I seem to have found the hope I lost this semester. Part in thanks to my loving husband, part to my favorite high school teacher's pep talk...but mostly, I think I found it hiding on the other side of my Intro to Theory class: my last day was on Thursday. I didn't even know that old feeling of excitement had returned until I woke up today. I lay snuggled against my warm hubby, feeling our cat, MoMo crawl on top of my bedside table (attempting to push my Harry Potter book off the side, by the way) when I caught myself thinking about teaching.
I considered the scenario of standing in front of my own class of college students, wondering what the hell I was going to say. I considered my dislike of the typical 'get to know ya' first days, my loathing of text books, and my absolute new-found hatred for literary theory. If this was a research class I was going to teach, I needed to find a way to make it interesting. I figured I'd start off by asking them to tell me their names, what their favorite literary genre was, and what author they loved most. If that isn't a conversation starter in a room of English majors, I don't know what is. Then, I'd hand out the dreaded syllabus and ask them who knew what a multi-genre research paper is. Who says research has to be all five paragraph form, who says it needs to be boring? The multi-genre research paper is my key to all things relatable, exciting, and creative in an otherwise dull class. Maybe by that time, people will know what it is. In my first creative writing class at Bemidji State University, only one other person knew what a braided essay was. I guess it just hasn't caught on yet. Thanks again, favorite high school English teacher!
In a research based class, I'd make the MGRP the final semester (or midterm) goal. The rest of the time I'd spend giving examples and having them write research through different types of methods. The first paper might be interview based. I'd ask them to take a historic topic and write about it through the context of another event. For example, I'd ask my grandmother to tell me about her school experiences as she lived through WW2 in Holland. Or I'd ask my mom what life was like growing up while Richard Nixon was in office (talking about Watergate), and how it may have effected her outlook on life. For something closer to home, they could interview (for example) a teacher about their daily routine, and how they coped with the events of 9/11 (as it was a school day). I would stress the importance to my students of seeing everything in context. One thing I've learned over the last semester is how important it is to make subjects relevant to students. I hated my literary theory class because it seemed so useless (and at times seemed insane or just stupid). Research writing doesn't have to be a tedious, panic-attack inducing thing. If my theory teacher had been open to a little creativity, this semester would have been a lot different. I wouldn't be yelling in my sleep about my theory paper, for one.
I even tried to think if I had read any books that I could use in the class to help people see the creative side of research. I almost laughed when I realized I already have two such books on my bookshelf.
Anyway, it's good to have my excitement for my future career back again. I was so happy this morning, I got up and made my husband breakfast in bed. I know this next semester is probably going to be full of more research papers, full of five paragraph themed essays (I'm taking an advanced Composition class among others), but I'm feeling more relaxed about it. As my teacher said, I just need to give the professors what they need, and escape with my voice and style in tact. I think I'll be able to do that without a nervous break down now.
For old times sake, I wanted to include my first attempt at at MGRP...but Scribd seems to dislike the file, no matter what I turn it into. Ah well, I'll just have to take another crack at it in the future.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Makes my Day
I can't help it, but these guys have made my day: Obama vs Romney and Hitler vs Vader. I know some of these are just plain offensive...but I can't stop laughing. There are a few that fall short of funny, but most are definitely worth watching. If they weren't so vulgar, I'd throw these as examples at students and tell them to come up with something similar. These are the height of creativity...and brains. They aren't mindless rap videos, you actually need to know something about each character to get references. When Hitler says "Come in to my shower," my jaw dropped. The Obama vs. Romney one is probably my favorite. They don't favor one politician or the other, and the surprise cameo is hilarious yet still manages to send a message. My hubby loves Dr. Seuss vs Shakespeare. I hope people can see past how offensive they can be and just realize how creative and (surprisingly) intelligent they are at times.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
PMS Needs to Come with an Excessively Happy Mode
Earlier today, I wished that anger motivated me to write, because I'd be half done with my research paper by now. I came home in tears, my literary theory class making me believe, more than ever, that this research paper is a farce. I don't know what I'm doing, or how I'm going to do it. I'm tired of being told that literary theory is the end all to understanding literature. It was to my great surprise when I turned, with a furrowed brow and a trembling lip, to my literary theory reading for the night. There were two articles at the back of the book "The Tempest" by Shakespeare, one by Stephen Greenblat, and one by George Will. The former argued for the use of literary theory, and the latter argued against. I don't think I've ever been so entertained. Their scathing retorts and pointing fingers made me laugh, though it was obvious neither were ever going to meet as friends. Their anger at the cause at hand helped me relax. In fact, I'll be trying to incorporate quotes from both men in my paper.
Will made the point that approaching literature from a political point of view makes literature primarily interesting as "a mere index of who had power and whom the powerful victimized." He continues with, "by 'deconstructing,' or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature from its authority. Criticism displaces literature and critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning." He believes that the knowledge of literature and history is faltering, which results in a collective amnesia and deculturation. He believes that political goal of the victim revolution is social disintegration, something sweeping university campuses.
Greenblat countered rather scathingly, but states overall that it is impossible to separate "The Tempest" from imperialism. He refers to the history of the 1600's in which Shakespeare wrote the play--colonialism was a given. Greenblate argues that art is not cement (Will says a shared and stable culture is 'the nation's social cement'), "it is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing. . .a community is founded on. . . the play of language, the scholarly honesty." He believes it is all but impossible to understand works of Shakespeare (and literature in general) without struggling with "the dark energies upon which Shakespeare's art so powerfully draws."
