Thursday, May 18, 2006
Chimpanzee and human ancestors may have interbred
Chimpanzee and human ancestors may have interbred the headline reads. Who sez it ever stopped? As the man on the 66 Chicago bus raged, "I've seen The Planet of the Apes. I know what you people are capable of."
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Coursepack Contents, Summer '06
My accomplishment for the day. Finished my xeroxing and dropped the Coursepack documents for this summer's English 105 class off at the printer's.
1. Auerbach, Erich. “The Brown Stocking.” Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Trans. Willard R. Trask. 50th anniversary ed. 1953. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003. 525–53.
2. Coover, Robert. “The Babysitter.” Pricksongs & Descants. New York: Plume, 1969. 206–39.
3. Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. “The Yellow Wallpaper.” 1899. College of Stanten Island Library, Stanten Island, NY. 16 May 2006. http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/history/lavender/yellowwallpaper.pdf
4. ___. “Why I Wrote The Yellow Wallpaper” 1913. College of Stanten Island Library, Stanten Island, NY. 16 May 2006. http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/history/lavender/yellowwallpaper.pdf
5. Kafka, Franz. “The Penal Colony.” The Complete Stories. Ed. Nahum N. Glatzer. New York: Schocken, 1971.
6. Kavanagh, James H. “Ideology.” Critical Terms for Literary Study, 2nd ed. Ed. Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. 306–20.
7. Mansfied, Katherine. “Bliss.” Arthur’s Classic Novels. 17 May 2006. http://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs/women2/blisso10.html
8. Poe, Edgar Allan. “The Purloined Letter.” The Selected Writings of Edgar Allan Poe. Ed. G.R. Thompson. New York: Norton, 2004.
9. McLaughlin, Thomas. “Figurative Language.” Critical Terms for Literary Study, 2nd ed. Ed. Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
10. Miller, J. Hillis. “Narrative.” Critical Terms for Literary Study, 2nd ed. Ed. Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. 66–79.
11. Nealon, Jeffrey, and Susan Searls Giroux. “Ideology.” The Theory Toolbox: Critical Concepts for the Humanities, Arts, & Social Sciences. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003.
12. Nietzsche, Friedrich. “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense.” From Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology. Ed. Lawrence Cahoone. Expanded 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003. 109–16.
13. Žižek, Slavoj. “Ideology Reloaded.” 6 June 2003. In These Times. 16 May 2006. http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/80/
14. ___. “Jack Bauer and the Ethics of Urgency.” 27 Jan. 2006. In These Times. 16 May 2006. http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2481/
1. Auerbach, Erich. “The Brown Stocking.” Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Trans. Willard R. Trask. 50th anniversary ed. 1953. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003. 525–53.
2. Coover, Robert. “The Babysitter.” Pricksongs & Descants. New York: Plume, 1969. 206–39.
3. Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. “The Yellow Wallpaper.” 1899. College of Stanten Island Library, Stanten Island, NY. 16 May 2006. http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/history/lavender/yellowwallpaper.pdf
4. ___. “Why I Wrote The Yellow Wallpaper” 1913. College of Stanten Island Library, Stanten Island, NY. 16 May 2006. http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/history/lavender/yellowwallpaper.pdf
5. Kafka, Franz. “The Penal Colony.” The Complete Stories. Ed. Nahum N. Glatzer. New York: Schocken, 1971.
6. Kavanagh, James H. “Ideology.” Critical Terms for Literary Study, 2nd ed. Ed. Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. 306–20.
7. Mansfied, Katherine. “Bliss.” Arthur’s Classic Novels. 17 May 2006. http://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs/women2/blisso10.html
8. Poe, Edgar Allan. “The Purloined Letter.” The Selected Writings of Edgar Allan Poe. Ed. G.R. Thompson. New York: Norton, 2004.
9. McLaughlin, Thomas. “Figurative Language.” Critical Terms for Literary Study, 2nd ed. Ed. Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
10. Miller, J. Hillis. “Narrative.” Critical Terms for Literary Study, 2nd ed. Ed. Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. 66–79.
11. Nealon, Jeffrey, and Susan Searls Giroux. “Ideology.” The Theory Toolbox: Critical Concepts for the Humanities, Arts, & Social Sciences. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003.
12. Nietzsche, Friedrich. “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense.” From Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology. Ed. Lawrence Cahoone. Expanded 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003. 109–16.
