Ken Rufo Responce

First off I would like to thank Ken Rufo for a great post. You had some really great examples that allowed me to understand Baudriarrd or at least get a grasp on what he was trying to say. The first thing that I would talk about is the Matrix. I have not yet finsihed the movie but from what I have seen I got the impression that what it is trying to say is that we cannot see the real. That everything around us is built. The matrix is a program that was designed for people to not be able to see what the world truly is. It is kind of like Alagory of the cave. In the story a philosper takes a man out of the darkness and tries to show him the realities of the world. It is kind of like a Marxist opinion of the world. What Ken was saying is that Marxists believe that everything is created by our surroundings but what Baudirarrd is saying is that even that isn't real. He is saying that nothing around us is real even the things that are supposivly socialy constructed are not real. Everything around us just continues to go from signifier to signifier. A quote that i like from Ken Rufo's discussion is "What he does say is that the mass production of objects and the general flow of wealth is making it possible, more and more, for people of lower classes to "simulate" living like people in the upper classes" (Rufo). It really helped me to understand what he was trying to say. What he is saying is that everything that we buy and consume is just making us believe that we are truly living. By buying things it is simulating life.

The Author

I have decided to talk about "The Death of the Author". I feel it is best to explain a liberal humanists view of an author first. A liberal humanist belives that the author should have nothing to do with the plot of the story and the morals of the story. The author and the background never relate to anthing that is being told in the work of literature. The author is not of meaning. In "Death of the Author" Barthe's takes a Post-Structuralist view of this liberal humanist concept. The term scripter is presented in this concept. The scripter replaces the author. According to Barthe the scripter "transcibes the culture". It also means that there is no origin other than language. Barthe belives that in this view we never know who is speaking and the the reader becomes the source. All identitiy of the autor is lost in this theory. The conecept of the "I" no longer exisits in this post-structuralist view. Like a post-strucrualist Barthe also believes that nothing is ever signified it is just a constant sinfier signifier and so on. I am still reall confused however on how the reader becomes the source. I know that I would explain it as the reader takes meaning from the story but i know that is wrong so therefore I am left confused by this theory.
http://centerofgravitas.blogspot.com/search?q=author
I found this article on the Blog of center of gravitas. This blog discussed that Jk Rowling came out with a statment after the Harry potter books were finished that the character of dumbeldore was gay. She seems to think that it was unessacary to put that statement out after the book was already written. The author of this blog feels that if she was going to make the character gay Rowling should have done it in the book itself. The blog author leaves me to belive that she has a liberal humanist view on the author. That the author should have nothing to do with the story and that the stroy should just tell itself without the help of the author. She also believes that if Dumbeldore was going to be a "queer hero" it would have been better to put it in the book becasue that is the only way he would have been a hero to the audience reading them. She believes there is no signifcance in know this fact after the book has been written. The author of this blog clearly has a liberal humanist view on the author or at least the HArry Potter books.

Dreams and Freud

Something that has always fasanated me is dreams. I often record and look up my own dreams. Freud says that the images tht we see in our head while we are dream are not exactly what these dreams mean. "Materical has to be turned into this form for dreams, since dreams don't say things they show things" (Barry 99). For example if you were to dream about shoes the shoe would have a deeper meaning you would not acctualy be dreaming about shoes. He also says that we always dream about our represed diesires which means that we dream about what we secretly and unconsiously want. I thought it would be cool to analyize one of my own dreams according to Freud. A few night ago I had a dream that my sister had a baby girl. Dreams according to Freud are broken down into a few parts. The first being association. Babies are oftern associated with the new, new advernture and new begingings. I had this dream the night before I started rehearsal for a new show witch would definatly make sence. To be honest I have no idea what it means that my sister was having a baby and not me if my life was taking a new turn. But perhaps that baby girl was me. If i was the one having the new beginging then what better way to start off new then to be born again. Analyzing my dreams is somthing that i do on a regualr basis because I find it so fasnating.
Something else that I found intersting in the Freud section was the freudian slip. I must say that I have oftern done this. According to Barry it is "whereby repressed materical in the unconsciousfinds an outlet through such everyday phenomena as slips of the tounge, slips of the pen, or unintended actions" (Barry 98). For example one time I was reading in class and the word was organism and I said the word orgasim. EMBARACING! But i can think of at least 4 people who have done the same exact thing.

