Edumacation 101

The societal view regarding the inferiority of women in their relationship to men has been perpetuated for thousands of years. Women have continually existed under the umbrella assumption stating their accomplishments and abilities are automatically lessened due to the gender to which they were born. Is this a problem of the past? The short answer to the question posed is no. The occupational and social inequality which women experience today is the same injustice which has plagued every generation of women since the first women walked the Earth. The question one must ask is “Has any major male thinker ever considered whether or not men and women might actually be equal in regard to their potential contribution to society?”

Plato was Greek philosopher and mathematician who followed in the footsteps of Socrates. Plato’s musings on the universe and the role of humanity have had a great influence on the current state of Western philosophy in regard to the way many view society. He theorized on a vast number of challenges and natural enigmas which humanity faces.

One of Plato’s most lasting contributions to society stems from his views of a woman’s nature and her natural role. Plato was actually a revolutionary thinker in this capacity. He believed women could make a positive contribution to society as more than property or a helpmate. His belief was radical at the time. He espoused this theory in his work The Republic. This was a fictional account of Plato’s ideal Utopian society. Within the pages of the work, Plato documents a woman’s capability to contribute positively to society as a whole.

Although his view of a woman’s role was revolutionary for his time period, Plato was not able to shake every misogynist attitude within his works. Plato did believe that women could contribute positively to society. However, Plato did not believe that a woman’s contribution could eclipse a man’s contribution. In an instance where a man and a woman had an equal standing, Plato’s belief dictated that a woman could do the same job as a man, but the woman’s work would be inferior.

Plato’s ideas regarding the pseudo-equal standing of the genders was new and highly controversial. Society as a whole did not grasp this concept at the time and several of Plato’s most prominent works and theories were lost for many generations. In fact, Aristotle’s contribution to philosophy eclipsed Plato’s, Aristotle’s mentor, for the period in which Plato’s works were in disuse. Upon the rediscovery of these works by Plato in the fifteenth century, many philosophers questioned the societal beliefs as a whole toward women.

Long after Plato had passed on, his philosophies and views on women helped to shape society. Many of his theories and philosophies continue to influence the societal views and values in regard to women today.

Literary canon is a subject that has been debated for a very long time. The question of what bears inclusion and what is deemed unworthy of canonical status has long been asked with texts entering and leaving the hallowed halls of canon seemingly as through a revolving door. The traditional canonical authors have been male and white. However, over the last several decades, the definition of literary canon has expanded to encompass men and women of all races and backgrounds.

Langston Hughes poem, “I, too,” is one of the most acclaimed and transcendent poems ever penned. The subtle recount of history along with the glaring declaration of hope within the lines of the poem was the anthem for several generations of African American men and women seeking equal treatment. This poem has actually been credited with providing the name and heart behind the “Black is Beautiful” movement which started in the 1960s. This poem is without a doubt a member of today’s literary canon. According to Barbara Herrnstein Smith, canonical status is given to the literary works which “perform certain desired/able functions particularly well at a given time for some community of subjects” (148).  “I, too,” not only fits that definition to the letter, transcends its original purpose and serves as an anthem for anyone who may be lost and without hope. Therefore, due to the transcendent nature of its universal themes, “I, too” will continue to reside in the house of canonical status for many years to come.

The overly simplistic theme and language does not leave much for the formalist critic to dissect as the main thrust of this critical technique is to “close read” the text in order to pull out deeper meanings and thematic elements. “I, too” is a fairly straightforward declaration of the way in which African Americans have been historically treated by their white counterparts. A New Critic would look at the poem and see it for just what it is. A simple declaration of the way a person was treated within a racist culture and that person expressing hope and assurance that the quality of his life is going to improve as his household becomes more and more colorblind.

More pertinent to this particular piece of literature would be a cultural criticism. These critics look not only at the text, but how the text would have been received and the cultural influences which may have inspired the author to pen the poem. “I, too” is ripe for cultural analysis because it is a reflection of the African American culture during the times of overt and pervading racism. The beauty of this poem is more than the simplistic verbal declaration which it made, because it is not what Langston Hughes said in the poem, but where he said it. He made this declaration right in the face of the racist wave which threatened to destroy the precariously floating hope of African American people in the 1920s. The strength lies in when he made this declaration; therefore, making a cultural criticism much more valid for this piece.

Unfortunately, as with every different literary criticism, there are short comings of both the cultural and the New Critical techniques. In this particular piece screams for a cultural critique but would leave many New Critics out in the cold as there is not very much text to analyze and the message of this piece is extremely straightforward. Even a cultural critique could become weighed down because of the heavy implications that this poem carried. In the end, it is always better to use multiple critical techniques to analyze literature as this method offers a much more complete picture of what the author intended. To study “I, too” leaving out the cultural implications which this poem created would be tragic, but to just gloss over the weighty words found within the poem without pausing for analysis would be equally tragic.