13. Žižek, Slavoj. “Ideology Reloaded.” 6 June 2003. In These Times. 16 May 2006. http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/80/
14. ___. “Jack Bauer and the Ethics of Urgency.” 27 Jan. 2006. In These Times. 16 May 2006. http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2481/
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Another Ideological Map...
This is what happens to your politics if you spend too much time in Sweden. Trustees and endowers of academic chairs: I swear that I'm more open to entrepreneurial innovation than this chart would indicate. Does this mean that I'm going to have to sign a loyalty oath?
| You are a Social Liberal (80% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (8% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test |
Friday, May 12, 2006
Reading Colbert: It's Time for Some Lit Crit
James Wood's essay MSM S&M is the smartest piece I've come across yet about Stephen Colbert's performance and the media's timid reporting on it.
"It is time--it is always time--for some literary criticism," Wood writes. Yes it is, sir. Yes it is.
And Wood's lit-crit approach enables him to make a crucial point. In response to the blogsphere's indignation at the lack of coverage of Colbert's performance, the MSM and Bush supporters responded by changing the subject. Colbert just wasn't funny, they protested. Thus, Wood opens strong by immediately distinguishing between "being funny" and being "ironic" and "satirical" before proceeding to justify Colbert's "brutal" tactics eloquently: "These issues are just too painful for humor."
Spot on, James. Spot on.
Wood proceeds to explain how reading the transcript of Colbert's routine differs from watching the performance and explains why the strongest moments in Colbert's act are precisely when he's not being funny and is speaking the ugly truth to the president, sitting a few feet away. But there's no need to summarize his essay. Go read it yourself.
I've been considering devoting a day, maybe two, in my Composition II course on media studies to discussing Colbert's performance. I thought the whole episode would fit it nicely in our discussions about media bias and provide some comic relief to what can be pretty dry stuff. I confess: I'd rather be teaching a course on literature, literary criticism, and theory. Thankfully, Woods piece provides me the opportunity to do a bit of lit crit: distinguishing between types of irony, the subversive potential of performative reiterations, etc..
So, thank you very much Mr. Wood.
I consider James Wood to be possibly the best literary journalist writing today. What makes him so good is that he is skilled as both a literary journalist and a literary critic. That is, he writes short (compared to an academic journal article) book reviews for a non-academic audience that manage to be packed with critical insights and claims supported with well reasoned evidence from the texts under consideration.
Unlike, say, Michiko Kakutani (who is probably the most powerful book reviewer in America), Wood's reviews aren't one dimensional. When Wood weighs in on a book, he does so by placing it within a larger literary framework where he can make comparisons. He's got a scholarly mind and the scholar's reservoir of knowledge, but he doesn't produce scholarship. Not that scholarship is bad, but within academia we need more eloquently written literary essays -- as opposed to the dry academese that is arguably becoming the norm -- and lord only knows that the arts and culture pages of our mass-circulation publications need more smart reviews.
(I have my own pet theories about why academics can sometimes write such dry, often obscure prose, and it's got everything do with the constraints imposed by a routinized, corporatized university with a "publish or perish" model of professionalism. But I'll save those for the proverbial faculty lounge.)
Having celebrated Wood's writing, let it be noted that I don't always agree with Wood. In fact, his preferred literary aesthetic is quite different and often opposed to mine. His assertion, for example, in a mixed review of Underworld, that the novel "proves... the incompatibility of the political paranoid vision with great fiction" wrongly conflates DeLillo's views with those espoused by his characters. Wood finds Underworld repetitive thematically, whereas I think he neglects to pick up on Underworld's subtlety, DeLillo's repetitions with a difference.
Fortunately, Wood is a much more attentive reader in the Colbert case. Would it be too much to insist that all professional journalists be such adept readers?
"It is time--it is always time--for some literary criticism," Wood writes. Yes it is, sir. Yes it is.
And Wood's lit-crit approach enables him to make a crucial point. In response to the blogsphere's indignation at the lack of coverage of Colbert's performance, the MSM and Bush supporters responded by changing the subject. Colbert just wasn't funny, they protested. Thus, Wood opens strong by immediately distinguishing between "being funny" and being "ironic" and "satirical" before proceeding to justify Colbert's "brutal" tactics eloquently: "These issues are just too painful for humor."
