Repent, the End is Near!

Taking literary theory alongside a literature course (American Voices) has enabled me to use much of what I learned in AV as a backdrop to my theoretical studies. Being able to realize that Sarah Margaret Fuller participated in the first wave of feminism and her writing reflects the implications of that time period of the movement changed the way I read the piece- feminist rather than transcendental. Being able to compare early feminist writings to more contemporary ones really helped me understand the theory, too. And, what would my semester have been without the torture and subsequent triumph of tackling only a small piece of Foucault? Learning that "author's intention" means nothing- and that if Mark Twain was a racist, it doesn't mean that his author function was too.

I've enjoyed reading Cloud 9 much more than Mantissa. I feel like Mantissa was a book written for people who have a knowledge of theory, which is enormously pretentious and sort of obnoxious to read. I like Cloud 9, because the theories presented are clearly identifable and problematic, and interesting and discussable, but I think my 16 year old sister could pick up the book and we could talk about it. Whereas Mantissa might make her innocent eyes bleed.


And the blog was ok, too. I still am suspicious of the medium, because its DISCURSIVE!!! but I didn't hate keeping it, although it was much easier to have it in by 10 pm than 5 pm. I don't think I'm a blogger, still, and I do believe that it takes a significant level of self-interest to publish one (sometimes I read ones that make me grab my hair and scream WHO CARES WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC or something along those lines), but I also recognize the fact that I read them, so, basically, I must care about what he thinks about asian woman drivers applying lipstick at green lights.

I also love Dooce.com. If there was one, totally one-hundred percent positve thing I got from this class, it was Dooce.com. Heather Armstrong never disappoints. Check it out if you haven't yet.

I've also been trying to think of a practical role all this stuff can take in my life. I think it probably might not directly have one, though. I'm not going to make theory my career, but postcolonialism and probably feminism will directly contribute to my career, but theory didn't TEACH me stuff, it made me REALIZE stuff. It's not career training, unless I want to be the next Derrida (which I don't), but I think it helps tear down some perspective-limiting walls.

For me, learning theory has been like waxing my eyebrows. Sticky and kind of dreadful and uncomfortable and irritating, but something that needs to be done, and left me satisfied with the end results. I'm prettier and more refined now that I've finished this class.

More on the author function and blogging

So after Dr Crazy responded to my post about the author function, I did a little extra research on it and decided that it was applicable to blogging (after some really serious hemming, hawing and panicking because the paper is due in 3 days) because if I met a blogger, I'd want to know more about them. I can't claim to know who Heather B. Armstrong is, I just know Dooce. I'm friends with Dooce, not Heather. I know she's constantly constipated, but I would never know what to get her for her birthday. The same goes for most other kinds of blogs. We know what these bloggers have to say about politics, theory, life in general, but we don't (and can't claim to) KNOW them.

This reader's guide from a theory class at Lawrence University was really helpful-

http://www.lawrence.edu/dept/english/courses/60A/handouts/author.html

I will also have to address the "Founders of Discursivity" bit, which is what I think was referred to in the comments section with regard to Virginia Woolf. It's put a lot of things in a new sort of perspective...

Anyway. Its coming along. Discursively though, because I'm not an authority, but am desperately trying to look like one.

author function, blogging and the public

My friend Mark recently witnessed a powerpoint presentation regarding blogging and how it could be the way that the Rest Of Us get our news in the future. This worries me for a number of reasons- it struck me that if blogs become our news outlets (and granted, I find little to no validity in the statement) then our already politicized lives can be posted and edited, just like Wikipedia. Then we read Foucault, and learned that the author function of the blogs are different than the people who technically attach their names to the writing itself. We don't "know" these people, so are they trustworthy individuals? I mean, granted, I didn't "know" Peter Jennings, but being an anchor for 20+ years gives someone more cred than some Webgeek typing his or her opinions and having anyone with a computer read that as "news".

My worry is that people will begin to take blogs as seriously as we do the BBC and the implications of this new medium. As I've been reading blogs, I tend to find those people who really think that commenting on the post, disagreeing with the blogger and verging (and sometimes crossing into) the profane. These people take the medium very seriously, clearly, and feel the need to editorialize on editorials that they think are news.

Furthermore, can we "type" people who engage in this kind of commentary? What is their author function? Are they really the people that they portray on the Internet, or are they using the anonymity of the Internet to be aggressive? Can we theorize blogs, and if so, what combination of theories would that include?

Holy...wow...

So, I was poking around my new MOZILLA FIREFOX browser that I FINALLY downloaded so I could use blogger shortcuts to link (it took two days for the thing to install properly, so I am excited) and it has an option to explore the "latest headlines" so I did, and this was the first one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6545115.stm

Outrage at India Menstrual Form

"Women civil servants in India have expressed shock at new appraisal rules which require them to reveal details of their menstrual cycles."

This is what we were talking about in class yesterday! Reproductive habits becoming property and business of the government. This information has little bearing on the capability of a woman to do her work, unless she has a medical condition that is in conjunction with her menstrual cycle. Seriously, unless the government starts collecting information for male employees' last erection and subsequent ejaculation (amount of fluid in ccs, etc), they have no right to ask how many tampons a woman goes through in a 28-32 day cycle. Furthermore, isn't menstruation "yucky"? I mean, I give them credit for being able to discuss the matter but, honestly. We don't need to polarize the sexes any more, and requiring reports on menstrual cycles is really opening women up to a certain vulnerability concerning a process on which they have no control. The reason that men would require a report on menstrual experiences is really interesting- they don't get them (and i hope to god they dont WANT a period) and every single reproductively functioning woman gets it. It clearly doesn't affect ability because all women get periods and this sort of levels that playing field, unless there are the aforementioned medical conditions. This will will not evaluate fitness, like the government claims. If these reports show anything, it will be that physically, men and women are not equal, which i hope they already knew. It will just polarize a "physical inferiority" and point out yet another difference between men and women.

