I found all of these reading selections very fascinating. The most interesting thing to me was the different ways that creation was descried by each author. First, Lucretius described creation as a bunch of turbulent atoms/motes with potential energy that causes creation out of chaos. This potential energy gives atoms agency but the randomness of their movement means there is no spirit or consciousness to them.
In Ovid's Metamorphosis, there is void matter which is the elements in inert, opposing, disoriented, contradictory order. God is able to mold this void matter into creation. Here there is agency, which occurs when neighboring matter cross over with each other, spirit, and consciousness. In Dryden + crew's translation of Metamorphosis, creation is described as chaotic matter that is rhythmically organized by god. Here there is agency, spirit, and consciousness belonging to god. Paradise Lost shares a similar description of creation. In Paradise Lost, creation is also described as chaotic matter but in this instance, it is manipulated by god, has agency to continue after creation, but no spirit or consciousness of its own. I found it very interesting that stories that were all more or less describing the same story could come about it so differently than on another.
0 Comments
I am very proud of all of the thinking I have done this semester so far. We have thought over with many difficult concepts like the ideas of self, identity, and worth. As seen in the image on the left above, while discussing Scott’s argument we defined a lot of terms as a class. A few that I found the most interesting were criticism, beauty, and taste. I thought for each of them we came up with a very well rounded definitions. Defining these terms help me, and I think the class as a whole, better form a central argument for Better Living Through Criticism. I think something that was really helpful during this particular discussion was the ground rules that we set midway through. I think setting those really helped me to feel more comfortable speaking up. After weeks of discussion, we finally landed on the idea that art is there for enjoyment but the criticism of it is the true art.
Another section of my CPB I am very proud of (seen in the middle image above) is a spread combining a class discussions and my own breaking down of Greenblatt’s introduction. Of the left page of the image we were talking the first part of the introduction. One idea I found very fascinating was that Greenblatt weaved his definition of self into the writing. I believe he did that to make sure readers knew exactly what he was referring to when he talked about selves. Additionally, I during this discussion, I asked How can self-fashioning exist without identity. Now that we have discussed Greenblatt a lot more, I think I am able to answer this question. I think that self-fashioning is the way that we create our identity, but it does not exist before we self fashion. On the right page of this CPB spread, I broke down every sentence of the first 12 paragraphs of the introduction. Though this seemed like a very tedious assignment, it really helped me to understand the meaning of each sentence. And it made me appreciate the importance of every sentence within Greenblatts’s writing. The last page I was very proud of (seen in the image on the right of the images above) was further in our discussion of how Greenblatt writes to convey his argument across. One thing that really stuck with my from this day of discussion was how many ways that one person can write to get their ideas across. Greenblatt uses references to people, uses m-dashes, dialectical movement, and much more to make readers understand what he is talking about. But one big idea we came out of this discussion is that it’s about the dialectical movement, not the end point that is achieved. Out of this discussion as a whole, I took away that there is a lot of movement that goes into writing, but that movement is an important part of the writing, not where you end up. I have enjoyed this class so far this semester. I love the conversations we have that last multiple days so we can really dive deep into the concepts. I have still been struggling with speaking up during class, but I am working on it. I hope in the near future we move away from summer work and start looking at more writings. I imagine we will continue to grapple with the difficult concepts that have come to light while we have been reading. I am excited to see what we move onto next. I loved the show! Last year in Latin, we read parts of Metamorphoses so it was really interesting to be able to see some of the stories I translated in action. One big idea I saw throughout the entire show is that of you may set out with good intentions, but things do not always end up the way you expect. For example, King Midas is granted a wish by a god. He wishes that everything he touches be turned to gold. Midas wanted to become richer which is why he wanted everything he touched to turn to gold. But he accidentally turned his daughter to gold and realized that though he had good intentions in his wish, it did not turn out well.
One connection to our AP Lit class is the idea of lots of outside forces contributing to our identities (this idea comes from A.O. Scott). In one of the acts, Alcyone, daughter of Poseidon, warns her husband Ceyx not to sail far away because she knows Posedion will send the winds onto his ship. Ceyx, thinking that is ridiculous, reassures his wife that everything will be fine when he is at sea. Poseidon decides to send the winds on Ceyx killing him. This outside factor that Alcyone warned Ceyx about ends up changing the identity and demeanor of Alcyone. She becomes presumably depressed and a widow always hoping her husband will come back. With mercy from the gods, another outside force shaping their identities, the two are reunited and turned into birds flying over the ocean. Both the decision of Poseidon and the mercy of the gods are factors that neither Alcyone nor Ceyx expected, but ultimately shaped their identities. I think of the three excerpts I have read, I found this third one the most interesting. Stephen Greenblatt wrote mainly about the strange switch that occurred at the start of the sixteenth century from a holistic view on life to a more individualized view. He said “in the sixteenth century there appears to be an increased self consciousness about the fashioning of human identity as a manipulable, artful process” (2). That is the strange switch that I’m talking about. I’m not exactly sure what made people change.
