In “The Rise of English” Terry Eagleton maps and analyzes the rise in popularity of English literature as a subject in its own right, stating that its meteoric growth in popularity  intentionally parallels  England’s “failure of religion” at the end of the 19^th century. To Eagleton “literature…is an ideology,” and is one which in his opinion has the ability to replace religion as an “extremely effective form of ideological control.” Literature, Eagleton believes, works similarly to religion in the way that it works “much less by explicit concepts or formulated doctrines than by image, symbol, habit, ritual and mythology.” Both literature and religion are capable of operating at every social level –containing both ideas meant for the ‘intellectual elite’ and also more simplistic brands for ‘the masses,’ also Eagleton states how both religion and literature exert “a pacifying influence, fostering meekness, self-sacrifice and the contemplative inner life.” For example, Eagleton goes on to show how literature gives the reader a humanizing perspective and “could provide a potent antidote to political bigotry and ideological extremism” as literature tends to deal in universal human values rather than class dividing issues. Where religious influence shows its shortcomings for contemporary society, Eagleton views literature will be more than able to fill the gaps “to provide the social cement…by which socially turbulent class-society can be welded together.”

While I believe Eagleton reaches some important points in defining crucial similarities between organized religion and the reading of English literature, I highly doubt there will ever be a point in human history where literature will be seen as a substitute for the benefits many people turn to religious practice in order to attain. For instance, religion is turned to usually for belief in some sort of ‘higher power’ Who ultimately has our best interests at heart and is ‘in control’. Despite whatever “universal human values” a piece of literature may allude to, it will never be able to evoke the ‘power of God’ very ingrained within the ideology of religious faith. Also the idea that if reading were to replace religion as a building block of society, it would be sure to “distract the masses from their immediate commitments, nurturing in them a spirit of tolerance and generosity” seems like a naïve notion to me. Perhaps I am missing something, but I am fairly certain that if one has a pressing concern on one’s mind such as living within an unjust governmental system, or failing to make enough of a living to provide food for one’s family, one would not be able to simply open a copy of “Great Expectations” and feel at ease with his existence. Eagleton however, seems to think otherwise stating “an impoverishment bred by social conditions can be supplemented by literature: instead of working to change such conditions…you can vicariously fulfill someone’s desire for a fuller life by handing them “Pride and Prejudice” at this notion I just scoff, for ‘living vicariously through’ literature cannot surely be the overall intent of literature, and although this type of society would most definitely lead to a passive and meek civilization, I would think humans are too impassioned a breed to ever let it begin to exist in the first place.

In Chapter 1 of Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction, Culler invites readers to slowly wade into the question and definition of theory. This introduction is great for undergrads. Although, had this introduction been the course description, one wonders what the class size would look like. That is not to claim that either numbers would rise because the inquiring minds of students’ would be piqued, or drop due to the disruption of the status quo in the feeble minds of naive college students. Either way, ready or not, English 306 will now take the reins from Culler and Foucault in questioning the effect of historical constructions on our social consciousness in the form of common sense. Beyond common sense, Culler defines theory as thoughtful reevaluation of the way we think and the effects of discourse from other disciplines.

In the excerpt of Culler’s Very Short Introduction to literary theory, he also introduces readers to two prominent authors who have done theory. He dissects Foucault’s History of Sexuality and Derrida’s analysis of Rousseau’s view’s of supplementation in order to paint readers a portrait of what theory can look like before giving a concise (if inconclusive by the nature of theory) definition of theory in four points.

So if Foucault’s book is an example of theory, and Culler says it is, the reader must ask why. It conveniently satisfies his standards for what theory is. His argument would be weak if it did not. Foucault’s work is an example of theory because it questions the origin of sex. It claims that the modern view of sex is a historical construction. His work compounds on this by declaring that the powerful groups of society defined sex and then used their power to hide what they had done. The powerful groups, namely “doctors, clergy, novelists, psychologists, moralists, social workers, politicians,” (Culler 4) bestowed a power upon sex and removed themselves from the creation of the idea of sex according to Foucault. This is speculative because it is not a common sense view. It is theory because it calls into question the formation of what is considered a common sense view. It is theory because it attempts to trace a common sense view to its creation. If a ‘common sense’ view had to be created, it is theory because it questions whether societal views on sex and sexual identity are even common sense.

The second example of theory is of an entirely different form and subject matter. I am struggling with why Culler says this is theory. Is Derrida’s analysis of Rousseau theory because it shows a stark difference between what Rousseau says in writing and what he actually (read: probably) means? Derrida finds that he “says” that writing is nonessential to thought and speech, but actually cannot express himself without this supplement. Derrida further claims that in relationships as well as speech, Rousseau needs supplements whether or not the thing being supplemented is present. Is scrutinizing Rousseau’s ideas for trends that transcend writing and loving theory?