"the bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary"

Ok so I am going to try and make some sence out of "the statement the bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary" (35). So first off the signifier is the sound or image we get when someone uses language. The signified is the concept or idea you get when you hear or see this image. In structuralism you cannot have one without the other. So for example when you hear the word cat you think of its opposite dog. They are both arbitary or random from each other. Structuralist Theory says that you cannot think language with thinking about the opposite such as sun and moon. One does not exist without the other. When trying to think of a show that would display this theory I trying to think of a show that had two opposite characters and I came up with Midsummer. In that show we have Theseus and Hippolyta. Theseus is a represented by night and Hippolyta by day. There are many quotes in the text that use qualites of day and night to descibe them. Each character would not have the same dynamic power without he other one yet they are random opposites.
When you throw Post-Structuralist into the mix it really just throws everything off. In this case signifier is never signified because nothing you get from the text is ever correct. It is an endless line of unstable questions to be asked about what the literature is saying. It just keeps defering the "morals" that you see in structuralist theory. Honestly I have no examples for this in the theatre world. If any theater geeks out there had any examples I would love to hear from you!

Responce to Christopher Craig

So first off may I say that I remember you talking about the pants story in persuasive statigies last semister and I remember secertly thinking that I did not really understand completly what you were talking about. Probably because I didn't really have a good understanding of what Marxism really was. After talking about it in class I now understand that story a lot better then I did last year. Although I still do not know what exactly "Robin's Il Penser" is. I am a believer that the society around us molds who we are. It is inevitable that we as humans will be influenced by our surroundings. But for a person to think that buying a pair of jeans and a book makes them radical is a completly ridculous thought to me. It reminds me of many trends that we have seen in the past few years. The one that jumps into my mind is the Live Strong Bracletts. At first it was a statement to help battle cancer. Celeberties would wear them and soon it became such a trend that you had to buy them on e-bay for 20 times the price meaning that none of the money went to cancer but instead to the person who bought the bracelt for a dollar and made 19 dollars on it. The bracelts lost all meaning and became just a trend. When you put a book about communism next to a trendy pair of jeans the book automaticaly becomes a trend and therefore loses the meaning that the author was trying to express to the reader. I guarntee you that many people walked into that store saw the pants and immidently picked up the book to skim it. Yet if the book had been in the corner of the store it was definatly less likely to have been picked up by the shoper that day. Overall I think that is a terrible thing and the worst part it that I know what store you are talking about without you having to say it.

Marxist vs Liberal Humanism

Ok so this is where I make an attempt to figure out what these two theories actually mean so if I ramble I apologize. I was trying to keep with the theme of my blog which is Theatre and Theory and was having a bit of trouble using a play comparison for the Liberal Humanist Theory. So I decided to come up with a really good one for the Marxist Critic one.
What Marxist Critics are saying about literary texts is that they are a product of economic social and political circumstances. It also says that people should belong as a whole rather then as an individual and that everyone should be on an “equal playing field”. The play that immediately came to my mind was the play A Streetcar Named Desire by Williams. The play was written in the 1950’s and is a play that directly affects the aftermath effects of the lower class struggling to survive after WWII. The 1940’s for a hard time economically because we were recovering from the war and the book clearly reflects that. One thing is that Stanly is clearing a working class man struggling to live meal to meal. He lives in a small house that barely has one bedroom and a kitchen. The refection of the history and the economy in this play proves that according to Marxist Criticism this is a literary text.
Marxist criticism very much differs from liberal humanism. Liberal Humanism says that literature teaches the reader the truth about life. It teachers the significance of timeless literature and art and that people are individuals. Overall I would say that would be the biggest and most important difference between the two theories. Marxist Critics think that in order to live in a perfect world everyone has to be part of a group and equal to the other. It is a communism rather than a Capitalist Society. Liberal Humanism says that you need to be an individual not part of a group. Also in Liberal Humanism things like historical and autobiographical information are not important. From what I can understand they should have no effect on how one reads or views the art. The reader should never consider who wrote the play, and how the time it was written would affect the writing. See I completely disagree with this theory. Considering who wrote the work of literature is very important to me. I mean you can’t read the Great Gatsby and not recognize that it is about the 1920’s and is a refection of that time period. Also you can’t read the diary of Anne Frank and not consider who was writing it and why she was writing it. I think its my theater background. When I read new things I always think about why they would write it or how does this reflect the time. To me the analysis is very important when considering what great literature really is.

My First Blog

My name is Jenna Malavasi and I am currently a Jr here at Emmanuel. I am a double major in Theatre and English Literature. I am currently directing my own show here at Emmanuel called "The Town Mouse Country Mouse Musical". This is my first class that directly focuses on theory but not the first time that I have ever been exposed to the concept of theory. While taking Persuasive Stratiges with Christopher Craig we explored many theories such as Marxism. I have also taken classes that have discused music theory. I have decided to that for my blog I would take the theroryies that we are learning about in class and apply it to plays and shows that I have seen or read. When I think of theory I think of complexity. Theories to me are ideas that can be taken and applyed to things in our everyday life. That is why I have chosen to apply these theories to something in my everyday life, theater. I feel that bringing the two together will give me a greater understanding of both. The whole purpose of my studying English was to connect my love of Literature with my love of theater and to learn how to bring the two together. I hope to come put with a greater understanding or theory, espically how it relates to plays and theater.