I made another connection to both of the other readings. Greenblatt mentioned “the experiences of being molded by forces outside one’s control” which made me think of the uncontrollable factors that create our likes and dislikes as Scott was talking about. But it also made me think how Berger was describing how kids walking into pre-k usually shut down a little and stop asking so many questions because of the overwhelming amount of new circumstances. Another interesting point I was drawn to was Greenblatt’s description of literature. He said that literature can be considered under one of three categories. First it could be a “manifestation of the concrete behavior of its particular author” (4), or it could be an “expression of the code by which behavior is shaped” (4), and finally it could be “a reflection upon those codes” (4). I think each of those categories well encompasses any type of writing. Now when I write, I want to start categorizing my work in the same manner. In the Epilogue, Greenblatt was talking about an experience he had with a father while on a plane. The father was on his way to visit his ill son who had given up on life. He asked Greenblatt to mime words so he could practice reading lips. Greenblatt was asked to mime “I want to die” but Greenblatt couldn’t because he felt “to be asked, even by an isolated, needy individual to perform lines that were not my own, that violated my sense of my own desires, was intolerable” (256). He went on later to say that he didn’t want to mime those words because he thought it would bring him bad luck later. I think that really goes to speak to his character as a whole. But it also proves his main point he was trying to get across; your identity is yours alone and yes it can be influenced by others, but it is yours to keep up. While common-placing about this section, I tried too stick to the same manner of note taking. This time, I did not really add many pictures to this section. Mainly because there wasn’t much to doodle about. Greenblatt talked more about bigger ideas that couldn’t be expressed in small drawings. And I am not that good of an artist to be able to draw all of those abstract concepts. Just as I have felt after the past two readings, this reading tells me that we are going to tackle complex concepts during this class. I am ready for the challenge and cannot wait to force myself out of my comfort zone to learn. A more beautiful question by Warren Berger really made me think about how I was raised. I have been lucky enough to go to Galloway where questions are invited and sometimes people are frowned upon for not asking them. But not all people have been given that opportunity. Berger mentioned a lot in the beginning of this writing that young children are always asking questions, but then it suddenly declines. He said that children ask about 40,000 questions between the ages of 2 and 5 because of their rapid brain growth.
One connection I made to Better Living Through Criticism was when Berger mentioned the overwhelming amount of stimulation that occurs in preschool. Children who have never been around that many other people for various backgrounds are forced together. This is the same stimulant rich environment that causes people to have differing opinions and likes/dislikes. So at the same time that the brains of young children are flooded with questions, they are starting to form their own opinions on life. Berger also talked a lot about the way schools teach children. Schools were originally built to pump out young adults who could go right into the workforce because that is what the world needed at the time. But now, when the world is focusing on moving forward, there is no need for cookie-cutter children who can’t think for themselves. There is no need for rote memorization. “It would make sense that we would want to trade in the factory/obedience model of schooling for more of a questioning model” (48), but why have we not done that yet. Yes, there are some schools, like Galloway, which have turned away from the ‘traditional’ style of teaching and learning, but it is not as widespread as it should be. Berger mentioned one revolutionary thinker, Meier, who started making classrooms a safe place for students to learn and ask questions themselves. In her schools, there was a 1% drop out rate through secondary school, while the average for the area was between 40% and 60%. All because she started a classroom built on the idea that, “when you give kids more freedom to pursue what they’re interested in, they become easier to control” (53). Not control in a way of forcing them to learn a certain way, but control in terms of all having the same goal of learning. While I was common-placing about A More Beautiful Question, I continued to use the method that I found worked for me best after my last blog post. I mainly used quotes, with a few personal notes, along with sketches that connected to my quote. Midway through, I started using colorful pens but the colors have no significance. I just got bored of using a black pen all the time and having no color. I think I am going to continue this method of common-placing throughout the summer and when I get into the school year. It seems to work well for me and is very organized. Based upon this reading, I have a feeling we will be asking a lot of questions about everything we do. I think reading this has prepared me to go forth and ask the questions that need to be asked. I am still looking forward to the class and cannot wait to start questioning everything.
|
Archives
December 2019
Categories |