For Tuesday: Culler, Literary Theory, Chapter 4: "Language, Meaning, and Interpretation"

NOTE: We'll take a break from reading Beowulf for a day to delve into more matters of theory, interpretation, and meaning! This chapter may seem a bit dense, but read slowly and use the questions below as a guide if you get lost. I promise, there are some fascinating and very useful ideas hidden in here, especially for those future teachers among you! 

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: If ‘poetics’ is about the meaning of texts and how these meanings are achieved, then what is ‘hermenutics’? Why might this be equally important in reading or discussing a text? When might hermeneutics also get in the way?

Q2: What is the "Intentional Fallacy," and why is it a "fallacy"? Why do you think an author’s intention used to matter so much, whereas now, we tend to regard it with skepticism? Similarly, how does this free us up to discuss the works of living writers, and writers we know too much about, in particular?

Q3: On page 63, Culler writes that “a work is interpreted as answering questions posed by [the] horizon of expectations, and a reader of the 1990s approaches Hamlet with expectations different from those of a contemporary of Shakespeare’s.” So if Shakespeare was writing to his audience and their expectations, how does it make reading his works especially difficult? How can a modern reader be aware of a previous age’s—and even their own—horizon of expectations? (and how might we do this for Beowulf)? 

Q4: What does it mean that a word's form and meaning have an arbitrary relationship? How can a dog not be a dog? Or a moon not be a moon? Does this relate to the idea that “meaning is context-bound, but context is boundless” (67)?

For Thursday: Beowulf, pp. 95-136 (try to finish!)

NOTE: The Paper #1 assignment is in the post below this one...don't forget to scroll down! 

For Wednesday: Beowulf, pp.95-136 (try to finish!)

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: What role does the dragon play in the poem? He’s clearly not humanized in the way Grendel or his mother are (he’s a literal monster), but he still exhibits some very human characteristics. What might these be, and why are they significant to the story?

Q2: If we read this poem as a Christian poem (as Beowulf himself seems to), why does God abandon kings like Hrothgar and Beowulf? Why is he allowed to fail in his final fight against the dragon, considering its significance to his kingdom? Or are we supposed to read this as a failure of Fate?

Q3: What is the significance of Wiglaf’s speech towards the end of the poem? How might he echo other characters in the poem, especially that of Hrothgar much earlier? Is it possible that he offers a sense of the poet’s own ‘theory’ on the poem?

Q4: Taken as a whole, does the poet seem to look back longingly on Anglo Saxon ideals, or as a Christian, does he see their limitations? How might this explain why he chose an old pagan warrior as the subject for a Christian poem? In other words, is this poem a celebration or a warning? A fond look back, or a testament to the ills of pagan civilization?

Paper #1: It's Just a Theory!

NOTE: The reading for Tuesday and the points to consider are in the post BELOW this one...

Paper #1: It’s Just a Theory!

“I regularly found myself muttering speeches written a thousand years ago as I watched their contemporary equivalents unfold on the news. This moment, and the moments before it…are things that concerned the Beowulf poet and concern this translator, too” (Headley, Introduction).

INTRO: In Chapter 1 of Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction, Culler defines theory as “interdisciplinary…analytical and speculative…a critique of common sense…[and] reflexive, thinking about thinking, enquiry into the categories we use in making sense of things” (14-15) A theory can be used to examine or critique a literary work, but a theory can also be a literary work itself. We can often use literature, and the ideas that pop out of the stories, characters, and language, to examine the world around us, and make us question the cultural norms that we take for granted. Seen in this light, Beowulf, especially when translated in a ‘modern’ way, can become a theory about many different things: literature, genre, gender, race, belief, morality, etc.

PROMPT: For this paper, I want you to use some aspect of Headley’s translation of Beowulf as a THEORY to examine some aspect OUTSIDE the text itself. By this I mean, use it to examine our ideas about, say, what it means to be a man or woman, or whether we think everything happens for a reason, or what makes a text literary, or what makes a hero or a villain, etc. These are just examples, and there are TONS of ideas you could explore theoretically from the perspective of Beowulf. Remember that the poem is your LENS: use it to examine something outside the text from the perspective of this book/its author/its translator.

