Northrop Frye writes in reference to anagogic criticism "When we pass into anagogy, nature becomes, not the container, but the thing contained, and the archetypal universal symbols, the city, the garden, the quest, the marriage, are no longer the desirable forms that man constructs inside nature, but are themselves the forms of nature" (Pg. 119).
While we find difficulty in arguing Frye's eloquence in conveying the nature of Anagogy, I find the argument for literature brought fourth by Don Quixote to refute the Cannon much more compelling and effective. The cannon believes that the nature of literature should be didactic and the imaginary writings of authors of fiction spread confusion and madness amongst the public. Don Quixote cunningly responds to the cannon by describing a character of one of these "imaginary" works.
-"Here he discovers a brook whose cool waters, like liquid crystal, run over fine sand and white pebbles that seem like sifted gold and perfect pearls; there he sees a fountain artfully composed of varicolored jasper and smooth marble; over there he sees another fountain fashioned as a grotto where tiny clamshells and the coiled white-and-yellow houses of the snail are arranged with the conscious disorder and mixed with the bits of shining glass and counterfeit emeralds, forming so varied a pattern that art, imitating nature, here seems to surpass it." (pg. 429)
Even as I typed Don Quixote's argument above my only reaction can be described by the word "wow" and the ever so slight chill trickling slowly up my spine causing all of the hairs of my body to do the wave like a giant crowd in the ballparks of the World Series cheering on the home team. The subtle implications of Don Quixote's argument precisely convey the idea of the Archetypal and Anagogic shift of his chivalric literature. The scene he paints reflects a valiant knight traveling in A place of unimaginable perfection and beauty, unquestionably a representation of Eden from the original myth of the christian faith. His description of this Eden and its vastly incomparable beauty becomes a realization of the Anagogic as the picturesque of the scene surpasses even its own incomparablity. While this completely tautological statement seems ridiculous, Don Quixote creates the anagogic by describing a natural place so mystifying it its beauty eclipses even that created by its inherent neutrality. Once again a somewhat confusing statement, yet a purposefully discourse in proving the superiority of Don Quixote's argument. Essentially by describing the archetypal and anagogic in relation to the novels of Chivalry he proves the existence of an element in this "imaginary" literature that by far exceeds the capabilities of the Cannon's "didactic" poetry.
I hope this little blurb makes sense. I wrote it more as the ideas zapped into my brain than by consciously arranging my argument. It is safe to say these two quotes thus far exceed any other connection between the texts we studied in creating a creepy understanding to the nature of this class and literature in general.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
My Book and Heart Will Never Part
Well first off, I enjoyed myself at the movie and thought the whole production was very charming. It was definitely a great mix of comedy and drama and information. I found the segment on Little goodie two shoes quite interesting. Generally someone calls another a "little goodie two shoes" in a somewhat derogatory and insulting way. At least from my memory as a somewhat rowdy youth, we used the term to make fun of friends who wouldn't join us in creating mayhem around the neighborhood. The movie however illuminated little goodie two-shoes as a much more positive character. She was almost a literary Messiah. She taught literacy to the illiterate youth, taught proper morals, and most importantly preached a love of the natural world. I became instantly curious as to why the connotation of little goodie two shoes became more of an insult when it should be a compliment. I think the answer is a bit more obvious than it should be. The term is only an insult when used by mischievous little kids doing mischievous deeds. When removed from incident an observer actually realizes that the term is a compliment even used in the method described above. Essentially the person called the little goodie two shoes shows poise and maturity in not joining the other grommits in causing havoc so it seems to an outsider that the comment though used negatively by children actually is positive.
But why then do kids still use this term negatively. Goodie two shoes teaches literacy and therefore steals the Innocent nature of children by teaching them to read. Literate children can learn any number of things from books. Some of this material may not be to pleasant and even children consciously or subconsciously compare the carefree nature of innocent childhood and literate maturity. Even seen in the movie, children's readers had a fascination in death, a topic not to terribly excellent in the mind of a child. I think somewhere along the line, the idea of literate maturity, gained an aura of sadness because of lost innocence. Essentially, Goodie two shoes ruined the fun of innocent youth by bringing literacy and imparting morals to young children. She was like a giant fun sponge sucking up all youthful exuberance of a very young child. Thus the term became an insult among gangs of marauding children. The little goodie two shoes of the group refused to cause mayhem and became the fun sponge to the other children. A horrible name to be called by your friends that spurred itself from a very endearing figure of 18th century children's lit.