They both make very valid points, but I will say it is hard for me to take some literary theory seriously. Will hits the head on the nail by poking fun at feminist critics and Melville's story "Moby Dick"--"Melville's white whale? Probably a penis. Grab a harpoon!" I've read way too many critiques over the semester that seem to be stretching to prove a point. I don't see anything wrong with theorizing Lovecraft's rough childhood may have inspired "The Outsider," which ends with a beast realizing he is the thing people have been running, screaming, from. His mother reportedly used to call him 'hideous' so often that he may have believed her. Things like that stick with a person. Of course, as my husband argued, just because you are a writer who loves creating horror fiction (in Lovecraft's case, the man to change the course of horror fiction writing forever), does not mean you had a rough childhood, or that it is the end-all inspiration for the writing.
Do I think there is any validity what-so-ever in Margot Norris's feminist critique on "The Dead" by James Joyce? No. Her argument was based solely on the feminist voice that 'wasn't being presented.' Norris states, "Joyce performs in 'The Dead' not only a critique of patriarchy, but a critique of his own art as contributing to the oppression and silencing of women. 'The Dead' must therefore be read not as one text but as two texts: a 'loud' or audible male narration challenged or disrupted by a 'silent' or discounted female countertext that does not, in the end, succeed in making itself heard." I can see where the feminist critic could look at Joyce's background and his history of writing concerning women, but honestly. . . maybe Joyce didn't include a whispering woman in Gabe's mind simply because it wasn't the point of the story. The only commentary on women I could find within "The Dead" was Gabe's treatment of the women in his own life. Unable to socialize well with people or in situations he could not evaluate as he did art, he confined his wife and other female characters in a box, as things to be studied. A fem. critic could go on about that all day. Norris lost me when she failed to realize that Joyce was not writing to express distaste for the female sex--but to explore the bursting reality Gabe is subjected to, and whether or not his character will change for it. There is so much meaning in this story, to be sure. But a commentary on Joyce's feelings toward women via the 'silent female narrator'. . . I'm sorry, but it is going to take a lot more argument to convince me there's any validity in Norris's paper.
I'll end this rant on a humorous note:
Will made the point that approaching literature from a political point of view makes literature primarily interesting as "a mere index of who had power and whom the powerful victimized." He continues with, "by 'deconstructing,' or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature from its authority. Criticism displaces literature and critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning." He believes that the knowledge of literature and history is faltering, which results in a collective amnesia and deculturation. He believes that political goal of the victim revolution is social disintegration, something sweeping university campuses.
Greenblat countered rather scathingly, but states overall that it is impossible to separate "The Tempest" from imperialism. He refers to the history of the 1600's in which Shakespeare wrote the play--colonialism was a given. Greenblate argues that art is not cement (Will says a shared and stable culture is 'the nation's social cement'), "it is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing. . .a community is founded on. . . the play of language, the scholarly honesty." He believes it is all but impossible to understand works of Shakespeare (and literature in general) without struggling with "the dark energies upon which Shakespeare's art so powerfully draws."
They both make very valid points, but I will say it is hard for me to take some literary theory seriously. Will hits the head on the nail by poking fun at feminist critics and Melville's story "Moby Dick"--"Melville's white whale? Probably a penis. Grab a harpoon!" I've read way too many critiques over the semester that seem to be stretching to prove a point. I don't see anything wrong with theorizing Lovecraft's rough childhood may have inspired "The Outsider," which ends with a beast realizing he is the thing people have been running, screaming, from. His mother reportedly used to call him 'hideous' so often that he may have believed her. Things like that stick with a person. Of course, as my husband argued, just because you are a writer who loves creating horror fiction (in Lovecraft's case, the man to change the course of horror fiction writing forever), does not mean you had a rough childhood, or that it is the end-all inspiration for the writing.
Do I think there is any validity what-so-ever in Margot Norris's feminist critique on "The Dead" by James Joyce? No. Her argument was based solely on the feminist voice that 'wasn't being presented.' Norris states, "Joyce performs in 'The Dead' not only a critique of patriarchy, but a critique of his own art as contributing to the oppression and silencing of women. 'The Dead' must therefore be read not as one text but as two texts: a 'loud' or audible male narration challenged or disrupted by a 'silent' or discounted female countertext that does not, in the end, succeed in making itself heard." I can see where the feminist critic could look at Joyce's background and his history of writing concerning women, but honestly. . . maybe Joyce didn't include a whispering woman in Gabe's mind simply because it wasn't the point of the story. The only commentary on women I could find within "The Dead" was Gabe's treatment of the women in his own life. Unable to socialize well with people or in situations he could not evaluate as he did art, he confined his wife and other female characters in a box, as things to be studied. A fem. critic could go on about that all day. Norris lost me when she failed to realize that Joyce was not writing to express distaste for the female sex--but to explore the bursting reality Gabe is subjected to, and whether or not his character will change for it. There is so much meaning in this story, to be sure. But a commentary on Joyce's feelings toward women via the 'silent female narrator'. . . I'm sorry, but it is going to take a lot more argument to convince me there's any validity in Norris's paper.
I'll end this rant on a humorous note:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)