So far, AP Lit has mostly focused on two main texts: Renaissance Self-Fashioning by Stephen Greenblatt and Better Living Through Criticism by A.O. Scott. We've gone extremely in depth with close reading and analyzation, being careful to account for the meanings of individual words and phrases. We recently put the two texts into conversation with each other to find some connections and big themes of the course. We started by focusing on Better Living Through Criticism by A.O. Scott. The focus of this text is about the role of art and criticism within society. We discussed the lack of ultimate and objective truth as well as the power of a deep and emotional aesthetic experience. We discussed Scott's concept of "the good", which is an ennobling experience of hard work that brings about positive consequences long-term. After significant discussion of the topic, our class agreed that our work together is an example of grappling with "the good". We also made a diagram of Scott's important phrases to prioritize and align them together with different sizes, placements, and colors. Both of these things are pictured below. Our other text, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, is an analysis of the systems that our society uses to fashion identities through the influence of authorities, opposition to aliens, and the force of submission (among other things). In class, we spent a lot of time close-reading Greenblatt's 10 Conditions of Self-Fashioning. These outline the process of Self-Fashioning very thoroughly by describing the elements involved and the processes that link them to shape an individual. We first spent time closely analyzing the 10 conditions and trying to uncover all their meaning. Since Greenblatt's writing is characteristically dense, this took much time and patience and really pushed me to live in the process rather than the end result. We made sure to specifically focus on what individual words meant (as small changes can entirely shift the condition's meaning) and wrote out bigger questions we had about each condition. In my commonplace book, I have extensive writing from our class discussions to help me flush out my understanding of the 10 conditions. Below is my writing for just the first 3. It was then important to break the process of Self-Fashioning down into its individual pieces like a recipe breaks down its ingredients. We did some individual thinking and then discussed as a class. Everyone came to similar conclusions about more obvious aspects such as the self, alien, and authority, but there was definitely some discussion about other aspects such as the loss of self and a perceived threat. Some students thought that these things were already included in the "ingredients" already listed, but many students felt that they deserved their own recognition and labeling. My personal list as well as the class list are pictured below. Most recently, we've spent time on the more broad analysis of Greenblat uses his 3 sections (The Preface, Introduction, and Epilogue) together to craft his argument. So far, we've discussed that the Preface serves more as a retrospective narrative of Greenblatt's own Self-Fashioning whereas the Epilogue is a tale of Greenblatt's own struggles with his concept. Although he understands and knows about the process of Self-Fashioning, he still has trouble letting go because he wants to believe that he has power over his own identity. My work on this concept is pictured below. I feel like I've certainly adjusted to the format of AP Lit and allowed myself to flow with the long process of discussion and analyzing rather than jumping straight to answers. Although it was hard for me at first, I've also loved writing in my commonplace book instead of trying to keep all my thoughts internally. This has allowed me to go deeper, be more organized, and look back at old work to build on that thinking.
I think that we'll soon start to move on to different texts, but that we'll continue our process of deep class discussion and hard work. Perhaps we'll also have a formal writing piece soon. I look forward to seeing where the rest of the year goes and building my knowledge of literature and writing. I can see the big themes we've focused on coming into play in other classes and other areas of life entirely!
0 Comments
The Galloway Theatre Company's performance of Metamorphoses was truly a beautiful and deep production. Based on the Myths of Ovid, they stayed true to the most integral aspects of these myths while still adding modern and comedic elements. Everyone was so invested in the characters and story and they came together to engage and entertain the audience.
Overall, the show reflected many of the themes covered in AP Lit so far. Most broadly, it addressed the authorities that shape our identities. The gods from Ovid's myths quite literally act as authorities to the mortals in the stories by imposing their will and accepting submission. The humans are shaped by the rules, standards, and preferences of the gods- doing everything they can to stay in their good graces. This forces the mortals to prioritize things that the gods want them to to avoid consequences. For example, the story of Myrrha's denial of Aphrodite's gift of love leads to the tragic story of her affair with her father and subsequent disappearance. This story emphasizes the influence and power the gods have as authorities over the mortals- forcing humans to obey and submit. Another connection to class material is the story of Orpheus and Eurydice. When his new wife Eurydice dies, Orpheus pleas with Hades to get her back. Hades says that Eurydice must walk behind Orpheus, and only once back in the upper world can he turn back to look at her. Perhaps, this journey is an example of what A.O. Scott defines as "the good". His journey from the underworld to the upper-world is certainly an example of hard work that isn't fun in the moment, but will lead to long-term happiness and fulfillment. To complete the task would certainly be "an ennobling experience that inspires adoration and respect". However, this myth shows just how difficult it truly is to grapple with the good. Even though we know the long-term benefits, human nature leads to the urge to give up and doubt ourselves, making it harder, but potentially more worthwhile. The idea of self-fashioning was confusing at first, but eventually I realized it was something extremely familiar to me. After reading Greenblatt's writing and doing some research online, I figured out that self-fashioning was essentially conforming to a societal standard of behavior, attire, and generally making your image socially acceptable in society. Although this seemed prevalent in the upper class during the Renaissance, I think it is pretty clear that it had expanded to pretty much everyone nowadays.
