Seminar Q's Flashcards
What does Eco see as the power of literature? Where does he locate the danger of “consuming literature for its own sake”?
Umberto Eco sees the power of literature in its ability to serve as a repository of human experiences, emotions, and ideas. Because literature can preserve and communicate the collective wisdom and collective heritage of a society.
He locates the danger of “consuming literature for its own sake” in the risk of approaching literature solely as a form of entertainment or escapism (“jogging” or doing “crossword puzzles”), without engaging with the deeper themes and ideas it presents. When literature is consumed superficially, its potential to provoke though and reflection is lost.
Why is language seen as a collective heritage? How does literature help to create a sense of identity and community? What role did Homer have in Ancient Greece?
Language is seen as a collective heritage because it is shaped and enriched by generations of speakers. It carries the history, culture, and identity of a community.
Literature helps create a sense of identity and community by reflecting the values, beliefs, and experiences of a particular group or society. It serves as a cultural mirror, allowing people to connect with their shared heritage.
Homer played a significant role in Ancient Greece by composing epic poems like the Iliad and the Odyssey, which not only entertained but also conveyed the values and history of the Greek civilization, contributing to a sense of Greek identity.
How does literature keep language alive as a collective heritage? How is language sensitive to the suggestions of literature? Do you know of any examples?
Literature keeps language alive as a collective heritage by constantly evolving and adapting language to new contexts and expressions. Literary works introduce novel vocabulary, idiomatic expressions, and linguistic innovations. Language is sensitive to the suggestions of literature because writers often create new words or use existing ones in innovative ways to convey their ideas. An example is Shakespeare, who coined many words and phrases now integrated into the English literature, for example.
· “Break the ice” - this phrase, meaning to start a conversation or social interaction in a friendly way, originates from Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew.”
How does Eco understand the process of interpretation? How, in Eco’s view, is it possible in literature to establish whether a reader has a sense of reality or is the victim of his own hallucinations?
Eco views interpretations as a multifaceted process in which readers engage with a text, bringing their own experiences, knowledge, and perspectives. To establish whether a reader has a sense of reality in literature, Eco looks at the reader’s ability to discern the author’s intentions and the thematic depth of the text. Critical and analytical readers are more likely to grasp the intended meaning, while those who fall into personal interpretations or hallucinations may misinterpret the text.
- What is implied in the idea that fictional characters become true for our collective imagination?
The idea that fictional characters become true for our collective imagination implies that well-developed and enduring characters can take on a life of their own in the cultural consciousness. They become archetypal figures and symbols that resonate with people across generations.
- What is the ultimate “repressive” lesson of stories?
The ultimate “repressive” lesson of stories, according to Eco, is that they often reflect and reinforce societal norms, values, and power structures. Stories can be used to convey moral or ideological messages that may limit individual freedom and diversity of thought. They can subtly shape our perceptions and expectations, potentially constraining alternative perspectives, and behaviors.
- Explain what Shklovsky means by “automatic perception” and its significance for language use.
Shklovsky argues that in our everyday lives, we tend to perceive and interact with the world in an automatic or habitual manner. This means we become accustomed to familiar things and processes, and they lose their freshness and significance. Language, too, can become automatic, with words losing their original impact and meaning. Shklovsky believes that the role of art and literature is to disrupt this automatic perception. By presenting things in a new and unfamiliar way, art makes us see the world with a fresh perspective. This, in turn, rejuvenates language use by making it more vivid and thought-provoking.
- What does Shklovsky mean by saying that art exists “to make the stone stony” (p.18)?
Shklovsky’s statement “to make the stone stony” emphasizes the idea that art’s primary function is to defamiliarize or “estrange” familiar things. In other words, instead of presenting something in its usual, easily recognizable form (e.g., a stone as just a mundane object), art seeks to present it in a way that makes us perceive it as if for the first time. By doing so, art renews our perception of the world and prevents us from becoming numb to the familiar. It encourages us to look at things closely, ponder their essence, and appreciate their inherent qualities.
- What, in Shklovsky’s view, is the nature of aesthetic perception? Give an example.
Shklovsky believes that aesthetic perception involves seeing the world in a more vivid, fresh, and “estranged” way. It requires the viewer or reader to actively engage with the artwork, consciously recognizing its artistic techniques and deviations from the norm. An example of aesthetic perception could be reading a poem that uses unusual metaphors and wordplay. Rather than reading it quickly and automatically, you must slow down, dissect the language, and appreciate the artistic choices made by the poet to convey meaning and emotion.
- What, for Shklovsky, is specific about poetic language?
Shklovsky argues that poetic language is characterized by its heightened use of language and form. Poetic language deliberately deviates from ordinary, everyday language to defamiliarize the reader or listener. It employs various techniques such as metaphors, symbolism, and sound patterns to create a more vivid and emotionally charged experience. Poetic language is not concerned with conveying straightforward information but rather with prompting the reader to engage with language in a more conscious and aesthetic way.
How do you understand Brooks’s suggestion that the language of poetry is the language of paradox?
Cleanth Brooks suggests that the language of poetry is the language of paradox because poets often use paradoxical statements, contradictions, and unexpected juxtapositions of words and ideas to create complex and thought-provoking meanings. In poetry, paradoxes can serve to challenge conventional thinking and encourage readers to engage with the text on a deeper level. Brooks argues that poetry’s use of paradox allows it to capture the complexities and ambiguities of human experience more effectively than straightforward, logical language.
- What effect(s) does paradox create?
