Scattered Thoughts

Hey you guys. I loved all the posts. They're great. Ben, the who I was speaking of was the different books and authors I was reading, but it's great how you took that and made it something new. Anna I really liked your comment on RR theory. At first, I was a little put off, mainly, I think, because I have never heard of RR theory and so the name meant little to me. For me it seemed to much like an attempt at a solution or answer to a question which clearly has no answer. But, then I read your own description of RR theory, as spiderwebs connecting the authors, the texts, and at the center the reader. Or maybe, there are many readers that are merely different points within the larger spiderweb. It was, I thought, a beautiful and compelling image. In many ways, it seems that this is the heart of the project of literary studies. My thesis advisor always would ask of his students, "that's a nice idea, but what does it do?" Ultimately it seems to me that any theory of literary analysis be it psychoanalytic, historical, RR, postmodern, or any other theory of which I am completely ignorant is valuable not for its inherent truth or rightness as compared to any other, but for the way in which it inspires the individual to a better or newer or even just different understanding of the text, and through the text him or herself and the world around him or her. Personally this is why I have never cared much who Shakespeare was. At the same time, if someone were to discover that Shakespeare was a woman it might allow for entirely new readings of the plays. At the same time, it seems to me that the readings, if valuable, should be acceptable even if Shakespeare wasn't a woman. My understanding, having never actually read, is that this is essentially what Virginia Woolf does in "A room of her own." Those are my ramblings about literary theory. In thinking about "spiderwebs," I was fascinated by how compelling both Ben and I clearly found the metaphor. Through this somewhat circuitous route, I started thinking about metaphors. My Milton teacher made the fascinating point to me that a metaphor is the construction of a counterfactual relationship. What he meant was that for example when an author says, "my love is like a rose," the reader is presented with a counterfactual relationship between "my love" and "a rose." The author is not in love with a red flower, and it would be ludicrous to interpret him or her this way. At the same time, we all, as readers, understand that the author refers to his or her love's fragile beauty as well as dangerous thorns. Here language is used to represent things as they aren't to better communicate things as they are. For Milton, this was evidence of our own fallen status and our fallen language. In paradise, Milton believed, metaphor and simile were not possible; language held a direct connection to reality. Things were as they seemed and as one said they were. Thus there was no room for deceit or lies. At the same time it seems to me that there was little room for art. It is fascinating to me that what we find compelling involves these tiny lies. If an author was to describe his or her love in minute detail down to the color of her toe nail, we, as readers, would find it less compelling, less true, than the simple statement "my love is like a rose." So, these are just rambling thoughts of mine. I also have some great quotes from Brothers that I'll try to post. P.S. Ben, how do you put in enters (hard returns I think) and tabs.