When writing an essay, it is important to provide the reader with a general summation of the subject within the conclusion. Many times, the final sentence is the broadest thought which the author was attempting to express with his or her writing. In Gerald Graff’s essay, “Disliking Books at an Early Age,” he proposed the idea that reading does not become important an individual until he or she understands the literary work within the context of the community in which it has been discussed. He ends by stating, “Relation to a community made the intimacy of literary experience possible” (48).

The entire push of Graff’s essay has to do with what it takes for an individual to be able to truly experience literature and contribute to the literary community. He sums this up aptly in the closing statement of the essay. Graff is drawing from his personal experience in which he was unable to have an intimate experience with literature until he was exposed to the literary debate regarding the ending of Huckleberry Finn. From his own experience, he suggests that he was actually unable to discuss literature prior to this experience. “I had been trying to generate that discussion out of myself, something I did not know how to do. Exposure to the debate made me less of an outsider, provided me with a social community that gave my reading stimulus and direction” (48). Here Graff implies that his previous apathy toward literature spawned forth from his inability to properly communicate and understand the relevance of literature, not from laziness or dislike of the text.

The point of Graff’s essay is to wake the literary world to the more practical and generally accessible aspects of literary analysis. Not everyone who takes a literature course will go on to become an acclaimed critic. Graff supports literature for the masses rather than solely for the literary elite. Under this assumption, one can understand the reasoning for his support of making literature meaningful. In order to make literature matter, the instructor must find an aspect for the student to connect. In Graff’s case, it was a literary debate. It could have just as easily been a specific incident within the text with which the reader identified. The point is that a directionless reader is unable to truly appreciate what he or she is reading because no goal or expectation has been set. When reading with a purpose, a reader is much more likely to ensure that he or she partakes in the subtle nuances which will allow the reader to attain the goal which was established prior to beginning reading.

Using this method, the reader then becomes a part of the community discussing the piece of literature in question. The most salient advantage to this method of instruction is the feeling of inclusion which the analyst experiences as her or she begins to contribute to an established community. It adds a sense of purpose as the reader is making his or her way through text. This encourages the establishment of goals and adherence to a basic roadmap which keeps the reader on course and engaged in the text. Another key advantage of this method is the construction of a foundation on which the reader can build his or her critical technique upon.

The most glaring disadvantage to this technique is that it is not necessarily natural to seek out literary communities which are analyzing literature outside of a literature classroom. Therefore, one who is lost in the study of literature might remain so, unless he or she actively engages with a class or someone who is teaching literature. This would not be a very likely scenario.

With all the advantages and disadvantages weighed, Graff’s point continues to remain true. Until a student is able to find something meaningful about literature on which to attach, it is highly unlikely that literary study will become something which the student actively seeks. However, once a student’s attachment to literature has been established and nurtured, literary study will forever remain a meaningful, lifelong endeavor for the student.

There are many factors which engineer the construction of a person’s character. These factors range from exceptionally important events which dramatically affect a person’s life to the basic genetic blueprint with which a person is born. There are many extrinsic factors which dictate the importance of the different aspects aiding in the construction of one’s character. One of the most culturally significant considerations which an analyst could examine to help in grasping the overall cultural influence in the development of a person’s character is the heritage in which the subject was raised. The importance of a person’s heritage is specifically highlighted in Alice Walker’s “Everyday Use.”

Heritage, simply defined, is something which belongs to a person upon his or her birth. There are many different aspects which make up a person’s heritage. Tradition, cultural influence, heredity, and physical inheritance are just a few of the elements which construct the overall picture of a person’s heritage. Going deeper, heritage is the foundation upon which a person’s life is set from birth. One cannot run from his or her heritage as it truly a birthright. There have been many eras throughout history wherein idealistic groups of intellectual people have established movements encouraging individuals to get back to the cultural roots of their society. Many times, this leads to a specific group of people establishing an accepted philosophy defining which elements of the group’s heritage are most important.

Walker’s “Everyday Use” brings to life the conflict between pretentious “root seeking” and a genuine understanding of true familial origins. Many educated black men and women began to treat their family history within the United States with contempt and began to seek out their African tribal roots. This was a common theme among black civil rights activists for several decades. Their outright denial of their immediate roots made them feel as if they were truly embracing their true heritage. Within the story, Dee represents the young educated black woman who is attempting to reclaim her heritage through this means. She is educated, empowered, and successful. Dee had never been satisfied with her upbringing. She was not satisfied with the simple life which her mother was able to provide her. “And Dee. I see her standing off under the sweet gum tree she used to dig gum out of; a look of concentration on her face as she watched the last dingy gray board of the house fall in toward the red-hot brick chimney. Why don’t you do a dance around the ashes? I’d wanted to ask her. She hated that house so much” (299). The simple reality of Dee’s early existence is that she was completely dissatisfied and resentful in regard to her birthright.