REQUIREMENTS: In your paper, you should introduce your theory through a close reading of ONE specific passage in the poem. Introduce this quote, quote it in full, and then explain how you read it paying close attention to the language. Don’t just summarize it and don’t assume that everyone understand it on a first reading. Help us read/see what you see in it. THEN explain how you could use this general theory to examine another idea, behavior, classification, value, type, or custom in society. Be SPECIFIC and use an example from the outside world to explore with your theory. For example, if you want to examine modern theories of masculinity (what it means to be a man) through Beowulf, find some example in the modern world to point to—it could be a show, an advertisement, a custom, etc. Use the passage from Beowulf to show us a new way to read and understand this modern sense of gender (if you choose to look at gender—it’s just an example).

THE FINE PRINT

• Should be at least 3-4 pages double space, though you can do more.
• Be sure to quote from Beowulf and close read (analyze) the passage.
• Examine some outside ‘text’ through the lens of the passage/poem.
• The paper is due IN-CLASS on Thursday, September 19^th. We will spend the entire class discussing our different theories of the poem, so be there or be square!

For Tuesday: Beowulf, pages 51-95 (approx.)

For next week, try to ideally get through the battle in Grendel's Mother's lair, his victorious return to Heorot, and the aftermath of his Danish voyage. That's roughly the second part of the epic, with the third part racing ahead of time to when Beowulf is an old man/king, who has to face another monster (and one much more monstrous, this time).

Remember, we'll do an in-class response instead of normal questions in class on Tuesday. Some ideas you might consider as you read are...

* Why is Heorot punished with Grendel and his mother? How does Hrothgar undersatnd it, and possibly, how does Beowulf? Does the narrator agree with them?

* Look carefully at how Grendel and his mother are described around page 56. We'll look at other translations of this in class, too. What does the poet want us to see/understand about them?

* The other woman in the story thus far is Hrothgar's wife, Wealhtheow, who has an interesting scene on pages 52-54. What is her role in the story, and how might this strangely echo the role of Grendel's mother in the poem?

* On page 55, the poet writes that "they had no foretelling of Fate's fixed plans." Fate is capitalized in this translation, and this is another example of 'wyrd' in the text. If Fate has doomed several men in the hall to die at another monster's hands, what does this say about God's influence to the poet? Does the poet believe in both equally?

* Related to this, why does Hrothgar blame Beowulf when the mother returns for her vengeance? Aren't HE and his people the true cause of the murders?

* In this part of the poem, Beowulf's bravery seems to come from all his pagan armor and weapondry more than his faith in God or even his faith in himself. Indeed, when his sword breaks, he loses heart and almost runs for it. Why does he cut a different figure here than when he fought her son?

* What is Beowulf's true motivation in fighting all of these monsters? Is it loyalty to Hrothgar? Is it a mission from God? Or is it fame for himself? How does he talk about his mission to others?

* Anglo-Saxon poetry tends to be quite dark and realistic, with one of its great themes that of humility and memento mori (remember your own mortality). How does the poem stress this in an otherwise heroic, action-packed poem? 

For Thursday: Headley's Beowulf, Pages 1-51 (approx)

NOTE: If you have a different translation, you’ll miss out on Headley’s colorful language and very idiomatic translation, but you’ll gain in other departments. However, page 51 won’t mean much to you, so read from the beginning to after the poet tells the tale of Finn shortly after Beowulf defeats Grendel. Also, you won’t be able to answer the questions below about Headley’s translation, so choose the ones you can answer.

ALSO: For those interested, here's a New Yorker article about Headley's translation, which brings up many of the issues we raised in class, and defends many of her decisions: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/08/31/a-beowulf-for-our-moment

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Some of Headley’s word choices are not only surprisingly modern but outright shocking, such as this one on page 29: “Hashtag: blessed.” What did you think about her reading this way, and discuss ONE specific example that either really worked for you OR really didn’t. Be sure to explain why.