Nobody wants to seem or even be fake, but we all have certain pressures that society imposes on us. We are taught not to show too much negative emotion, not to act rudely, not to dress to provocatively or too sloppily, and many more things. Throughout one's entire life, they are taught to act the same way that everyone else does, lest they be a social pariah. Even in the media, we see countless movies about high school that show the "outcasts" who have been banished for the social scene because of their "strange" appearance or behavior. However, these standards are not inherently bad or good. In some ways, the standards imposed on us can hold us back from being our true selves for fear that others do not find the same things interesting or important, or can keep us in fear of acting the wrong way. But on the other hand, having some larger standard of image for the people around us keeps the common values of the society at the forefront. If one society highly prioritizes certain morals, they can make sure they are implemented by having people follow the social standards of that culture. Right off the bat, one of the questions from chapter two jumped out at me: "Can we teach ourselves to question?" I have always seen curiosity as one of my strengths and have always been taught its importance as a virtue. Because of this, I was intrigued by the idea of teaching someone to think critically (or to question). Berger says that "[some] don't know how to ask because it's never been asked of them" and that teachers need to "inspire inquiry" in students, allowing them to learn the art of questioning. The most popular method of this would probably be the socratic method, in which teachers ask students questions throughout the lesson in order to engage them and teach them to interact with and question things. This connects to me because I am considering a law career and participated in a Law program at Emory last Summer. One of the main things the professor told us is that law school "doesn't necessarily teach you laws, but teaches you to think critically." They utilize the socratic method in order to get students into a headspace of analysis and questioning. However, Berger says that it might not be enough to just ask students questions. He says that they must also be "willing to ask questions without knowing the answer" themselves. This prompts a more meaningful and genuine discussion, which I have witnessed myself in classes, with great success each time.
Another question that really intrigued me was from Chapter three: "How can you learn to love a broken foot?" I immediately thought of the famous saying: "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade." Once one has accepted the reality of their situation, they must try to see the positives in it. These will vary depending on the specific scenario, but many bad things have a common moral connected to another popular saying: "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger." By fighting and surviving bad times, you build your resilience and exhibit self control. You teach yourself how to survive and learn that you are capable of handling whatever crazy situation life throws your way. Since we can not control everything about life, we might as well be able to make the best of the situation and grow as a person. I think that during AP Lit, we will put both of these philosophies into practice. We will learn to question everything around us and become curious learners who want to understand the world around them on a deeper level. Through class discussion and interaction with Dr. Holt, we will build the strength and ability to ask every question we have, even if the answer is not immediately available or does not exist. We will also learn to "go with the flow". Sometimes, life happens. An assignment gets lost, someone is having a bad day, a link is not working. However, by learning to accept this bad things and turn them into positives by strengthening our tolerance, patience, and will, we can grow as people and as students. The ideas presented in Better Living Through Criticism really made me think and question. Initially, I was very set in the ideology that criticism was always a personal opinion and that someone else's criticism does not necessarily mean anything about the quality of your work on a larger scale. However, throughout the reading, I started questioning the very essence and nature of criticism. Why do critics exist? Why do websites like Rotten Tomatoes garner so much attention when all that they present is one person's opinion about a certain work?
Well, it was first important to question the role of critics in our society. On a surface level, they help us pick out what media is "good" or "bad" and what is "worthwhile" or not. But going deeper, they spark conversation about controversial topics, help underground creators become successful, and more. This then led me to think about the consequential validity of these criticisms presented in society. If people are telling us about the quality of certain content, are we still thinking for ourselves? Or have we just become reliant on the opinions of others instead of witnessing something and drawing a conclusion ourselves? I think there is a balance. It is impossible to individually look at every single piece of content in the world, so it is necessary to rely on the conclusions of others. however, it is important that when more consequential or important pieces come into question that we make our own decisions and thoughts based on personal experience with the material. This allows us to have a broad scope of knowledge, but a more intimate experience when needed. When people are asked to criticize something themselves, they are often told to "tell the truth", as A. O. Scott would put it. However, is there any objective truth to criticism? Most critics judge things using the standards of the time and place they are in, but what happens when society inevitably changes over time? Does this criticism become useless? Should a critic attempt to judge the possibility of revolutionary thought rather than judging based on current standards? All of this had been debated throughout history, but it still has yet to be truly answered. There is not really a way to tell what society will be like in 10, 20, or even 50 years (let alone longer), so it would be exceedingly difficult to do so through criticism. Instead, it might be best to analyze based on modern standards, but open oneself up to the possibility that those standards could change and therefore that the status of a critic's newness could also change. I think that throughout AP Lit, we will open ourself up to outside criticism. We obviously will not be mean to each other, but perhaps we will learn the importance of how others view our work and what that means to each of us on a personal level. We might also learn to interpret what criticism should be worked into our writing and thinking, and what criticism is simply the opinion of someone different from us. |
|