Mrs. Johnson, Dee’s mother and the narrator of the story, wanted her daughter to be satisfied. Because of her concern for Dee, Mrs. Johnson collaborated with her local church and raised enough money to afford to send her to a boarding school. Lost in the shuffle and overshadowed by Dee’s bright shining light, was Dee’s younger sister, Maggie.  Maggie was very different from Dee. She was nervous and ashamed of the way she looked. She had extensive scarring on her legs and arms as a result of a devastating house fire during her childhood. Because of this, Maggie’s countenance was reserved and apprehensive. “Have you ever seen a lame animal, perhaps a dog run over by some careless person rich enough to own a car, sidle up to someone who is ignorant enough to be kind to him? That is the way my Maggie walks. She has been like this, chin on chest, eyes on ground, feet in shuffle, ever since the fire that burned the other house to the ground” (298).

The Johnson family did not have much to treasure. They were poor and lived in a meager three room house with a tin roof. Dee was ashamed of the way in which her family lived. “She wrote me once that no matter where we ‘choose’ to live, she will manage to come see us, but she will never bring her friends” (299). Dee’s shame and contempt for her family’s scant lifestyle are evident in this statement. Though she claimed that she would never bring anyone with her to visit, when she pulled up on the day of her visit, she was accompanied by a male companion.

As their visit started, Dee made quick shallow pleasantries with Maggie and her mother introducing them to her male friend. She snapped a few pictures with a Polaroid camera always including the house in the pictures with Maggie cowering behind Mrs. Johnson. It is as if Dee interpreted the situation as more of a novelty, a souvenir to be displayed, rather than treating Maggie and her mother with love and respect. Dee is simply used to getting exactly what she wants and she is not afraid to do whatever it takes to make sure that her desires are fulfilled regardless of how her desires interfere with or offends anyone else.

The point of consternation in the story occurs when Dee asks her mother for some of the quilts which she had sewn. Her mother had several quilts and offered her several of the machine stitched quilts, but Dee wanted more. Dee always wanted more. She wanted the quilts which had been hand sewn by her mother, aunt, and Grandma Dee. They were made from fifty year old scraps of Grandma Dee’s dresses, Grandpa Jarrell’s paisley shirts, and one small piece of Great Grandpa Ezra’s Civil War uniform. These quilts had the very history of the Johnson family sewn into them, and Dee wanted them. She would not take no for an answer. “Dee (Wangero) moved back just enough so that I couldn’t reach the quilts. They already belonged to her” (302).

Why did Dee want the quilts? Why was she so set on these particular artifacts from her family’s history? Did she want them for the sentimental value which they carried for the rest of the family? No. She wanted to put them on display. She wanted to hang them on the wall so that her pretentious friends would think she was perhaps better than she was. They would think that she had come from somewhere. She wanted the quilts as a simple conversation piece. The ironic aspect of the whole situation is that she did come from somewhere. She had the culture and the heritage which she was trying to display at her disposal from the day she was born, but she wanted nothing to do with her family’s heritage until it became chic to do so.

Maggie, on the other hand, embraced her heritage from the beginning. She learned from her mother the ways of her culture. She understood where she fit into the picture as a whole and she was satisfied with her place unless Dee was around to make her feel insignificant. When Dee asked her mother for the quilts, Maggie overheard. After Mrs. Johnson attempted to divert Dee’s desire onto some of the other quilts, Dee again tore Maggie down as she had for their entire lives. “’The truth is,’ I said, ‘I promised them quilts to Maggie, for when she marries John Thomas. [Dee] gasped as if a bee had stung her. ‘Maggie can’t appreciate these quilts!’ [Dee] said, ‘She’d probably be backward enough to put them to everyday use!’” (302). Dee’s assertion that Maggie would use the quilts everyday is probably accurate. The question which bears asking is: “Would this be a backward use? Or would this be the way in which the quilts were intended to be used?”

To find the answer, one must look simply to the heritage from which the Johnsons came. They were a working family. The items used within the quilt were used every day for labor or service. They were not intended to be pretty. Instead, they were meant to ensure the smooth running of the household. They stood for family, pride, and hard work. These items were not meant to be a conversation piece. After they had been sewn, they were meant to keep a body warm.  Who then truly understands the heritage from whence Maggie and Dee came? Was it pompous Dee or unassuming Maggie?