But why then do kids still use this term negatively. Goodie two shoes teaches literacy and therefore steals the Innocent nature of children by teaching them to read. Literate children can learn any number of things from books. Some of this material may not be to pleasant and even children consciously or subconsciously compare the carefree nature of innocent childhood and literate maturity. Even seen in the movie, children's readers had a fascination in death, a topic not to terribly excellent in the mind of a child. I think somewhere along the line, the idea of literate maturity, gained an aura of sadness because of lost innocence. Essentially, Goodie two shoes ruined the fun of innocent youth by bringing literacy and imparting morals to young children. She was like a giant fun sponge sucking up all youthful exuberance of a very young child. Thus the term became an insult among gangs of marauding children. The little goodie two shoes of the group refused to cause mayhem and became the fun sponge to the other children. A horrible name to be called by your friends that spurred itself from a very endearing figure of 18th century children's lit.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Audio of Idea of order in key west
I used this for studying for the test. Thought it might help plus its pretty interesting.
read by Zachariah Wells
As an added bonus, Wallace Stevens reads Idea of order in Key West himself
also has
"The Poem that Took the Place of a Mountain," and "Vacancy in the Park." on the recordingPeanut Butter and Shelley
"But poetry acts in another and diviner manner. It awakens and enlarges the mind itself by rendering it the receptacle of a thousand unapprehended combinations of thought" Percy Blythe Shelley
Well after finally getting around to reading some of Shelley, all the previous comments pertaining to the reading certainly hold true. Shelley is rich with knowledge on poetry and I personally find his argument pretty damn compelling. I say this because for the most part, I can't stand poetry. I, for the most part, dislike all poetry units of any english class I ever participated in. I beleive however, my stubborness played more into my dislike of poetry and beacuse most teachers try to force meaning upon me as if its glaringly apparent and I'm some blind and deaf fool. After reading Frye a bit and realizing, "the literal meaning of the poem is the poem," Shelley's comment on the "thousand unapprehended combinations of thought" evoked by poetry acted like a nice dose of oxycotin on the pain created by a majority of my past poetry experience. After reading a bit of Shelley, I've decided to take a bit less of a depressed approach to poetry. It seems that reflecting upon a poem creates the experience rather than dicovering some profound meaning. Reading a poem with the singular purpose of deriving meaning ruins the poem. Reading a poem for the sake of reading. This method almost lends itself to the idea of the return to innoncence yet because we are not innocent some form of understanding will be evoked by the innocent reading. Before, I read poetry with a gigantic knot in my brain which was the cause of infinite frustration. Thanks to the fine Swedish Massage given to me by Shelley, the knot, for the most part, worked itself. Poetry will probably continue to cause problems in my study of Literature but now I can save myself a bit of headache and maybe even grow to appreciate the dreaded poetry unit.
Well after finally getting around to reading some of Shelley, all the previous comments pertaining to the reading certainly hold true. Shelley is rich with knowledge on poetry and I personally find his argument pretty damn compelling. I say this because for the most part, I can't stand poetry. I, for the most part, dislike all poetry units of any english class I ever participated in. I beleive however, my stubborness played more into my dislike of poetry and beacuse most teachers try to force meaning upon me as if its glaringly apparent and I'm some blind and deaf fool. After reading Frye a bit and realizing, "the literal meaning of the poem is the poem," Shelley's comment on the "thousand unapprehended combinations of thought" evoked by poetry acted like a nice dose of oxycotin on the pain created by a majority of my past poetry experience. After reading a bit of Shelley, I've decided to take a bit less of a depressed approach to poetry. It seems that reflecting upon a poem creates the experience rather than dicovering some profound meaning. Reading a poem with the singular purpose of deriving meaning ruins the poem. Reading a poem for the sake of reading. This method almost lends itself to the idea of the return to innoncence yet because we are not innocent some form of understanding will be evoked by the innocent reading. Before, I read poetry with a gigantic knot in my brain which was the cause of infinite frustration. Thanks to the fine Swedish Massage given to me by Shelley, the knot, for the most part, worked itself. Poetry will probably continue to cause problems in my study of Literature but now I can save myself a bit of headache and maybe even grow to appreciate the dreaded poetry unit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
