how to make a woman feel appreciated and loved
2 years ago
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Blah-g
So, this is my first blog, unless you want to include the research crap for the group project. Speaking of, my group has already managed to research our subject and plan out the presentation... now to get to the part of actually putting it together: not anytime soon. I've been attempting to read my book for the ISU (Watership Down) and have realized that so far, it's not too interesting. I thought it might get better but it hasn't, so by the end of the week, I'm switching if it doesn't get good. I mean, there have to be better books. Well, I don't know what more to say, so I'll be off to finding more scholarships now. Hopefully the next blog will have more content...
Monday, September 8, 2008
More Mimesis Research... :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimesis#Literary_creation
http://literaryexplorer.blondelibrarian.net/crit.html
Mimetic Criticism and New Historicism consider the work in relation to the outside world.
Mimetic criticism emphasizes the correspondence of the work to external reality. In other words, reality is the context in which the work is studied. Mimetic criticism is committed to truth, reality, and the idea that literature, in some ways, imitates life. It is this idea that leads the mimetic critic to view the work as a true imitation, reflection, or representation of the world and human life.
New Historicism focuses on the sociological and cultural influences of a work. Culture is the context in which the work is studied, and sometimes new historicism is referred to as cultural criticism. New historicism stresses that there are no "universal truths," no "natural behavior," that no text can offer a transparent window to historical fact, and that the text is a product of social causes and a producer of social effects. Therefore, the new historicist's task is complex. He or she must scrutinize the historical causes and consequences of a text while also attending to the historical and cultural conditions of the text's production.
http://wwww.ksu.edu.sa/colleges/art/eng/461-Eng/Literary%20Criticism%20Map.htm
Mimetic criticism seeks to see how well a work accords with the real world. Then, beyond the real world are approaches dealing with the spiritual and the symbolic--the images connecting people throughout time and cultures (archetypes). This is mimetic in a sense too, but the congruency looked for is not so much with the real world as with something beyond the real world--something tying in all the worlds/times/cultures inhabited by man.
The Psychological approach is placed outside these poles because it can fit in many places, depending how it is applied:(1) Historical if diagnosing the author himself(2) Mimetic if considering if characters are acting by "real world" standards and with recognizable psychological motivations(3) Archetypal when the idea of the Jungian collective unconscious is included(4) Reader-Response when the psychology of the reader--why he sees what he sees in the text--is examined.
Likewise, Feminist, Minority, Marxist, and other such approaches may fit in:(1) Historical if the author's attitudes are being examined in relation to his times (i.e. was Shakespeare a feminist for his times, though he might not be considered so today?)(2) Mimetic--when asking how well characters accord with the real world. Does a black character act like a black person would, or is he a stereotype? Are women being portrayed accurately? Does the work show a realistic economic picture of the world?
Mimetic Approach:
Definition:
This can be closely related to the moral / philosophical approach, but is somewhat broader. Mimetic critics ask how well the work of literature accords with the real world. Is it accurate? Is it correct? Is it moral? Does it show how people really act? As such, mimetic criticism can include some forms of moral / philosophical criticism, psychological criticism, and feminist criticism.
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/5086/Criticism.html
II. MIMESIS
The early importance of the concept of mimesis or imitation (qq.v.) as an artistic criterion is attested as early as the 7th c. B.C. in a hymn to Apollo; and the connection between poetry and painting, with its emphasis on accuracy of portrayal, was remarked as early as Simonides The earliest extant Gr. poetry, Pindar’s for example (522P-443 B.C. ), is clearly interested in being faithful to the facts. To this day, much reviewing presumes some form of accurate imitation of the external world or felt life as a criterion of value. The concept is derived from the analogy with painting, where it long seemed to have more practical use, though Aristotle early observed that “not to know that the hind has no horns is a less serious matter than to paint it inartistically” ( Poetics 25.5). Virtually every Western critical theory possesses at least some trace of mimetic theory, if only by opposition to it.
The first Western theory of imitation was Plato’s. His critique of poetry and visual art mounts an attack on imitation based on his ontological and ethical concerns. He was interested in Truth or Being, i.e. Ideas or Forms. Poems and paintings, tied to appearances, always failed adequately to represent the truth of the Idea. For Plato, the poem had no Being, or only very diminished Being, because it was an imitation twice removed from the Idea, where reality and truth were located. Behind this view was the desire to identify the ethical life with purely abstract thought, and immorality with too great attention to material appearances. The old war between philosophy and poetry to which Plato alluded was for him the war of reality with appearance.
Even for Plato, however, poetry had charm. If he advocated, halfironic ally through his mouthpiece Socrates, banishment of poets from his Republic, it was precisely on account of their perceived power to enchant and persuade. Here arises the question of the roles of delight and instruction: in Ion and The Republic Plato’s Socrates was suspicious of the delight poets gave and believed they taught that appearance was reality. In addition, they were irrational, even though he considered their irrationality divinely inspired. All of these Platonic shortcomings were however turned into virtues by later critics.