In keeping with the tradition of her family, Maggie understood what her family’s heritage was supposed to be. She captured the spirit of what it meant to be a part of her family. The question which Walker raises within the story is: “Should heritage be preserved and displayed or integrated into everyday life?” The resounding answer which Walker supports by the language she uses when she refers to Dee and Maggie and also in the outcome of the story is that the everyday integration of heritage into life. Heritage is not meant to sit on the shelf, rather, it is meant to shape the people we become.

Cultural criticism is the practice of analyzing literature specifically focusing on the way in which the piece of literature fits into the social, economic, and political atmospheres which were present while the piece was being written. The very tenets behind this type of criticism lead analysts to truly delve into the culture surrounding the author during the composition of the work. The foundational principles of cultural criticism are in direct opposition to the formalist and New Critical techniques of analyzing literature which supports the idea that any study beyond the actual written word is inappropriate because any information which one might desire can and should be pulled directly from the text, forsaking outside influence.

As with every critical technique, there are both advantages and disadvantages of the cultural critical technique. One of the most striking advantages hinges on the importance which the critics themselves put on the significance of how the work would have been received within the culture in which it was presented. The text refers to the movie Henry V which was released in England during WWII. At the time of its release, the movie bolstered the English morale as it reinforced the historical English fighting spirit. Someone viewing the film today might be impacted in a completely different way by the same work. This example reinforces the central theme and primary advantage of the cultural critical technique. The cultural critics place primary value on the cultural reception and impact which the piece had.

One potential disadvantage of the foundational theorem of the cultural critics is their insistence on the abolition and decentralization of the canonical works of literature. Whereas New Critics and several other schools of literary critical technique espouse the idea that canonical works reinforce the central, reoccurring themes which dominate true literature, cultural critics support the idea of relating to literature instead of rating it based on thematic elements. There is some potential for positive outcomes as the works are analyzed in relation to other literature which is produced within the same social, political, and economic climate allowing for the analyst to capture a more complete picture of the culture surrounding the construction of the work. This has, in essence, broadened the literary works which can be studied in regard to this type of criticism. There is definitely value in the broader, more inclusive attitude which these critics have. However, completely disregarding the idea of literary canon and eschewing the traditional values which have dictated canon since the inception of literary analysis is perhaps taking the idea too far.

Cultural criticism definitely has an important place within the realm of literary criticism, but it is far from the end all critical form. As with every other critical technique, the value of this type of analysis rises dramatically when combined with one of the other critical techniques.

Language is one of the most significantly defining and unique characteristics of any given culture. The word culture used here is not the expressed under the auspices of the traditional definition of the word. Instead of defining a group of people who are racially and geographically similar, it is used to express a group of people who are socially and ideally the same: such as the cultures of women, men, runners, or couch potatoes. These distinctions transcend locality because each one of these group could exist within any geographic culture, but each would maintain a similar set of values and lifestyle choices regardless of geographic location. And, in making these similar choices, each specific culture will develop its own specific language which can be understood most adeptly by only those whom invest themselves into the culture.

One very strong example of this is the internet culture. People new to the culture would be overwhelmed by the jargon which has developed in chat rooms and on message boards over the last fifteen years, but someone who invests time into the culture will come to understand the language and soon be taking part in communication fluidly. From this basic understanding of cultural communication, one can see from where feminist critics come.

One of the major practices of feminist literary critics is to analyze from where the text came─ meaning the author and his or her gender─ and the type of language used─ meaning is the text written in masculine or feminine language. These critics purport the ideal that language, in its most basic form, is traditionally masculine and supportive of the masculine point of view. This comes from Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalytic work which focused on the proposed binary nature of language. The principles of binary logic come from the conclusions of Aristotle’s work on logic. He proposed that everything could be reduced to A or not-A. This is sometimes dangerous as it leaves no middle ground on which to stand. Everything exists in the extreme within this system. Lacan concluded that language has a binary nature because of the time frame in which a child begins to develop language skills. This introduces the idea of opposition in all things. The feminist critics, who latched onto Lacan’s work, not only supported the binary nature of language, but also introduced the idea that all good things within the language are generally associated with the masculine which would make all the offending notions within language associated with the “not-male” or the female. The feminist critics espouse this idea because of the patriarchal nature of society. The child begins to separate from his or her mother and attach to the parent whom society recognizes as the leader of the culture at the time when he or she is developing language skills. Because of this, the child allegedly begins to associate the good aspects with the father and the negative aspects of language with the mother.