Q2: Beowulf as a poem often seems at war with itself. On the one hand, it speaks of God and Salvation, Heaven and Hell. But elsewhere, it speaks of Fate and even the very Anglo-Saxon concept of “wyrd” (page 34), which is more the Greek sense of Fate, as controlled by the gods (and not God). Why do you think this poem reference both the Christian and pagan belief systems? Does one seem more in control than the other?

Q3: Beowulf is also a beautifully poetic work of art, full of gorgeous turns of phrase, kennings, and ample alliteration. Discuss a passage in Headley’s translation that, in Culler’s words, “foregrounds language itself: makes it strange, thrusts it at you…so you can’t forget that you are dealing with language shaped in odd ways” (28). How does Headley (as well as the original poet) try to make language strange and exciting for us? And how does this affect the story itself?

Q4: Culler also writes in Chapter 2 that “A work exists between and among many texts, through its relations to them,” which he calls “intertextuality” (33). Though Beowulf is quite an ancient poem, and we don’t really know all that much about Anglo Saxon literature, how do we know that this is a profoundly intertextual poem? What ideas, characters, or stories does it seem to be responding to? How do we know that the world of Beowulf has a past that it drew from for inspiration and guidance?

For Tuesday: Maria Dahvana Headley, "Introduction" to Beowulf (in the Headley translation)

NOTE: Make sure you have the right translation of Beowulf, or else you won't have Headley's fascinating Introduction to her translation of the poem (let me know if you can't obtain it--I might be able to help!). 

ALSO: I forgot to mention in class, though I send everyone an e-mail about this. On Monday, September 2nd, the English department in conjunction with our alumni, Cody Baggerly, hosts an Open-Mic Poetry/Prose reading at Kind Origin here in Ada at 6:00-8:00. Anyone is welcome to attend, and feel free to bring short prose and poems to share (if you like) with the gathering. Kind Origin is run by an ECU alum who also works at the university. Even though it's a dispensary, it has a family-friendly environment (many kids attend) and the reading takes place in what feels like someone's living room--it's very cozy and non-threatening. Kind Origin is on Mississippi just before Home Depot on the West side of the road. 

Answer TWO of the following for next week:

Q1: Headley argues that Beowulf "[though] a poem about Then, it's also (and always has been) a poem about Now, and how we got here" (x). How does she try to persuade us of the cultural relevance of such an old and often mystifying poem? Related to this, how does she use the present to read the past/text? 

Q2: Arguing with Tolkien's own views of the poem (Tolkien made a very difficult-to-read prose translation of the poem in the 50's), Headley claims that "Beowulf is a living text in a dead language...when [language] dies, it leaves bones" (xvi, xx). What do you think this means by this, and would Culler agree with her? Are all old poems "living" in the same way?

Q3: In class on Thursday, we looked at two different translations of Wulf and Eadwacer, discussing how a different slant on a specific line can change the entire plot and mood of a poem. According to Headley, what is one of the biggest controveries regarding translating Beowulf, and how might the bias of the present cloud our reading of the past?

Q4: To Headley, Beowulf is still "worth it" as an exciting work of literature. It repays the time and attention of reading it over and over again. Though she came to the work under a false assumption that Grendel's mother was the hero of the work, what did she find that made the poem so rich and rewarding for her? How does she try to capture this in her translation of the poem (according to her)? 

For Tuesday: Culler, Chapter 2: "What is Literature?"

Answer TWO of the following Q's in a short response, but give a little detail--no one sentence responses, please. I don't want "answers" as much as I want "thoughts," or rather, thinking out loud. Try to "talk out" your responses since these questions are designed as a kind of pre-writing for your later papers and assignments. Sometimes, to figure out what you think, you simply have to start writing. As long as you give an honest effort and aren't trying to BS (or do as little as possible), you'll get full credit for your responses. 

