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: