Lit-Phil2014

First day of class
What's lit. vs philosophy?
Literature is the art of written work
What's Philosophy?
Xaiver: The love of wisdom. DLR: Not knowledge. Xaiver: knowledge is just facts and organizing them, wisdom is experience and mistakes. It is basically taking knowledge and doing something with it. Nikoli: Facts=wisdom, truths=knowledge.
DLR: Knowledge is easier to gain than wisdom is, because you can just read the facts or use Google.
DLR: Return from literature. Lit. is things worth reading. However, some stuff worth reading ie textbooks are not worth reading.
Caplan: Literature are things worth reading for the purpose of obtaining wisdom with good style and content. DLR: What needs to be added to this? What aspects of style make something worth reading? How do you know that you are reading literature as opposed to reading fiction? Celia: Fiction does not have a very strong style, you need to have more meanings that are possible for it in order to be literature. DLR: Literature tends to have a somewhat self conscious use of language. "Close Reading" is an example of using this. DLR: What are the difference between these four: I am impoverished, I am poor, I am wretched, I am poverty-stricken. I.e. You can be poor and happy but you cannot be wretched and happy.
DLR: Here is an alternative interpretation of the distinction: Wisdom is result of the processing of knowledge and facts into some contextualization that improves the human experience. Sloan: Experience- you can learn from it and avoid it, and you can have empathy so you feel bad about it.
Homework: Read this book that alternates between chapter titles and numbers, read through page 24.
DLR: Distinction between empathy and vicarious knowledge?
Vicarious knowledge is learning about someones experience without doing it or learning it yourself.
Carl: You can read philosophy to figure out what you believe. That is to try to gain vicarious experiences to figure out how they want to live.
DLR: So what to do literature and philosophy have in common?
They mostly are different departments in book stores. DLR: Ask philosophy professors why literature and philosophy are so connected.
Xaiver: They both stimulate thought. Celia: They both have to do with understanding the human experience. DLR: To me that is the big one. Why/when is understanding valuable? Carlo: When you are interacting with other people. DLR: Yes, you need to have an understanding of how they will probably respond to what you say. DLR: When else? Jeffery: When you are trying to write literature. DLR: When is it useful to understand what it means to be human? Jake: Personal interest, intellectual curiosity. Fastow: To avoid confusion, to help you find your self. DLR: What happens when you put these together? It helps in the process of self discovery.
DLR: For tomorrow: When does this lead to happiness? Putting this all together, these overlap because they both tell you what it means to be human, and they all give you insights about human insights and possibilities. You could also try to transcend these definitions. In either case, it is good to know. The major difference is what? Xaiver: literature is inherently written for pleasure. Jake: Literature is more multipurpose, it is not only to gain knowledge. DLR: Both assume that the people they talk about are similar to everyone else. DLR: Philosophy tended to be didactic. Most philosophy tends to do what, even if not didactic? Carlo: To explain things persuasively. DLR: It purports to be explanatory as well as persuasive. Jake: In literature, there tends to be a story or a theme. Literature- the story itself is not usually the point that the author wants to convey.
DLR: "Art for art's sake" This is supposed to be a departure from using art to only teach lay people about god ie in the middle ages. This means that they were now making art for no outside purpose like art.
Dwight: Why is AGA less common w/ lit.?
Tues, Jan 7, 2014
DLR: This tells you how to read. What person is it set in? Second person. This draws the reader into the story more effectively
What about this story works? The strange second person seems to work quite well in the first and second paragraph, as it continues to slowly draw the reader in. It stops working in the third paragraph. This is partially because it is so old, and also because it talks about a lot of stuff that we are supposed to know but that we actually do not know. It works again in the fourth paragraph because the stuff is familiar again. However, he starts to use the imperative, and it alienates the reader because he tells them what to do. It also starts telling the reader what sort of person he is, which is bad and continues to get worse as the chapter goes on. This method of writing does not work because, as the narrative gets more descriptive, its starts eliminating people (ie, the "you" has to be male, which eliminates women). You transforms from the reader into a character in the book.
What about how the books are characterized? Celia: These characterizations are actually quite accurate. DLR: agrees, and has many of each type of book. He must read a lot.
Go to page 6-7. He describes books as actual books, and talks about the sensual aspects of reading an actual book. This might be different for younger people who are reading the book because they obviously do not read books.
What is the purpose of the first chapter (the first numbered one)?
The topic of the first chapter is reading, and it is supposed to be read. It is reading about reading, ie it is meta-reading. You would expect that the rest of the book is going to be about reading in some way because of the first chapter. We can assume that it is academic because of how it is written, so we can assume it is fiction. This is designed to get you immersed in the point of the book, just as the director of the movie tries to get you to feel what is happening in a movie and become a part of its world. In literature it is called the "willing suspension of disbelief." This first chapter has a tension between reading the first chapter itself and losing yourself in the story. On page 9, it tells you this at the bottom. "It is the book in itself that arouses its curiosity.."
We move onto the next title chapter. It seems like the beginning of the story. However, after starting the book you go into the second numbered chapter it reverts back to the original narrative. This chapter 2 subverts your expectations. "if on a winter's nights traveler" is a story and has plot, setting, etc. However, it is a little different than a normal story because it is self-referential. It is making you aware of the text as text at the same time as it is telling you a story. The first two sentences blur the boundaries between you reading a book and the story itself. This is a fairly unusual way of breaking the fourth wall. This is not true in a traditional theatrical way because the narrator is breaking the wall instead of a character breaking it. In reality, this is a frame shift, similar to how there are several different nested frames of references in Heart of Darkness.
You are the person holding the book. The station is like a station of the past, and today is a new day. I was perhaps a narrator, but is now a character in the story. The novel has transitioned into first person, but sometimes flows back into second person. They overlap, so you see both viewpoints at one. There is the I of the train station and the narrator I.
Why does the I work better than the you? There is a degree of separation, and you can identify with the I to a greater or lesser extent depending on how similar you are to the person being described. However, the upside of the you is that when it works it is better than any other method of getting a person into a story.
What does the paragraph on the top of 15 tell you to do? It tells you how to write, without directly telling you how to write. It is not meta-writing, it simply serves as an example of how this particular writing device should work. Most of us don't think about how this should work, we just do it. This makes you think about how you read and how you write. This needs to be reflective.
On page 22, at the top: "I am the eye of the present with this suitcase"
The chapter ends and the I disappears and you return to the story again.

Terms to know

• meta-reading
• "willing suspension of disbelief"
• subvert
• fourth wall
• frame shift
• self-referential

Wednesday 1/8/2013 Chapters 3 and 4 (Chapter Number 2 and Outside the town of Malbork). Pages 24 to 42.

Blurring of who the reader is - us, or someone existing in the novel itself.

"Seeking a pattern" (pattern recognition) - people seek patterns because it reduces the need for thought (after recognizing a pattern, effort is all but removed because we assume future occurrences instead of planning for an unknown through intensive thought). Through natural selection (or what have you), we have become so good at pattern recognition that we often create/envision patterns where there are none - astrology, some types of stereotyping, etc. Seeking patterns is one thing; constructing patterns (whether or not they actually exist) is another - the majority of humans is prone to both. Thus, writing an analytic paper is, in essence, constructing a pattern (hopefully one that exists...). Writers create a series of dots; each reader connects these dots in his or her own manner. With regards to Calvino: If on a winter's night a traveler breaks traditional patterns seen throughout most typical novels. The novel is self-aware, self-referential, subversive to our expectations created by the mere fact that what we are about to read is called a "novel" - however, our expectations created in Chapter One (and any subsequent pattern we begin to formulate based on the opening chapter) are immediately dashed by the more story-based chapter that follows. This process repeats: Calvino creates a new expectation/basis for a pattern with each chapter, but each subsequent chapter subverts these expectations/patterns and creates new ones. One might say that the only pattern of the novel is that it consistently follows no other obvious or identifiable pattern (or, at least, up until page 42. We don't know what happens next...).

Stuff happens in the story. Calvino is a wizard, etc. etc.

Verisimilitude - the appearance of being true. Extraneous details are used (most often) for the purpose of verisimilitude: greater detail provides a sense of truth/accuracy.

Thursday 1/9/2013 What is literature? What is philosophy? What are identifiable patterns? Is his usage of 2nd person "successful"? Is he reading the book he's reading to us? How do we decide what is/isn't productive? Are the titled chapters more important than the numbered ones? What is the purpose of the blurring? What is the importance of the environment? Can a writer present both interpretation and feeling simultaneously? Does he make you construct any patterns? Are we or "I" reading the titled chapters?

"When the teacher is actually there" #shotsfired

The questions we ask will influence what we get out of reading/discussion. The implication is, then, that asking "good questions" is incredibly important. Subsequently: what makes a question good? Can we just replace "good" with, for example, thought-provoking, etc.? Or are good questions those that are most on topic, if not the most profound? Ultimately, good is what YOU want to get out of the text. - Jake P. Good questions are those that, upon reaching an answer, elucidate parts of the topic that the questions relate to. - Joseph The "goodness" of a question is based on its appropriateness to the given situation. - Xavier Good questions further your understanding. - Celia

Friday 1/10/2013 Nikolai's opinion (a variant of some facets of Platonistic ideology): A theorist has knowledge of truths (truths are eternal) from which he derives a theory - this is wisdom. A statesman/general has understanding of facts (facts are ephemeral) that helps him decide upon action - this is experience. "It is far easier to endure a bad film than to endure a bad book" - Nikolai. Unsure as to how this is relevant. Rules do not box people in but instead create a vague template through which one can express oneself. Why do we need to understand the human experience? Nikolai posits that an understanding of the human experience is, in fact, a contradiction; a separation of human experience and human interaction is an impossibility. Raulston thinks that different people have different maximal levels in different areas of ability/function. Jake says that Nikolai's separation of theorists and statesmen/generals is, in practice, impossible. Xavier says that it is almost impossible to pin down definitions of many of Nikolai's terms. Thinking about the "eternal truths" (technically impossible in the real world for many - for others, God) yields knowledge.

• • Truth is the idealized version of an idea that we all reference - e.g, geometric shapes that are impossible to create in the real world but must exist in some perfect manner somewhere (Plato's World of Forms, religions' God). Conversely, all knowledge is from memory. The fact is the triangle we draw; the truth is the ideal triangle that exists in World of Forms, God, or what have you.

Tuesday, jan 14 Discussion of Chapter 4 -Listening to someone read aloud isn't as good as reading by yourself (you can read faster by yourself) -Professor Uzzi-Tuzii has an artistic mind, says that interpretation of a text treats it carelessly and with violence Whats the difference between a dead language and a living language: the dead language no longer gains any usage -Can you read without interpreting? HMMMMMM -Ludmilla wants to read for pleasure, Lotaria wants to analyze the text

1.15.14 If on a winter's night a traveler....

[10] "I am the man who comes and goes... or rather that man is called 'I'...and you know nothing further about me" As the story progresses we learn about the 'I' in the book. [13] First time you see some sort of plot, but as you read further in the chapter it kinda goes away. [17] "A sense of isolation is felt..." he's in constant isolation between two places and is never settled, which leads to the question of what's his job that leads him to be unsettled. Also, he can't connect with people because his thoughts are different from theirs. What makes him so different that he's so separated from others? [23] Again, the reference to the suitcase suggests traveling, which in turn suggests isolation. Idea of the system is controlling him [DLR: suggests The Trial]. When he gets on the train, he disappears and leaves--both the story itself and the town he'd temporarily made a connection with. [11] Starts using first person in 10-12, which gets you enveloped in the story, because it's getting more personal. Then, when it gets into second person, once again we're not sure who the "you" is.

[2] Author creates the distinction in the different yous. The story has just been beginning to get good, and now our expectations are subverted. Sort of funny [25] about how his expectations are wrong. [27] false copy: his getting rid of the book reflects his frustration with the book; OR it could be separating "you" as reader from "you" as a character who is part of the story. "reducing the book to photons" becomes absurd. The "you" in the story seems to be having a pretty extreme reaction to just having a mis-published book. This exaggeration suggests that the reader's expectations will continue to be subverted. His confrontation with the bookseller shows a still-absurd level of unhappiness or anxiety about his lack of control over his reading.

Still ambiguous even when he meets the girl about who "Reader" is.

[30] "the fog": Initial impression you get from a book affects the final amount of pleasure you'll get from the book. The girl likes the "set parameters" of a novel. Why would a novel have this? Because the author can make his/her own world. [DLR But how does this distinguish the novel from other forms of writing?]

[32] We start now to think the "You" is more of a character as the description gets more specific as one who has learned to expect little from life. Yet, it soon gets back to more generalities. Then re-narrows it.

During [2], he is transformed from a guy who wants control to one who seeks a new experience from the novel.

[5]

Interaction between reader and publisher. This chapter will answer the question of the differences between readers and writers.

The narrator in the number chapters has started moving moving more into plot from [1].

[93] The worlds of readers and writers are starting to blend because people who read are starting to write. Ludmilla is scared of such blending because the "unsullied pleasure of reading" ends/changes once one starts to write.

[95] relation between publishers and writers. When he realizes the protagonist is not a writer, he is relieved. [97] Implies that being a writer carries a negative connotation. [DLR: But Calvino wrote a lot: why would he privilege reading over writing?] [98-99] Confusing to follow. [DLR: Why?] Issues with translations (as we talked about yesterday). Narrator criticizes the professors for what's essentially personal turf issues rather than discussing the work itself. [101] How has who-the-author-is changed in importance? [DLR: How does that apply to you?] [101-102] Perspective of publisher on that same issue. Overarching theme of chapter is a criticism of the convergence of the two worlds of writing and reading, particularly of how people read books. Hence, more on the "teaching how to read" idea...

looks down in the gathering shadow

Cavedagna gives a new manuscript, which has two people trying to get rid of a dead body. Writer wants "to create a dense forest so thick that light doesn't penetrate" [DLR: Why?]

Narrator has a fascination with his past--his multiple past identities seem always to catch up with him. 105] "I thought JoJo dead was quite different from JoJo alive..."

Title interpreted as your past always follows you, even when you can't see it (like a shadow). This ties in with Rudi's obsession with his own past. [114] Sky is brightening, but down there, the darkness is still thick. So, every time things look bright, your past comes back to shadow you. Throughout the stories, the narrator has been becoming more personal with the romantic interest. The sexual tension increases in these interactions. From Matthew's point of view, this just increases the reader's attention because there's a dead body there, so the sex scene is very out of place. [DLR: So, effect on female reader?] Lot of things in here MK didn't agree with. E.g. [107] Doesn't agree you can't change your name, {DLR: but in what way can you not change your name?] nor that you can't separate events in your life.

[109] There's a break from the plot, where he starts talking about his writing. He's teaching you how to become a good story-teller. (use of details) Wants to create material much richer than what he's chosen to present "here." [110] He has an unlimited supply of narratable material that he can narrate with detachment. MK questions the assertion [112] Narrator says the ability to narrate with distance is good, but MK doesn't think one can ever achieve that good [DLR Would it be good if one could?]

DLR I am intrigued by the difference between what, for instance, Jake and Jake pointed out in chapter [5] and what I would have called to people's attenion. Here are some points that came to my mind when I read the chapter:

• Note the list of "general concepts" for discussion listed at the top of [91]. They seem to me to be a mockery of (but perhaps much less so than I would like to think) of things university literature students would discuss about a novel. What's the implication of a list that contains items like these?
• [91] "There's enough material here to discuss for a month"
• [93] I agreed in finding interesting the point about the boundary line. In today's world, I would ask how fluid that boundary is and what the implications of its fluidity (or lack thereof) are. Also, I would ask
  • In what sense are all those who write readers?
  • In what sense are all those who read writers?
• [96] why is "self-realization on paper... sought not so much by isolated individuals as collectives"? In what other aspects of "Western culture" can one find such a phenomenon?
• [96} what is "...a world in which they still read books where you encounter 'little men, shrunken and bent'"?
• [97] " 'This isn't what I call reading' "; the obvious question is then, what is reading?
• [98] why "an attack of vertigo"?
• [99] to what historical event(s) is the paragraph on the top of the page a reference?
• [99] in what metaphorical sense as well might " 'a masterpiece of [one's] language [have] to be read int he language of his colleague' "?
• [100] what does the propagation of the confusion " 'with the print shop, the bindery...' " suggest?
• [101] I also found the query " 'What does the name of an author on the jacket matter?' " to be an interesting one. What does it matter? Does it matter less now or more than in 1979 when Calvino published If on a winter's night a traveler?
• [101] Why are " 'the true authors... those who ... are only a name on the jacket' "?