Wow.

Baudrillard-how is this not Day One Economics/History/English 101?

I think of all the theories we have studied, this discussion has been the most applicable to life (or at least Mr. Rufo has provided us with some fantastic examples). His strains of thought are disputed, that was made clear in the second paragraph, I'd like to challenge a person to find a radical and groundbreaking theorist who had their ideas accepted into the mainstream of literary theory without a significant amount of back-and-forth, are they or aren't they right discussion. That Baudrilard seems to be all over the place, both denying a theory then celebrating it, shows to me, that at the very least, the man knows his theory (in general).
The business about the Economy of the Sign was particularly thought-provoking. Because generics are so prevalant in our world these days, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, the idea of different brand stamps on the same pills and which one is privilidged is interesting to me, as well as somewhat ahead of his time. Here, I thought the Tommy Hilfiger example was interesting, and a tiny bit problematic because his name does not represent him, technically. It's his company, just like I'm sure Calvin Klein did not himself design and manfuacture the eyeglasses I am wearing now, though I understand the point of the statement. That we got that stuff, made from the same fabric as Old Navy or Target clothes, but because Tommy's fake signature is swished across the front, we fork over more money for it.

I like that Baudrillard addresses economic issues in his thoughts. His is an updated analysis of Marxism, which, I think, is a more applicable interpretation of that theory. Marx's writing, well, it's possible to say that something written in the mid to late 19th century might not fit easily into our existences. However, a more contemporary view could freshen Marxism, although at that point, do we call it Marxism? He was writing for a specific audience, and now, how has that audience (and their subsequent worldviews) changed?

The bit about analyses as self-fullfilling prophecy was a nice way to sum up my thoughts so far on theory. If this and this are true, then this will happen, no matter what. All philosophy is designed that way, it seems to me, to make it easier to accept. But, when some rouge theorist like Baudrillard comes and starts thinking about this stuff in new ways, it tends to ruffle some feathers. He seems, so far, to represent the guy that CROSSED THE LINE for a lot of thinkers. The guy that dared compare Marx and Saussure, then turned on a dime and drew question marks across the pages. This connecting theories helps explain both the stregnths of the arugments and the holes in them.

I might write more later, I have some time to think about this while folding Brand Name Tshirts Made In China.

eureka.

now that i actually understand the idea of the role of an "author" and what that word actually "means," i feel a little more comfortable with the removal of the entity from my experience. it also alleviates the responsibility placed upon ME because I am not my writing, my writing is merely a persona of myself. so, if i don't do well on this project, i won't take it too personally, since blog marie and real marie are different. this sort of stripping down can become problematic if you overthink it though (which i aways do) because every image of ourseves is a projection to be interpreted and analyzed with regard to what people already know about me. or something.

at first, this was horrifying and insulting, this removal of the author. the blood sweat and tear of these artists, just washed off their personal histories, given away to the masses by some AUTHORity on the pitfalls of authorship...foucoult...but as we discussed the "blame" aspect of the theory, and the idea that we seem to have to know about this stuff or else.

according to barthes (the theory not the man himself) the known author imposes a limit on a text - which is why bible analysis tends to be so extensive. we don't know who the author was, so we have no idea what his intentions were. we can offer guesses, which we do at legnth, but we don't really have any conclusive answers.

i've been reading this woman's blog, and i think that if her author function is anything like herself, i'd probably like her. i'm trying to explicate her life to some degree, through what she reveals through her blog (http://dooce.com/) but its tough, because it's anecdotal and these things really could have happened to anyone, but are compelling and charming (after i wrote that i found the about me section and it is so worth reading, she needs to write a book, although that would make her a TRUE AUTHOR with a BODY OF WORK embedded in LITERATURE heaven forbid). i am not this charming; she is the type of person i want to have an author function. i'm not this funny, not this pretty, not this clever. my roommates and i were in stitches reading this. AND SHES A MORMON. i am a bored, uninspired lapsed catholic. her experience as a fomer alcoholic mormon stay at home mom LA scum chick have given her this scope and this "dictionary" with which to write. i dont want people to read my blog, because i know they won't if people like her are writing better ones. its not my medium and i'm over it. she is a good blogger. i am not a blogger at all. my author is too functioning and present and not interesting enough for even me to read.

I just can't find the time to write my mind the way I want it to read

while i realize that punctuality is important, i am not prepared to write a blog on this stuff right now. i'd rather write a good post about the topics late than write something muddy and unsure on time. i've been reading the material, and i think its going to take a class for me to digest it. i've been reading other blogs though, and have come to the conclusion that i am not a blogger. it is really exhausting to read people's minds, which is what we're doing on blogs. i mean, seriously trying. that's what i am going to write about in connection with foucoult and barthes (just so you know i'm not posting BS at 4:44, i have it planned, i just need to make it sound before i go tossing it to the public) (which is what some of these bloggers that ive been searching really should do before they throw up all over the internet...ours are among the easiest to like that i've found, so good job).

explosions in the sky time, later babies.