly say that my definition is now expanded, or at least more educated and supported!

Hasta luego,
La Sonrisita

First and foremost, thank you to Ashley for providing us with your thoughts and theories on Lacan and psychoanalytic theory. Your comparisons to Saussure and using Mantissa as an example helped tie everything together very nicely and cleared up psychoanalysis as a whole!

When reading the first section of Mantissa, the readers can consider the force of the death drive and jouissance and determine if the two can be traced together or separately throughout the book. The death drive, according to Lacan, is something that “occupies each of us; it is within each of us from the start.” Jouissance is defined as the “orgasmic shattering of the self for which the death drive aims.” It makes sense, to me anyways, that each of these terms is needed in order to complete the other. The jouissance is sparked by the death drive, and the death drive has a purpose because of the jouissance.

However, Lacanian theory states that only one of the two terms can be present at a given time. In Mantissa, Fowles therefore is refuting Lacanian Theory and shows that both the death drive and jouissance have a common objective of fulfilling a character’s personality. This is clear in Miles Green; his identity and his sexual desires go hand in hand, and even though he may not realize through the first section of the novel, Fowles created his character as such. Fowles wrote Miles Green’s character the way he did because that’s how he wanted his main character to be represented. He is showing the readers that one’s identity can help discover his or her sexual needs. One contributes to the other, despite Lacan’s best wishes.

Thank you again, Ashley! I feel like I have a solid grasp on Lacan and psychoanalysis, or at least I hope so!

La Sonrisita

Mantissa

When I began reading Mantissa, I continually got the feeling that I would not really know what to expect from the text next. At first glance, Fowles took me by surprise in his writing style and in the plotline of his novel. However, after getting a feel for the book and coming to terms with the fact that anything, literally anything, could happen at any given time, I really enjoy the direction that Fowles takes.

One of the more obvious theories that I initially related the book to is psychoanalytic theory. Fowles makes it a point to discuss the conscious and the unconscious of Miles, his main character who is located in a hospital and being treated for amnesia. The use of psychoanalysis helped me understand that the characters of the book and the scenery that are mentioned are being represented by some sort of sexual tension. The trick that Fowles snuck in there lies in the representation of the conscious and the unconscious in terms of the characters. For example, Miles’ wife stands in as his unconscious; he views her as a cliché woman of the times by stating that she is essentially the image of what a man would want, although her image is something that he really doesn’t want. On the other hand, Miles’ conscious lets him consider the nurse to be classy and desirable.

Similarly, Fowles incorporates the setting in terms of the unconscious and conscious. Certain things in the novel represent Miles’ feelings. The clock, for example, is a symbol of annoyance for him which he considers as “an incongruous reminder of all he could not remember” (p 11). He is upset that he is basically being outsmarted by the inanimate object of a clock which proves to be his reality.

With that being said, I feel as though it’s quite evident that psychoanalytic theory can be seen as controlling Miles throughout the portion of that novel that I have read. His thoughts are at stake, and I suppose it’s just a matter of time until we see if this theory can be traced throughout the remainder of the novel.

Hasta luego,
La Sonrisita

Thanks to Ken Rufo...

Not going to lie, when I first started to dive into Baudrillard, I was a little bit confused by his thoughts on simulation in general. But, I will admit that reading Ken Rufo’s post and hearing it explained again in class, it has become quite clear. I feel like I have a better grasp on Baudrillard’s ideas of simulation, simulacra, and the hyper-real and the distinctions between them.

Disney is probably the best way to explain something to me; I can relate to Disney and understand it in terms of a bigger picture, such as Baudrillard. Rufo remarks that Disneyland is a representation of other things. Take Epcot for example. The sites in Epcot are recreated to imitate something else. The ride “It’s a Small World” it meant to replicate a variety of countries around the world and give visitors an accurate sense of each country’s culture and what special characteristics it may or may not possess. Sure, Disney is pretty good at fabricating a thing or two, specifically the people that are seen in “It’s a Small World” and the set that the people live in within the ride. The tricky thing about that fabrication, however, is that people make actually believe what Disney is representing because they may not know anything different. Rufo refers to this attempt to make visitors believe something that may not be exactly accurate as fake.

