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!