Varina Kosovich
Dr. Piccici
English 630
April, 6, 2010

Childhood in Calvino’s The Path to the Spiders’ Nest
Throughout Calvino’s novel we see a pre-teen child go through hardships that might be hard for a modern child to cope with. Pin doesn’t exactly thrive in his situation, but nonetheless, he evolves to adapt to his changing life and more importantly stays alive throughout his ordeal. There are numerous occasions where he could have been killed, especially when he gets involved with the partisans. Pin undergoes neglect from his sister as well as torture by the Fascists, but still has a loyal streak to him that remains throughout he novel. This may be due to his lack of adult influence, so that when he meets an adult that he deems worthy, he clings to them as if he would his father or mother. We see this with Cousin. Pin gets along with the man almost instantly, a rare occurrence for Pin, who distrusts most adults. In his loyalty to certain people we are able to see a childlike affection and longing for healthy human interaction, rather than the normal games Pin plays. It is apparent the at he receives none of this affection from his sister, and so must look for it in strangers. Pin’s dislike for women may stem from the behavior of his sister. She neglects him from his childhood, and never knowing his mother makes for a negative view of women as a group. He has never met a good woman, having only his over-sexed sister as an example of the behavior of females. Because this is all he has known, he places this descriptor on every woman he meets, not knowing what else to think of them. No maternal or strong female qualities are found by Pin’s eyes.

Keepin' It Greek

In Sedgwick's essay from "Between Men" I was interested in the dynamic presented by her concerning the ancient Greeks, where she linked them to today's homophobia. She says: "The continuum between 'men loving men' and 'men promoting the interests of men' appears to have been quite seamless" (1686-87). Earlier she mentions that the same system that suppresses homosexuals is the same system that oppresses women. Even in relation to the Greeks, taking on a boy as your apprentice still gave him power over women as well as slaves. Tue Sedgwick is arguing against homophobia, but I might need some clarification on what she is trying to say in relation to her larger essay.It seems to me that today's gripe with homosexuality is in some aspects incomparable to the system of learning and transferal of power that the Greeks established.

You Can't Teach That

Guillory states that : “If the formal study of Latin-American novels in the university does not really transmit or reproduce Latino culture, it follows that the relation of even Latino students to these artifacts will not be entirely unlike the relation of “American” students to the works of “Western” (American of European) culture”(1474). Guillory says this in relation to the alienated atmosphere the school creates, and it seems to me that it is a false one, one that pretends to transfer useful information but instead ends up creating something entirely different than the intended material. I agree that culture can’t be taught, that the only pure way is to live culture and it makes sense that one can get only ideas of a culture in a school setting rather than being able to “learn” a culture.

I think it is important to separate a text from the absorption of culture, as text isn’t the only thing that a culture relies upon. Guillory address the subject of oral tradition, which to me is just as important as text, if not more so. Oral tradition seems to have more of a personal aspect because its only means of transfer is between people. You can’t have oral tradition without a gathering of some sort, whether it be between two people or a group of people. This seems more beneficial to culture.

Arse Over Head

Bourdieu pouints out that : "...the relaxation of articulatory tension', which leads, as Bernard Laks has pointed out, to the dropping of the final 'r' and 'l'...is associated with rejection of the censorship which propriety imposes, particularly on the tabooed body, and with the outspokenness whose daring is less innocent as it seems since, in reducing humanity to its common nature- belly, bum, bollocks,grub, guts, and shit- it tends to turn the social world upside down, arse over head" (88).

According to Bourdieu, politeness is inflicted onto the lower class by the upper, and it seems to me that by speaking plainly without any of proprietary hindrance, the lower class gains some sort of power through their language use and perhaps this is why politeness is so stressed. The fact that upper class speech limits the view of the natural body, suggests a self-imposed godlike nature and deems the body as the opposite of what it is, unnatural and perhaps even filthy. The lower class sees the body for what it is and talks about it freely.

He goes on to say that "from the standpoint of the dominated classes, the adoption of the dominant style is seen as as a denial of social and sexual identity, a repudiation of the virile values which constitute class membership" (88). So there is a clear link between natural speaking and belonging in the lower classes, though it would seem to the upper class that impolite speaking would be an alienating factor. But there is also boundaries placed on the lower class, for if they do change their way of speaking, they may not be accepted by other members of the class. It seems to me that there are rules for both classes, each with limiting factors.

Read This, See This

I was really compelled by what Benjamin said about captions: "At the same time picture magazines begin to put up signposts for him, right ones or wrong ones, no matter. For the first time, captions have become obligatory. And it is clear that they have an altogether different character than the title of a painting" (1239).

So instead of providing something for a viewer to consider, as the title of a painting would, captions tell the viewer what to see. There is no room for initial interpretation when a caption accompanies a picture. It's just another form of reproduction, but in this case it's the reproduction of thoughts. Someone writes a caption of what they see in a picture and then passes this same thought to the masses. Reproduced thought on reproduced art.

Praise Bell Hooks

Thank goodness for a finally readable, clear, organized piece of writing dealing with theory!

I was really intrigued by the information about women keeping women down that Hooks brought up throughout the book. I think it important to blame sexism and not just men for the problems that many women experience. The fact the rich with women often times held other women down solely to get ahead in a patriarchal industry is an important issue to be aware of in concerns with feminism. I also like the points Hooks made about mass media skewing feminism. It's apparent that the media has their own agenda based on profit. This also comes out in Hooks' chapter on beauty, and the commodification of a women. Feminism also deals with action against capitalism and I thought Hooks made great points about comfortable clothes and the fashion industry.

TMI

Jameson quotes in his essay in relation to “interpretation proper” that:

“This is the place to answer the objection of the ordinary reader, when confronted with elaborate and ingenious interpretations, that the text means just what it says. Unfortunately, no society has ever been quite so mystified in quite so many ways as our own, saturated as it is with message and information, the very vehicles of mystification (language, as Talleyrand put it, having been given us in order to conceal our thoughts)” (184).

I believe that the point he is making here is one of awareness. Not having knowledge about mystification is a great hindrance to the “ordinary reader.” It seems to me naive to think that someone might think that a text meant exactly what it says. In the sentences before the quote, Jameson talks about “interpretation proper” and “strong rewriting,” so is it that the critic must determine what the text is really saying to present to the reader, or should the reader already be doing this? Also, does the reader believe what the critic is saying or should the reader look even deeper into the text interpreting another text?

I will agree that our current age is complex in terms of information and one can be easily tricked into only seeing surface information or don’t care enough to interpret due to the constant stream of information. Jameson's essay brings to mind memes, as they are propagated by information that is recurrent.