Aristotle attempted to rescue the imitative function in three ways. First, for Aristotle, poetic imitation was not of the Platonic Idea. Second, it was not of objects but of human actions. Third, it had a creative aspect, giving it power to shape materials into new wholes. Finally, against Plato’s refusal to allow the poem any being, always treating it as an appearance of an appearance, twice removed from the idea of the object it copied, Aristotle provided for the idea of the poem as inherent within itself: he did not consign the idea to abstraction but allowed it to inhere in the object as its principle of being or motion. In the opposition of Aristotle to Plato there was established the long quarrel between an objectifying formalism and an emphasis on separable content, a quarrel that has had a variety of historical incarnations.
Aristotle’s idea of formal unity (q.v.) did not, however, live as easily with the theory of imitation in later critics as it did in the fruitful ambiguities of his own Poetics, where he clearly tried to acknowledge poetry’s claims to both intrinsic order and also truth to the world. In Ren. Italy and France, after the rediscovery of the Poetics, unity became rigidly interpreted in terms of the need for a quite literal imitation. Time, place, and action in a play were restricted in ways that answered to the strictest realism. But even as Aristotle’s views became hardened into the Classicist prescription of the so-called “unities,” Plato was being subjected to critical misreadings that liberalized his views and readmitted the poet to the commonwealth. This had begun as early as Plotinus (204-70 A.D.), whose elaborate Neoplatonist theory of emanations placed the image (q.v.) or appearance on a stairway upward to truth rather than downward to illusion. Ren. defenses of the image were common, though probably none so ingenious as that of Jacopo Mazzoni (1548–98) in his defense of Dante. The idea that the image might be an improvement on nature, the “second nature” of Sir Philip Sidney’s Apology for Poetry (1583), rescued poetry once again from Plato and also from a theologically based (and Platonizing) fear that poetry bred only licentiousness and untruthful fictiveness —a view common in the Christian Middle Ages. Boethius (480–524) had written of “seducing murmurs” and “poisonous sweets” in his Consolation of Philosophy, but by the time of Boccaccio (1313–75), poetry was defended on the ground that theology was the poetry of God and that poetry held within itself hidden truth, more pleasing because acquired by toil and therefore better retained. This was an argument which had the stamp of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–74). In the late Ren., the long period of the domination of ontological concerns ended, and the emphasis on imitation began to wane. Aristotle and Plato, through clever misreadings and selective appropriations, had almost been made to change places.
http://literaryexplorer.blondelibrarian.net/crit.html
Mimetic Criticism and New Historicism consider the work in relation to the outside world.
Mimetic criticism emphasizes the correspondence of the work to external reality. In other words, reality is the context in which the work is studied. Mimetic criticism is committed to truth, reality, and the idea that literature, in some ways, imitates life. It is this idea that leads the mimetic critic to view the work as a true imitation, reflection, or representation of the world and human life.
New Historicism focuses on the sociological and cultural influences of a work. Culture is the context in which the work is studied, and sometimes new historicism is referred to as cultural criticism. New historicism stresses that there are no "universal truths," no "natural behavior," that no text can offer a transparent window to historical fact, and that the text is a product of social causes and a producer of social effects. Therefore, the new historicist's task is complex. He or she must scrutinize the historical causes and consequences of a text while also attending to the historical and cultural conditions of the text's production.
http://wwww.ksu.edu.sa/colleges/art/eng/461-Eng/Literary%20Criticism%20Map.htm
Mimetic criticism seeks to see how well a work accords with the real world. Then, beyond the real world are approaches dealing with the spiritual and the symbolic--the images connecting people throughout time and cultures (archetypes). This is mimetic in a sense too, but the congruency looked for is not so much with the real world as with something beyond the real world--something tying in all the worlds/times/cultures inhabited by man.
The Psychological approach is placed outside these poles because it can fit in many places, depending how it is applied:(1) Historical if diagnosing the author himself(2) Mimetic if considering if characters are acting by "real world" standards and with recognizable psychological motivations(3) Archetypal when the idea of the Jungian collective unconscious is included(4) Reader-Response when the psychology of the reader--why he sees what he sees in the text--is examined.
Likewise, Feminist, Minority, Marxist, and other such approaches may fit in:(1) Historical if the author's attitudes are being examined in relation to his times (i.e. was Shakespeare a feminist for his times, though he might not be considered so today?)(2) Mimetic--when asking how well characters accord with the real world. Does a black character act like a black person would, or is he a stereotype? Are women being portrayed accurately? Does the work show a realistic economic picture of the world?
Mimetic Approach:
Definition:
This can be closely related to the moral / philosophical approach, but is somewhat broader. Mimetic critics ask how well the work of literature accords with the real world. Is it accurate? Is it correct? Is it moral? Does it show how people really act? As such, mimetic criticism can include some forms of moral / philosophical criticism, psychological criticism, and feminist criticism.