Reading Jonathan Culler first talks about theory; first, in the sense of definition. The beginning of this reading wants to give the reads the basic idea of what theory is talking about how we traditionally define it as and uses the example of Laura and Michael slitting up. This example then leads to the difference of theory as a speculation and theory as a non-obvious explanation, which of course in the English language, some words usually have more than one meaning. Having read this section of the article, I followed along with what Culler is writing about when he talks about theory. My confusion of how theory is involved with literature is much later into the reading.

Shortly after speaking of definitions, it still stays along the subject of English as it speaks of literary studies when theory is brought up as genre, “The philosopher Richard Rorty speaks of a new, mixed genre that began in the nineteenth century: ‘Beginning in the days of Goethe and Macaulay… a new kind of writing has developed… neither the evaluation of the relative merits of literary productions, nor intellectual history, nor moral philosophy…” This is where I get slight confused, but not entirely lost, when philosophy is mentioned a little. Further reading, I understood how theory is used in literary studies being complied of many things like problems of academic philosophy and about the body. After this part of the reading, that is where I became confused when it talks about the effects of theory and authors talking about ‘sex.’

To me, Culler completely took a different approach to where he talks about the effects of theory and authors and their written works talking about sex. The effects of theory leads into the topic of ‘sex.’ I know that the issue of ‘sex’ relates to the topic of theory (because if not why would he put it in the reading),  “The notion of ‘sex’ made it possible to group together, in an artificial unity, anatomical elements, biological functions, conduct…” but how exactly does it. I can see how it relates to literary studies because sex is not about just the physical aspect, but it also the orientation of a person, biological functions, etc. Moreover in the reading, the point of sex then going into power and knowledge is where I was absolutely lost. Foucault and Derrida conclusion of theory involving sex is something that I need to read more than once and analyze the text around it more in depth.

I know that towards the end of this reading explains the meaning of the entire context, but like I previously said I will have to read Culler again to understand theory, but to also help me out with the rest of this semester in this course.

T.S Eliot’s “Tradition and the Individual Talent” takes a closer look at the meaning of tradition and how it is inflicted into writing.  Eliot comes across as critical of the way tradition is viewed amongst critics (readers) as well as writers.

For example, he discusses a common disposition in which we, as critics shine the brightest lights on the parts of a piece of work which is the “most different” from the work of others in his field.  We nod approvingly towards something that is unlike anything we’ve seen before (in terms of art), in regards to the author’s predecessors.  Eliot emphasizes that is it not simply the predecessors but the immediate predecessors and goes on to say “we endeavor to find something that can be isolated in order to be enjoyed.”  He is saying as a critic or a reader, we earnestly await something that is exclusive of its genre.  The problem itself lies in the fact that we are blinded by this hope for exclusivity that we are unaware of the fact that the past fuels what we call tradition.

Eliot states, “If we approach a poet without this prejudice we shall often find that not only the best, but the most individual parts of his work may be those in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most vigorously.”  In other words, what we find different and special about the piece, has actually been “done before.”  And by done before, I mean that it is not unique or original but bears strong influences from the past.

While it seems obvious that Eliot is an advocate for crediting the past with the basis of what we consider tradition, I believe that individual talent in itself can also maintain its own ground.  Influence is present, yes, but Eliot is quite harsh is squashing the prospect of individual talent surpassing the talent and tradition of past artists of any sort.   One interesting portion of the essay is when he quotes “someone” who said, “The dead writers are remote from us because we know so much more than they did.”  In response to this, Eliot says, “Precisely, and they are that which we know.”  He basically makes it seem as if one is incapable of coming with original work in this day and age, when not every single thing is fueled by methods used in the past.  Although “dead writers” make up a large part of what we know (their works and histories) it doesn’t remain all we know.  Writers can derive from it and be creative from within themselves.

Furthermore, Eliot delves deeper into the process of obtaining tradition.  It cannot simply be passed down but he says, “…you must obtain it by great labour.”  I can agree with this because the past must be considered but then again as I mentioned above, it is not the only thing to be considered.  However, I do agree once again with Eliot’s notion in which he states, “What is to be insisted upon is that the poet must develop or procure the consciousness of the past and that he should continue to develop this consciousness throughout his career.”  The consciousness of the past, or the awareness of the great works of the past is crucial for the success of all present and future writers. Eliot strengthens his argument and uses the example of Shakespeare using “source material” from the ideas and knowledge of Plutarch.  It makes us wonder what would great writers be without having this consciousness?  Would Shakespeare be what he is to the literary world without having this awareness? Progress cannot be made without this awareness. The title of the essay makes it clear that tradition and the individual talent are related, however I find myself neither completely agreeing or disagreeing with Eliot’s theory.