Again, the proposed binary distinction of language to good/bad, or, even further, into male/female is dangerous and full of pitfalls. Any area of criticism which exists only in the extreme is often biased prior to analysis. Perhaps this is the point of feminist criticism, but objective analysis is always more widely accepted when compared to a biased, colored criticism. In fact, when writing, it is important to address as many of the possible arguments within the paper being written in order for the author to garner stronger support for his or her opinion. This is why biased criticism is quickly dismissed and not given much credence. While many aspects of language are binary in nature (i.e. antonyms), to truly believe that all negative aspects of language are automatically associated with the female is preposterous. To fully understand this theory of language, it is important to grasp the auspices of both the essentialist and constructionist views of criticism.

Essential critics believe, simply stated, that men and women are different in the very nature of which they have been created. They don’t believe there are any outside factors which account for the differences between men and women other than the way which the genders have been “hardwired.” In contrast, constructionists believe that the differences between men and women have been socially and culturally engineered. They believe that, in fact, men and women are not different by the nature in which they have been created. Instead, society engineers a person’s thinking from childhood based on the societal norms which are established long before the child’s birth.

In essence, the outcome which essentialists and constructionists agree on is very similar, but the process for approaching the outcome come from two completely different fields of thought. Most essentialist writers focus on the distinct differences, both anatomical and psychological, of men and women. These critics advocate inborn gender differences. Understanding the constructionist theory is slightly more challenging. The main argument of these theorists is that men and women are born essentially the same. They denounce anatomical difference as defining. Instead, they place the definition of male and female roles, perceptions, and outlooks on the societal expectation which exists for the different genders within the culture.

When analyzing a story, neither critic could change any of the facts or the in which the story ends. However, they could analyze a character’s motivations for taking the actions which he or she did throughout the story. In the short story, “Girl,” by Jamaica Kincaid, the reader is treated to a list of advice from a matriarchal figure to a daughter. The major theme of the story is the passing on of information which would be useful to the daughter within the culture in which she lives. Basically, so the child can learn how to ensure that she marries well. The essentialist critic would argue that the advice is necessary based upon the static gender differences which exist between a male and a female. The constructionist critic would lay the need for this type of advice upon the culture in which the daughter is being raised. Essentialist critics would say that there is no chance of ever changing the outcome, while constructionists would argue, in a matriarchal society, that the shoe would be on the other foot with the female taking the dominant role and the male being in need of this kind of advice.

What defines a human being? Are the defining characteristics which compose an individual genetically coded into his or her consciousness prior to birth? Or is a person defined through the events which occur during one’s existence? Psychologists have long debated the question of nature vs. nurture with no clear winner emerging from the fray. However, the majority of psychologists believe it is a combination of both nature and nurture which eventually determine who a person turns out to be. In Margaret Atwood’s novel, Cat’s Eye, the reader is treated to an inside perspective on the character development of artist Elaine Risley.

The thematic element which defines Atwood’s story has to do with the way in which a person’s identity is constructed. The novel relays this theme to the reader through a combination of flashback montages and present day musings from the first person perspective of the eccentric Risley. Atwood uses the flashbacks in order to present how events in Risley’s past have colored her perception of her present situation.

Risley, as an adult, has been invited back to her home town of Toronto for a retrospective of her lifetime’s work. Upon returning to the streets on which she used to be intimately familiar, forgotten emotions and memories begin to wash over her, making her trip more than a retrospective for the art which she had created and more of a look back into the events defining her present perspective on life. Risley’s childhood memories were dominated by her interaction with three young girls. These girls were Risley’s introduction into the world of women. Prior to settling in Toronto, her family had been very mobile because her father worked as an entomologist and his occupation kept her family uprooted. After taking a job as a professor at a university, Risley’s young life changed dramatically. She finally was able to attend school regularly which led to her establishing friendships with females for the first time. This was, to say the least, an eye opening experience.

“So I am left to the girls, real girls at last, in the flesh. But I’m not used to girls, or familiar with their customs. I feel awkward around them, I don’t know what to say. I know the unspoken rules of boys, but with girls I sense that I am always on the verge of some unforeseen calamitous blunder” (52). The sentiment expressed within this quote is the overarching sentiment which laid the foundation for Risley’s relationship with the three girls to whom she would attach. She expresses the feeling of being a part of the group, but never really being a member. She was always on the fringe, like a privileged outsider who was actually not very privileged at all. Her early relationships were defined by inordinate regulations regarding the pomp and circumstance of her friend’s lives. She befriended fairly well -to-do young ladies who treated the young Risley with an arrogant pretense as if they were doing her a favor by spending time with her. However, no girl was more conniving and condescending, leaving the most lasting and painful impression, than Cordelia.