Disneyland is a simulation, and with simulation there is no secure reference or connection to reality. Instead, simulation stands in for reality, then hides the absence of reality, produces its own reality, and finally reaches a fractal stage in which simulation no longer needs models. Take another one of Rufo’s examples: money. He brings up the point that a credit or debit card is in fact a simulation of actual money. In today’s society, I would have to say that one of the major methods of payment when purchasing anything is with a piece of plastic. Whether it is in a store or online, people resort to credit or debit cards so as not to pay for items up front. It’s basically like we have money, or is it? Is it just that credit cards are a symbol for fake money that may or may not be actually available? In this sense, credit cards are simulating a representation of reality. The funds act as the hyper-real as they are mediated through simulation.

Mr. Rufo, thank you! I greatly appreciate your insights on Baudrillard and furthermore putting it in terms that I can comprehend.

Gracias un otra vez!
Liz

After reading “The Death of an Author”, I found that one point that Barthes brings up that is of great interest to me is that language itself speaks, not the author. Rather than have the author speak to the readers and more or less tell them what to think or understand, the language itself has the capability to sway the perceptions of the readers by allowing them to interpret it in whatever way seems appropriate. Removing the author enables the readers to feel more in tune with what language is dictating, and therefore supports the readers being able to think for themselves. Barthes also suggests that the author is not the source of meaning in the text; but rather the reader is the source of meaning for the text. With the death of the author, the reader is born.

This link speaks of the impact of the death of the author. One post on the blog brings up Focault's statements that the author's remarks are still valid and should be considered, however it also touches on the fact that with the death of the author, the opportunities for the readers to live with the text are present. Another post in response to the original comments on the blog suggests that perhaps Barthes is attempting to decenter the author of the language by installing the readers to interpret that language.

Between the blog posts that I stumbled upon and my own thoughts on Barthes and his comments in "The Death of an Author", I feel that the opinions on allowing the reader to get the most out of a text through personal interpretation of that text is empowering to the reader. The author can be thought of as a catalyst of sorts for motivating readers to interpret their text however they wish. If that comes at the death of the author, at least the readers can experience a sense of rebirth through texts.

Hasta Luego,
La Sonrisita

all you need is love...

In the documentary, Derrida discusses the importance of love and the impact it has on our lives. He questions why people love others and proposes that there is a difference between being in love with someone and loving someone. Are we more attracted to the qualities and personality traits that a person posses, are we more attracted to their physical attributes, or is it a mixture of both?

Throughout the film I gathered that Derrida had some specific thoughts on the topic of love in general. He brings up the point that love can be narcissicistic; if its true that we love another person in a romantic way for the qualities that define them, then perhaps we are living proof that love is narcissicistic. He notes that perhaps the reason why we are attracted to such personality traits it due to the fact that we share similar traits with that person; we are attracted to familiarity.

Perhaps it an also be argued that by loving another, we are fulfilling our own desires and needs. Depending on each of our personalities, we can either be easily satisfied by both love and materialistic things or we can chave a very high standard in regards to love and materialism.

I would have to agree with Derrida; I feel that often times love can be taken too lightly. Are we simply fulfilling the desire to have some sort or romance in our lives, to fill a void that has be present for too long, or are we really in love? Are we being superficial or genuine? If Derrida's statements that we base love on the qualities that define us and our significant other is true, what can be said for the people who change who they are over the span of years because they didn't like who they were or the personality traits that they may have posessed? Does that mean that there is more than one soul mate for each of us? I suppose we can all just take it day by day and view the matter of love as yet anothing quality of life that can define us as well.

Adios!