In “The Rise of English”, Terry Eagleton discusses a plethora of conflicting opinions, all masked as his own, regarding the standing and significance of English literature in society dating back to the 19th century. This is done when he cites literature as a suitable substitute for religion as the “cement” that holds the separate classes of people together and unites them on a single front, in addition to fulfilling the “need for a sense of national mission and identity”. All the while, he clarifies that literature has no permanence as a means of expressing deeply intellectual thoughts and major, possibly controversial, concerns and is predominantly a tool to “delight and instruct us”. These opposing beliefs are perhaps highlighted in this way to show the reader the complicated nature of literature, as well as its ever-changing role in our respective cultures.

I could not help but shift focus from the primary message in Eagleton’s essay to the peculiar way in which he constructed the sentences he used to convey that message. My curiosity was sparked by phrases such as “deep-seated a-rational fears and needs” that highlight his personal aversions to religion and its followers and the fact that it is an institution “closed to rational demonstration”. He shows his dislike for unquestioned thoughts and ideas put forward in the name of beliefs and for their use as a “pacifying influence” to calm whatever chaos may arise from members of the public who are on a path of true enlightenment. However, Eagleton expresses obvious delight at the period of time when it became apparent that religion was “no longer cutting it”, as they say, in suppressing the masses.

Eagleton also conveys hope when he says that, “[literature] could provide a potent antidote to political bigotry and ideological extremism”, a considerably hefty statement to make, showing he truly believes in the cleansing powers of studying English. This contradicts what he says later on in the text: “It is not the business of literature to communicate such beliefs directly”. At this point, I just wanted to understand what Eagleton’s opinion was. What was literature good for? Give me one coherent thought, please. The whole piece appeared to be a very eloquent verbalization of his stream of consciousness, if such a thing can and does exist.

As Eagleton spoke at length about the “feminine aspect” of the academic study of English and the hesitance of institutions and their leaders to consider it one of the “Greats”, as well as his mention that “the classicists [are] hardly keen to have this pathetic parody of themselves around”, a very specific image came to mind: that of the new kid in school, with his unfamiliar presence and an aura of mystery that envelops him and spreads unprovoked dislike and fear into the school children surrounding him, and thus pushing them to alienate him, keeping him from ever feeling fully accepted and appreciated. Although literature is, time and time again, showing itself to be a major contender in the field of intellectual conversational topics and focused scholarly examination, it is still regarded with much suspicion and a lack of seriousness.

As you can see in the syllabus, you are responsible for making regular posts to this blog.  I do this in lieu of the kind of “response papers” many of my colleagues assign (and until recently I did to).  Why?

1. Blogging is sharable: rather than have a private circuit between you and me, we have a much more dynamic conversation across the entire class.

2. Blogging in public, sort of: I like the idea that we are responsible for our ideas in front of broader audiences.  In practical terms, I doubt anyone is listening in most of the time, but I think it’s important that we roll up our sleeves and defend our arguments in an open and public forum as often as possible.  And of course, you can show your family/friends/pets what we’ve been up to in class.

3. Blogging is sturdy: rather than forget the piece of paper once it’s been handed back, we can link back to prior statements or observations, or to each others.

4. Blogging is responsive: rather than only getting comments from me, you’ll comment on and get comments on each other’s work.

So what are you responsible for doing for Tuesday?  I want something short and pithy, about 400-800 words.  I want it to engage some part of the text (any or all of the readings by Eliot, Culler, and Eagleton).  I want it to have quotations and what we English types call “close reading”: careful attention not just to what is said, but how it is constructed.

Also, don’t be afraid to express confusion, doubt, frustration, and the like, so long as you do so via close encounters with the text that’s confounding you.  Rather than just throw up your hands and say “I don’t get it,” say “here’s what I don’t quite get” and/or “I’m not sure, but I think the text is saying X and Y” or “I’m not clear on how Z is working, but I find the following aspects of it interesting in some way.”

Below you’ll find an example of a good response with my comments in the margins.  It’s one that I mocked up myself, so don’t feel like this is the bar that I’m setting for you, especially the first time.  I just want you to see what a pretty good one looks like, so you know where the bar is.  DUE TUESDAY, 9/3 AT CLASS TIME.

[scribd id=164214939 key=key-2008aqo3h9215wi7sjm mode=scroll]