Paradoxes in poetry create several effects. Firstly, they draw the reader’s attention and provoke curiosity, making the reader pause to consider the meaning and implications of the apparent contradiction. This engagement can lead to a heightened emotional or intellectual response to the poem. Paradoxes also serve to convey the complexities of human emotions and experiences, allowing poets to explore and express nuances that might be difficult to articulate using ordinary language. Additionally, paradoxes can disrupt conventional thinking and challenge preconceived notions, encouraging readers to view familiar subjects from new perspectives.
- How do you understand Brooks’s observation that the poet “has to make up his language as he goes” (p.31)?
Brooks’s observation that the poet “has to make up his language as he goes” means that poets often have to invent or manipulate language to convey their unique visions and ideas. Poets may create new words, use existing words in unconventional ways, or employ metaphors and similes that stretch the boundaries of language to express what cannot be easily expressed through ordinary discourse. This inventive use of language allows poets to capture the richness and complexity of their subject matter.
What differences does Brooks point out between scientific and poetic discourse?
Brooks points out differences between scientific and poetic discourse in the sense that scientific discourse aims for precision, clarity, and consistency. It seeks to describe and explain the natural world in a systematic and logical manner. In contrast, poetic discourse is more concerned with evoking emotions, exploring human experiences, and conveying subjective truths. Poets often use language in ways that may appear imprecise or contradictory, but these linguistic choices serve a different purpose, which is to engage readers emotionally and intellectually.
Compare Brooks’s observations to those made by Shklovsky, what do the two agree upon?
Cleanth Brooks and Viktor Shklovsky both agree on the idea that literature, including poetry, involves a departure from ordinary or automatic perception and language. Shklovsky’s concept of “defamiliarization” and Brooks’s exploration of paradox both emphasize the importance of disrupting routine or habitual ways of thinking and expressing ideas. Both scholars suggest that literature, by challenging familiar language and thought patterns, can lead to a deeper engagement with the text and a heightened awareness of the subject matter. However, they may differ in some aspects of their approaches and terminology, but the underlying idea of literature as a means of defamiliarization and cognitive engagement is a common thread in their theories.
How do both Barthes and Foucault problematise the concept of authorship? How may we read Foucault’s essay as a response to Barthes’s ideas about authorship?
Both Barthes and Foucault challenge the traditional notion of the author as the definitive source of meaning in a text. Barthes argues that the author’s identity should not be considered when interpreting a text; instead, the focus should be on the reader’s interpretation. Foucault’s essay can be seen as a response to Barthes, as he builds upon this idea by introducing the concept of the “author-function”. He suggests that the author is a product of discourse and social constructs, and it’s not an essential source of meaning but a function within a larger system of meaning production.
What does Foucault suggest about the nature of writing? What school of literary theory shares his view?
Foucault suggests that writing is not an expression of an author’s individuality but a product of various discourses and cultural contexts. He argues that the author’s identity is constructed by society, and writing is a form of discourse that operates within established systems of knowledge and power. Foucault’s view aligns with post-structuralist and postmodern literary theories that emphasize the deconstruction of traditional authorship and the importance of considering broader cultural and linguistic contexts in the interpretation of texts.
What link does Foucault see between writing and death? What criticism does Foucault’s idea of the “transcendental anonymity” of the author entail?
Foucault associates writing with death in the sense that the act of writing fixes a particular discourse, making it separable from the author’s living presence. The text becomes an entity with its own life, distinct from the author. The criticism of “transcendental anonymity” is that it challenges the idea that the author’s intention and identity are paramount in interpreting a text. Instead, it highlights the collective and historical nature of textual production and reception.
What does Foucault mean by saying that “the link between a proper name and an individual being named and the link between an author’s name and that which it names are not isomorphous and do not function in the same way”?
Foucault means that the connection between an author’s name and their work is not straightforward and one-to-one. In contrast to a proper name, where a name directly refers to a specific individual, an author’s name encompasses a complex set of historical, cultural, and discursive associations. An author’s name doesn’t merely point to an individual but signifies a function within the network of discourse and authorial conventions.
What functions does the name of the author have?
The name of the author serves various functions in the context of discourse. It can provide a sense of authority, authenticity, and originality to a text. It allows readers to situate a work within a specific tradition or cultural context. However, Foucault argues that these functions are constructed and can vary across different discourses and historical periods.
How has authorship been historically linked to transgression? In what sense is the author-function not universal in all discourse?
Historically, authorship has been linked to transgression because the act of creating a text, especially in certain societal contexts, challenged established norms and authorities. The author was seen as a figure who could transgress conventional boundaries, and this transgressive aspect of authorship was emphasized in various literary and cultural traditions. The author-function is not universal in all discourse because its significance and role can vary depending on the context. In some cases, the author is highly valued, while in others, the emphasis may be on collective authorship or anonymous authorship.
Compare Saint Jerome’s criteria for the authentication of authorship and the ideas of modern criticism Foucault points out.
Saint Jerome’s criteria for the authentication of authorship focused on the author’s moral and theological qualifications, aiming to establish the author’s authority in a religious context. In contrast, modern criticism, as discussed by Foucault, is concerned with the deconstruction of authorship as a singular, stable identity. It questions the notion of the author as the ultimate source of meaning and explores the author’s role as a function within a broader system of discourse.
Why does the author-function not simply refer to a writing individual?
The author-function does not simply refer to a writing individual because it transcends individual identity. Instead, it encompasses the social, cultural, and historical constructs that shape the author’s role and significance in the production and interpretation of texts. The author-function is a product of discourse, and it is not limited to the personal characteristics or intentions of an individual writer.