Answer any TWO: 

Q1: Many theorists, according to Culler, believe that all aesthetic objects (such as literature) must have a "purposiveness without purpose" (33). How do you understand this term, and how might it distinguish literature from, say, an instruction manual or a political manifesto?  

Q2: Culler writes that "what it implicitly says about making sense relates to the way it itself goes about making sense" (34). How does this relate to intertextuality and the idea of all art being a copy of a copy of a copy? 

Q3: Culler suggests that "the more the universality of literature is stressed, the more it may have a national function" (37).  Based on this, how might literature have created a sense of Englishness or even Americanness? Has Jane Austen or Harry Potter created a literary sense of 'Englishness' which we expect to find when we go there? Or have American sitcoms done the same for us? 

Q4: Do you think literature has the power to ennoble us and make us better human beings? Is that an outdated (or naive) notion, or is it one of the chief qualities of literature? Is literature inherently 'moral'? Or is that a quality of theory (making us see morality in an otherwise valueless text)? 

For Thursday: Read Chapter 1, "What is Theory?" from Culler's Literary Theory: AVSI

REMEMBER, I want you to just try to read some or all of Chapter 1 from Culler's Literary Theory for Thursday's class. I won't give you any response questions or quizzes or anything over this material--it's just a way to 'get your feet wet' with the reading. We'll discuss it in depth in Thursday's class, and I'll try to discuss some of the big ideas from this chapter, which we'll revisit over and over again throughout the class. 

However, if you would prefer a guide, here's a few ideas to consider as you read (you DO NOT have to answer these, just think about them):

* According to Culler, what is and isn't a theory? What does it mean to apply theories to things like books?

*  What does it mean that "works regarded as theory have efforts beyond their original field"?

* How could common sense (which people are said to have or simply don't) actually a historical construction? What does it mean that common sense is itself a theory, and therefore, impossible to prove?

* How could the very notion of an author be a theory? Or the idea that a specific person is the 'author' of a work, and therefore, knows everything possible about that work?

* How could sex be an effect rather than a cause, according to Foucault, one of the writers discussed in this chapter?

* How can literature create the very subjects it tries to write about?

* Is writing a lesser form of speech (a supplement), or is it merely another kind of speech or speaking? After all, writing often imitates speech...so does this mean it is derivative of it? 

* What does it mean that everything is a supplement of something else? How can even the object of our desires not really satisfy our need for fulliment? 

* Why might the statement, "just be yourself," be a contradiction in terms? IS there a true self vs. a false one? And if so, what might make it 'false'? Where do we find the 'true'? 

Welcome to the Course!

Welcome to the Fall 2024 version of the 'Frankenstein' course, Intro to Literary Theory and Teaching Literature in Secondary Schools! This was originally two different classes (and will be again next year), but necessity has urged us to combine two courses that actually have a lot in common. To this end, the class will focus both on the interpretation of literature through theory and close reading, AND the art of teaching and guiding new readers through some very rewarding (and often complex) works of art. But regardless of which class you're enrolled in, we'll use various theoretical means of helping us view literature from multiple perspectives, whether those are personal, cultural, historical, or political. As Culler explains in his book,  “to admit the importance of theory is to make an open-ended commitment, to leave yourself in a position where there re always important things you don’t know” (16).  So much of this class will be drawing a line between what we kniow and what we can't know, so we can decide how best to bridge the gap with inquiry and speculation. In short, we'll read closely, discuss heatedly, and draw our own conclusions!

Make sure to buy the 5 books for the class, from Culler's Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction (our first book), to Beowulf, The Hobbit, Dracula, and Coraline. I'll explain why I chose these works of literature (which fall into two distinct pairings) in the early weeks of class. 

The posts below this one are from last year's class, and though we read different works and had very different assignments, feel free to scroll through them for a sneak preview of some of what we 'could' theoretically study this semester (but won't). See you on Tuesday!