There are several sentinel events which occur in Risley’s young life. These events have several common elements. First, each peels the veil of innocence from Risley’s viewpoint especially in regard to the inner workings of the relationships of women. Second, these events cast a different and more cynical hue on the rest of Risley’s life. Thirdly, these events come at the hand of Risley’s antithesis, Cordelia. Cordelia is always cruel and self-serving even when she is operating under the guise of feigned kindness. She has no regard for anyone other than herself, but there is an aspect of her personality to which Risley attaches. In fact, she spends the rest of her life trying to prove herself to the trumped up idealization of worth which has become embodied within Risley’s memories of Cordelia.

While the adult Risley is taking her introspective journey into the elements of her past which have come to shape her life, she often thinks of Cordelia. She hopes that Cordelia will see something which she has done independently of the domineering Cordelia that has lent self-worth to her life. It is as if she must prove to her inner memory of Cordelia that she is worthy of fair and respectful treatment. Within the novel, Cordelia became the representative of every insecurity which Risley felt about herself. Many of these insecurities are a direct result of the horrendously cruel treatment which she experienced at the hands of Cordelia.

The most significant childhood event occurring during Risley’s childhood nearly ended her life prematurely. Cordelia, in a revolting stroke of inhumane brutality, threw Risley’s winter hat over the railing of a bridge into a forbidden ravine. Her hat landed on the frozen surface of the creek. When Risley carefully strode to get her hat, the ice gave way. Somehow, she made her way to the side of the creek. She looked to the bridge for the support of her companions only to discover she had been left alone. She was left alone to die. First, she experienced pain as her tissue slowly began to freeze. Pain finally gave way to numbness and the overwhelming desire to sleep. Before closing her eyes for the final time, she glanced back up to the bridge upon where she noticed a woman standing watching her. This woman descended through the air and enveloped young Risley in an aura of warmth and comfort. The specter encouraged Risley to stand and make her way home ensuring her all would be well.

This event was the most significant childhood event which Risley experienced. Through it, she developed an utter lack of trust for those around her and a staunch reliance on her inner spirit. Risley identifies the spectral being as the Virgin Mary whom she had limited exposure to during a few visits to mass with one of her friends. Atwood uses this picture to personify the inner spirit of woman to overcome even in the direst of circumstances.

Throughout life, a person will experience many cogent events which are momentous enough to color the rest of his or her existence. These happenings can be either positive or negative. In the case of Elaine Risley, the appalling treatment which she experienced at the hands of people who were supposed to support her caused her to distrust those around her and to experience issues regarding her perceived self-worth for the rest of her existence. A summation of Risley’s feelings toward the formative relationships which provided the lens through which she viewed the rest of her life culminated in her self-portrait which was on display at her retrospective. The painting depicted the top of her head with a pier glass behind her. The foreground is solely occupied by the half-face of the present day image of Risley. The background depicts the pier glass which contains the reflection of Risley’s head, although, the reflection is much younger. Also in the reflection are three indiscernible little girls dressed in winter clothes. This represents the dichotomy of Risley physically leaving the girls in the past following the incident at the bridge, but being unable to move beyond the cruelty which she experienced at their hands that forever tainted the way in which she would view the world.

Within the pages of her Novel, Atwood lays a strong foundational argument for the argument of nurture. Many times in life, critical events happen which have the potential to damage a person beyond foreseeable repair. This is the picture that Atwood eloquently paints for her readers. This piece stands as a warning for all to consider the lasting effects of their actions on those around them. What one might see as an insignificant speed bump on the journey of life might completely derail another sending the person spiraling into oblivion far from tangible recovery. If the populace would adhere to the concept of doing unto other as we would like done to ourselves, the world would be a much better place.

Hello Interwebs!!!

Finally, I’m back! I know that your heart is a flutter as a result of my triumphant return.

Well, maybe you haven’t developed a cardiac arrythmia as a result of our reunion, but hopefully you aren’t going asystole on me.

So what have I been up to? School and school and school and school. Seriously, I haven’t really had time to breathe in the last 8 weeks and (if you have been keeping up with the blog) you have been able to experience the fruit of that labor in my meticulously written history and English papers which I have been posting. My history class has kept me so ridiculously busy that I haven’t had time to really do much else. Between the weekly discussion postings, peer responses, on-line group projects (Really bad idea, fyi. If you are an instructor, please, for the love of everything Holy, do not assign group projects for an on-line class!!), individual power point projects, weekly quizzes, formal papers, and, not to mention, about 150 pages of reading every week, I have been a little neglectful of other things in my life. Including, but not exclusively limited to, my blog, my family, my other classes, my full-time job, personal hygiene, watching my YouTube regulars, eating, sleeping, building my life-size toothpick model of the Eiffel Tower, and my part-time job (Some of those were a bit of an exaggeration, if you couldn’t tell. I actually have half of my toothpick Eiffel Tower finished in the backyard.).