Spot on, James. Spot on.
Wood proceeds to explain how reading the transcript of Colbert's routine differs from watching the performance and explains why the strongest moments in Colbert's act are precisely when he's not being funny and is speaking the ugly truth to the president, sitting a few feet away. But there's no need to summarize his essay. Go read it yourself.
I've been considering devoting a day, maybe two, in my Composition II course on media studies to discussing Colbert's performance. I thought the whole episode would fit it nicely in our discussions about media bias and provide some comic relief to what can be pretty dry stuff. I confess: I'd rather be teaching a course on literature, literary criticism, and theory. Thankfully, Woods piece provides me the opportunity to do a bit of lit crit: distinguishing between types of irony, the subversive potential of performative reiterations, etc..
So, thank you very much Mr. Wood.
I consider James Wood to be possibly the best literary journalist writing today. What makes him so good is that he is skilled as both a literary journalist and a literary critic. That is, he writes short (compared to an academic journal article) book reviews for a non-academic audience that manage to be packed with critical insights and claims supported with well reasoned evidence from the texts under consideration.
Unlike, say, Michiko Kakutani (who is probably the most powerful book reviewer in America), Wood's reviews aren't one dimensional. When Wood weighs in on a book, he does so by placing it within a larger literary framework where he can make comparisons. He's got a scholarly mind and the scholar's reservoir of knowledge, but he doesn't produce scholarship. Not that scholarship is bad, but within academia we need more eloquently written literary essays -- as opposed to the dry academese that is arguably becoming the norm -- and lord only knows that the arts and culture pages of our mass-circulation publications need more smart reviews.
(I have my own pet theories about why academics can sometimes write such dry, often obscure prose, and it's got everything do with the constraints imposed by a routinized, corporatized university with a "publish or perish" model of professionalism. But I'll save those for the proverbial faculty lounge.)
Having celebrated Wood's writing, let it be noted that I don't always agree with Wood. In fact, his preferred literary aesthetic is quite different and often opposed to mine. His assertion, for example, in a mixed review of Underworld, that the novel "proves... the incompatibility of the political paranoid vision with great fiction" wrongly conflates DeLillo's views with those espoused by his characters. Wood finds Underworld repetitive thematically, whereas I think he neglects to pick up on Underworld's subtlety, DeLillo's repetitions with a difference.
Fortunately, Wood is a much more attentive reader in the Colbert case. Would it be too much to insist that all professional journalists be such adept readers?
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Molecular Mixology, or, Color Me Impressed
Does anybody really need a laser concocted cocktail?
Call me a Luddite, if you must, but when it comes to drinks I draw the technological line at the blender.
So, now that smoking is verboten in many bars, this is the next step: Two Parts Vodka, a Twist of Science.
"Molecular mixology," "freethinking bartenders"...
I shudder to think what the Final Solution might be.
Bartender, a Jameson's on the rocks please, and [wiping Beer Nuts salt and oil from hands whilst fumbling for some change] .... some quarters for the jukebox.
...Sanitation expert and a maintenance engineer
Garbage man, a janitor...
[Sips from glass, from which Irish whiskey overfloweth.]
Ahhhhhhhh.... Yes, comrades, the class warfare intensifies daily.
...Don't treat me special, don't kiss my ass
Treat me like the way they treat 'em up in first class...
One more round, Drinkers of the World, and don't forget to arm yourselves.
[Gulp]
Call me a Luddite, if you must, but when it comes to drinks I draw the technological line at the blender.
So, now that smoking is verboten in many bars, this is the next step: Two Parts Vodka, a Twist of Science.
"Molecular mixology," "freethinking bartenders"...
I shudder to think what the Final Solution might be.
Bartender, a Jameson's on the rocks please, and [wiping Beer Nuts salt and oil from hands whilst fumbling for some change] .... some quarters for the jukebox.
...Sanitation expert and a maintenance engineer
Garbage man, a janitor...
[Sips from glass, from which Irish whiskey overfloweth.]
Ahhhhhhhh.... Yes, comrades, the class warfare intensifies daily.
...Don't treat me special, don't kiss my ass
Treat me like the way they treat 'em up in first class...
One more round, Drinkers of the World, and don't forget to arm yourselves.
[Gulp]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