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/5086/Criticism.html
II. MIMESIS
The early importance of the concept of mimesis or imitation (qq.v.) as an artistic criterion is attested as early as the 7th c. B.C. in a hymn to Apollo; and the connection between poetry and painting, with its emphasis on accuracy of portrayal, was remarked as early as Simonides The earliest extant Gr. poetry, Pindar’s for example (522P-443 B.C. ), is clearly interested in being faithful to the facts. To this day, much reviewing presumes some form of accurate imitation of the external world or felt life as a criterion of value. The concept is derived from the analogy with painting, where it long seemed to have more practical use, though Aristotle early observed that “not to know that the hind has no horns is a less serious matter than to paint it inartistically” ( Poetics 25.5). Virtually every Western critical theory possesses at least some trace of mimetic theory, if only by opposition to it.
The first Western theory of imitation was Plato’s. His critique of poetry and visual art mounts an attack on imitation based on his ontological and ethical concerns. He was interested in Truth or Being, i.e. Ideas or Forms. Poems and paintings, tied to appearances, always failed adequately to represent the truth of the Idea. For Plato, the poem had no Being, or only very diminished Being, because it was an imitation twice removed from the Idea, where reality and truth were located. Behind this view was the desire to identify the ethical life with purely abstract thought, and immorality with too great attention to material appearances. The old war between philosophy and poetry to which Plato alluded was for him the war of reality with appearance.
Even for Plato, however, poetry had charm. If he advocated, halfironic ally through his mouthpiece Socrates, banishment of poets from his Republic, it was precisely on account of their perceived power to enchant and persuade. Here arises the question of the roles of delight and instruction: in Ion and The Republic Plato’s Socrates was suspicious of the delight poets gave and believed they taught that appearance was reality. In addition, they were irrational, even though he considered their irrationality divinely inspired. All of these Platonic shortcomings were however turned into virtues by later critics.
Aristotle attempted to rescue the imitative function in three ways. First, for Aristotle, poetic imitation was not of the Platonic Idea. Second, it was not of objects but of human actions. Third, it had a creative aspect, giving it power to shape materials into new wholes. Finally, against Plato’s refusal to allow the poem any being, always treating it as an appearance of an appearance, twice removed from the idea of the object it copied, Aristotle provided for the idea of the poem as inherent within itself: he did not consign the idea to abstraction but allowed it to inhere in the object as its principle of being or motion. In the opposition of Aristotle to Plato there was established the long quarrel between an objectifying formalism and an emphasis on separable content, a quarrel that has had a variety of historical incarnations.
Aristotle’s idea of formal unity (q.v.) did not, however, live as easily with the theory of imitation in later critics as it did in the fruitful ambiguities of his own Poetics, where he clearly tried to acknowledge poetry’s claims to both intrinsic order and also truth to the world. In Ren. Italy and France, after the rediscovery of the Poetics, unity became rigidly interpreted in terms of the need for a quite literal imitation. Time, place, and action in a play were restricted in ways that answered to the strictest realism. But even as Aristotle’s views became hardened into the Classicist prescription of the so-called “unities,” Plato was being subjected to critical misreadings that liberalized his views and readmitted the poet to the commonwealth. This had begun as early as Plotinus (204-70 A.D.), whose elaborate Neoplatonist theory of emanations placed the image (q.v.) or appearance on a stairway upward to truth rather than downward to illusion. Ren. defenses of the image were common, though probably none so ingenious as that of Jacopo Mazzoni (1548–98) in his defense of Dante. The idea that the image might be an improvement on nature, the “second nature” of Sir Philip Sidney’s Apology for Poetry (1583), rescued poetry once again from Plato and also from a theologically based (and Platonizing) fear that poetry bred only licentiousness and untruthful fictiveness —a view common in the Christian Middle Ages. Boethius (480–524) had written of “seducing murmurs” and “poisonous sweets” in his Consolation of Philosophy, but by the time of Boccaccio (1313–75), poetry was defended on the ground that theology was the poetry of God and that poetry held within itself hidden truth, more pleasing because acquired by toil and therefore better retained. This was an argument which had the stamp of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–74). In the late Ren., the long period of the domination of ontological concerns ended, and the emphasis on imitation began to wane. Aristotle and Plato, through clever misreadings and selective appropriations, had almost been made to change places.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Accountability Agreement
Focus
2. I would like to have a mark of at least 85% on my ISU and other major assignments, so that I may ensure a high grade in this course.
Contributions
1. I will contribute to the class by helping others whenever I can.
2. I will be punctual in terms of getting to class on time and handing in all work by the given due date.
3. I will put all my effort into completing assignments and doing the best I possibly can.
Accountabilities
1. I will be held responsible for handing in all my work on time.
2. I will be held responsible for doing my part in group projects and being present on the date of presentation.
3. I am fully accountable for doing my best to participate in class discussions.
1. I will rely mostly on myself to have the initiative to do what is necessary to pass this course with the highest level of success I can muster.
2. I will be somewhat dependent on the constructive criticism of my classmates and teacher(s) so that I may further develop my learning skills and writing techniques.
3. I will need Curtis’ support and patience during the times where stress gets the best of me.
Measurements
1. I will know I was successful with my goals when I find I have retained the knowledge I was taught over the year.
2. I will be successful when I receive over 80% on any of my work.
3. I will be most successful when I have managed to earn myself 88% or higher as my final mark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