To say the least, I am rejoicing (Insert happy dance) because my history class is coming to a close. I think that I will probably get a pretty decent grade. Hoping for an “A” as I had only missed 10 points out of 700 prior to the on-line final, but the final whooped my butt. Worst test performance that I have had since middle school. Who the crap even administers comprehensive finals anymore? Apparently my freaking history professor.

You know, my issue isn’t really with the fact that we had a comprehensive final, as we are supposed to have retained all we learned about the history of European women during this course. My issue was with the test format. If you are going to have a comprehensive final, please keep the questions limited to the overarching concepts which were supposed to be taught throughout the course. My prof decided to have two conceptual questions worth 25 points each and I rocked those; however, she had seven true/false (eyenorite!?!!?) questions worth 10 points apiece. And I am not talking about logical questions either. These were questions which I scoured the text and the Internet to find, but was unable to locate the answer. And we all know, if you can’t find it on the interweb, then it must be make-believe.

She literally took such abstract questions from one line in 800 pages of text and expected us to either remember them from the reading, or to find them. It was insane, and I did not do well to say the least. I am really disappointed with my performance, but I am hoping that she finds it in her heart to ensure that I get an “A” as anything below a 95% gets bumped down to an “A-” which affects my overall GPA. I am hoping to graduate Summa (GPA of 3.9 or higher) in a year, but that might not happen if I get an “A-” as I already have two “B’s” and one “A-” from some screw ups several years ago during my first go-around with college.

All I can do now is cross my fingers and hope that the rest of my course work was enough to prove my work ethic and my understanding of the important concepts of the class.

So, what else has been going on…

Well, I had serious bout with utter depression due to the workload which I am shouldering. A really good friend told me to get meds. I didn’t want to, so I didn’t, but it probably would have helped. Fortunately, I have had several pretty awesome Jesus encounters over the last few weeks which have really brought me out of it. The truth is I was running from God and from my call because I was afraid of failing. I was fairly overwhelmed with all the goings on in my life, and, truth be told, I was blaming god for my problems.

BAD IDEA IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING.

The part that is even worse is that those around me were paying the price for my disobedience and lack of faith almost as much as I was. My family suffered, my church suffered, and those who are close to me were also affected. Yeah, I feel like a tool, but I can’t change the past; therefore, I don’t dwell on it. I have admitted my failure and said my apologies. There is really nothing else to do but move on. So I have and the future is looking bright and shiny (ten cool points to whomever calls that reference first in the comments). In all seriousness, though, I finally feel like I have turned the corner and am making very strong strides toward a full recovery.

Who knows, I might even turn out better than I was before this all began. God never wastes a hurt, so I am looking for the lesson which I am supposed to garner from my episode of depression. I know that God will be forthcoming and there is wisdom to pull from my experience. After all, what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. Right? That is what I am telling myself anyway.

Other happenings…

1. My car is repaired and licensed (YAY!!).

2. I have recently hit a creative streak on the guitar.

3. I got a new guitar (I will be writing more on this as I am in love).

4. Actually, I have acquired two guitars.

5. Started a new full-time job (Actually a 90-day detail to another department).

6. Discovered the awesome that is Boyce Avenue. Seriously, check them out. They rock.

7. Fell in love with Bones (Not the show…my wife. I call her Bones if you were unaware.) all over again (Awww…).

8. Ninja punched a baby (Not really, but I had to spice it up, Amirite!?!?!).

9. Received a Samurai Tsunami Punch of Ddoom from said baby’s mother (Also a lie.).

10. That’s right Ddoom. I created a new word which is even more condemning and ominous that just your average run of the mill doom. We are talking about some serious doomishness here. Hence, Ddoom!

11. Realized that I am an idiot.

12. Totally forgot about my realization of idiocy and reasserted my faux-awesomeness two seconds later.

13. Ran out of things to list on my blog, but continued listing erroneous and sophomoric events which never occurred outside of my head just because I can. It is my blog and I can fabricate if I want to.

Anyway, you get the idea. It has been really busy over here in Jeremy-land, so that is why you haven’t been able to read any truly personal posts from me. I promise to rectify this issue promptly and return to  a more regular personal posting schedule in addition to my academic musings which I know keep you coming back for more!

Thanks for sticking it out guys!

This is a poem that I was inspired to write after reading and reflecting on Sylvia Plath’s poem, “Daddy.”

Snapshot

He looks deeply into her crystal blue eyes.
Unblemished pools drawing him to her.
His focus is on her face.
His reflection stares back at him.

Much younger, of course, and without all the wear
From years lived. Lives loved.
Loves lost. Losses reclaimed
And lost yet again.

The way her eyes sparkle reminds him of her mother.
How he misses her mother. A smile spreads across her face.
It’s his smile. He pulls her into his comfortable embrace,
Content to hold her here forever.

She pulls away. A tear escapes the corner of his eye,
Tumbling down his cheek. He smiles and his gaze drops,
Embarrassed. A kiss on the cheek. She turns.
She moves away, her hand falling from his.

He watches as his little girl− turned woman−
Takes the hand of another.
Realization washes over him.
She is gone.

Gone.

The tear plummets from his chin,
Crashing down on the lapel of his coal black tuxedo.
He turns. Finds his seat. Loses his breath.
Unfeeling, he watches.

The priest’s pronouncement strikes him like an icy wind.
Shivers rack his spine. Her arctic smile is dazzling.
She floats past him back down the aisle.
Her hand grazes his shoulder.

Warmth emanates from her touch.
Another tear. A pain in his chest.
Her arm is intertwined with another. It is not his arm.
Where did the time go?

She is no longer his little girl.

Language is one of the most defining characteristics of a culture. The definition of language extends beyond the spoken word to written text, the lyrics of songs, or culturally relevant imagery. In “Telling Our Story about Teaching Literature,” Alan Purves challenges traditional ideas about the way in which our society teaches literature as well as the ideas of what mediums should be included within the study of literature.

The first aspect Purves accosts is the area of literary jargon. The use of jargon is always a dangerous proposition.  Jargon, by its very nature, is only understood by the select members of a particular professional culture. When used in mass communication, the author risks losing the attention and endangering the comprehension of the reader. If this gross disconnect were to occur, the entire purpose of the writing would be lost; therefore, defeating the reason for penning the piece in the first place.

Purves brings to light several of the most common examples of jargon and labels them with his personal opinion for the particular term. One of the terms he attacks is “New Criticism.” He labels the literary approach which New Critics take on literature─ a solely text based critique, forsaking cultural influence on the author or the reader─ as “a bad thing.” To examine a text without delving into the cultural influences which would have impacted the author during the creation and the reader upon exposure is ludicrous. No text is written as a standalone piece. To experience any written text, the reader must intellectually consider the cultural implications affecting the period and setting in which the piece was written. This practice dramatically increases the overall impact of the piece.

Another term which Purves mentions is the “reader response.” Purves calls this particular piece of literary jargon “a good thing.” The reason for his praise revolves around the very heart of the purpose behind a reader response. An essay labeled in this fashion is an intellectual response to a piece of literature. It can relate to theme, structure, cultural relevance, or any one of several other meaningful aspects of the piece being examined. So what makes a reader response different from a simple summary or a surface analysis? Simply speaking, when a reader is able to focus on one particular aspect of a story and really dive deeply into the supporting text, it elicits an intelligent and meaningful response from the reader. This achievement is the reason why literature teachers continue to educate the masses.

The other area which Purves questions, is the material and methods which the traditional study of literature has historically supported. He first mentions the ins and outs of the traditional study of literature in primary and secondary school. Purves leads the reader to believe twelve years of exposure to the older perspective of study is not necessarily the best or most impactful way in which to teach the newest generation of learners. The traditional study impacts a select few and helps to pick out those who will be well suited for continuing in the study of literature and English, but the overarching feeling toward this type of study is blasé. Purves introduces the idea of teaching literature through the media which makes an impact on the current generation.

Today’s student has access to the collective knowledge of the world literally at his or her finger tips. For this generation, defined by the insistence of instant gratification and the ever shifting impulses of pop culture, the study of traditional literature leaves much to be desired. However, adjusting the tried and true method of literary study to the student of today has both potentially positive and negative outcomes. Positively, the instructor might be able to relay the universal themes present in literature to the modern generation through its preferred method of media. It would allow the teacher to impact more students with the valuable cultural lessons which can be found throughout literature; therefore, the message would reach more, but at what cost? The study of literature would lose everything which currently characterizes it. True lovers of literature and English would be left set aside in favor of pleasing the masses. A middle ground must exist which encompasses aspects of both theories which would indulge the casual student while being immersive enough to please those who truly have a love for literature.

If this middle ground is ever found, the study of literature will move beyond a pursuit merely for the academically inclined, and become relevant for a much larger portion of the populace. Moving beyond professional jargon and complicated thematic study would make literature more accessible. Perhaps a two track study curriculum should be instituted within the secondary schools of today’s society. One track for those who are interested in truly learning the specific nuances which comprise the canon of literature and another for those who are more interested in surface themes and the less complicated aspects of literature. Scholars have been pondering the solution for ensuring the relevancy of literary study for generations with no clear answer being presented. Perhaps, one day the study of literature will strike a balance under which all students can operate; thus, retaining the unique aspects of literary study, while indulging a wider range of students.