One of the best things about the north bedroom is the large window next to the bed. Unfortunately it’s made out of a sliding door and is fixed in place. Finally decided to solve that problem by installing some hinges and extending a small deck outside. The frame was originally made to handle being slid on a track so it handled the hinges no problem. All the lumber and hardware was found on-site save the nuts and bolts. Total cost of the addition: 60 cents.
We also have several other small home improvement projects in progress at the moment. First, the front porch area is being completed with concrete board and tiles. Second, the north fence is going to be extended to the property line. More to come.
We tilled the west corner of the lot to make way for our first stab at a legitimate garden. So far we have tomatoes, basil, spinach, lettuce & cilantro planted with more to come.
The garden seemed too far at first, especially when all we had was a green plastic watering can but with the hose in place it seems to be shaping into a nice little corner. I think I read once that Glen Murcutt the famous Australian architect took his class to see the site they were to design on. He asked them “What’s the best place to site the new building?”, they all responded that it was at the top of the hill overlooking the entire site. Then he asked them where they would not put the building, and they answered “In the corner of the site by the swamp.” And that was exactly where he assigned them to design the building. In a similar way we thought the garden should be in a neglected corner of the site.
We’ve found several hundred steel straps lying in the bushes and are now experimenting with possible polyhedron structures to build. One option is to make it a chicken tracker, which is different from a chicken coop in that it’s mobile; the chickens clear the grass and fertilize the ground for farming. Other options are to include an elevated platform and make it an inhabitable structure. Yet another option is to put it in a tree, cover it in nylon, put a light in the middle and make it a giant moon-like lantern which you can crawl into. There still are certain structural considerations that need to be worked out.
Beholdmyswarthyface and I are currently compiling our own Encyclopedia of Modern Japan (so far it’s just a list), and we are looking for people to contribute. The project is turning out to be bigger than expected.
Unlike Louis Frédéric’sJapan Encyclopedia, ours will not include the pre-modern periods, nor will it include place names, cultural artifacts, historical sites, etc. Rather, it will be limited to a) major writers, artists, historians and intellectuals from Tokugawa to present (with a focus on Meiji/Taishō/Shōwa), b) literary magazines and publishing houses from Meiji to present, c) genres of the novel (e.g., ero shōsetsu, honkaku shōsetsu, etc), d) literary debates (i.e., bungaku ronsō), e) literary coteries, f) major literary awards, and g) major film and anime directors. By limiting ourselves in this way, we hope to produce a literary and cultural encylopedia of modern Japan that is more comprehensive and informative than any published to date.
If anyone is interested in participating in this project, please contact us, and we will add your name to the list of online editors.
- Sally Suzuki, Beholdmyswarthyface Media Director
Finally wrapped up the school website. Now, back to the blogging.
Practically no work went into the house last week but it’s been full of changes. First off, new roommates! Chelsey moved in last week with Aylah and Sakura scheduled to arrive early September. This place is going to be packed.
Word of the life drawing sessions are continuing to spread and now we have a few dedicated regulars. Pamela graciously included a spot for us in her art teacher exhibit which helped to spread the word.
Dylan’s been on Oahu all of last week giving his submarine presentation but coming back tomorrow to pick things up.
Remember how you always wanted to take a crash course in critical theory? Well, here’s your chance. I’ve compiled the most comprehensive hyperlinked glossary of modern and postmodern literary theory terms ever assembled. Consider it an early birthday present. (Non-Mother others, feel free to use as well.)
Before we start, you’ll want to read through this very short but concise introduction to the major schools of critical theory (courtesy of Purdue University). Now as I walk you through this, I want you to keep in mind that a) my system of classification is somewhat arbitrary, as many of these categories overlap, and b) I’ve used Wikipedia only when absolutely necessary.
OK. Here we go. I’ve classified the critical orientations into the following ten clusters:
Cluster 1: Marxist, Marxian, New Historicist and Postcolonial Theories
Cluster 2: Formalists, Conservatives, and Anti-Structuralists
Cluster 3: Structuralists and Semiotics
Cluster 4: Post-structuralists and Deconstruction
Cluster 5: Reception Theory
Cluster 6: Narratology
Cluster 7: Pschoanalytic Criticism
Cluster 8: Postmodernism
Cluster 9: Feminism and Gender
Cluster 10: Miscellany
Remember, I’m not here to explain things in any detail; the linked sources will take care of that. Think of me as a kind of Virgil leading you, Dante, through the fiery rings of hell.
Cluster 1: Marxist, Marxian, New Historicist and Postcolonial Theories
Next, you’ll want to familiarize yourself with Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci and his notion of hegemony.
Then there’s the Frankfurt School (1930-1960s), which began in Germany before the war and was absorbed into the American New Left in the 1960s. Its chief task was to apply Marx’s economic theories to the realm of culture: from this we get “cultural Marxism.” Key members included Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Walter Benjamin, Jurgen Habermas and Leo Lowenthal. The school contributed to the rise of cultural studies and the sociology of literature.
Now before we move to New Historicism, we’ll want to quickly review the “old historicism” of Hegel, Marx, and Franz Boas. We’ll also want to look at Karl Popper’s critique of historicism.
Also key to understanding New Historicism is American anthropologist Clifford Geertz and his notion of “thick description,” which the New Historicists would later borrow.
There’s also New Historicist Louis Montrose, who developed the idea of “historicity.”
Next, there are the postcolonial critics. They argue that our notions about the “Orient,” or, more broadly, about the non-Western world, are largely constructions of the Western imperial imagination. Edward Said uses the term “Orientalism” to refer to the discourse employed by Western scholars to explain the non-Western world. Because postcolonial critics argue that this discourse arose out of particular material, social and historical conditions (e.g., Western imperialism, economic and technological domination, etc.), I’ve placed postcolonial theories in this cluster alongside Marxian theories. Aside from Said, other key proponents of this school include Frantz Fanon, Gayatri Spivak and Homi Bhabha.
The American version of the Russian Formalists— the New Critics, who reigned from the early 1920s through the 1960s— emphasized close reading, unity, intrinsic criticism, explication, analytical criticism, impersonality, organicism, and irony. Two of the school’s key proponents, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley, warned us not to fall prey to the intentional fallacy. Also associated with this school were F.R. Leavis (his followers are called Leavisites), Cleanth Brooks, and I.A. Richards.
I.A. Richards is remembered for, among things, his advocacy of practical criticism, and for his division of the metaphor into two parts: tenor (eg, world) and vehicle (eg, stage).
As mentioned, Aristotle was a sort of proto-Formalist. His division of the elements of tragedy into mythos (plot), peripateia (reversal), anagnorisis (recognition), hamartia (tragic flaw), catharsis (purification), mimesis (imitation), and subplot served as a sort of rulebook for dramatists during the Renaissance and Enlightenment. However, in the 19th century the Romantics began to question some of his assumptions, and by the 20th century many modernist writers came to reject two of Aristotle’s key concepts, plot and mimesis. Formed in the mid-1930s, the Chicago School of Critics sought to revive Aristotle’s reputation and re-implement his theories.
Finally, I should point out that, unlike their Russian counterparts, the American Formalists (i.e., New Critics, Chicago School critics) emphasized pragmatic and practical criticism over theoretical criticism.
One American semiotician particularly under the influence of Saussure was Charles Peirce, who developed his own theories about the index, icon and symbol.
Finally, there’s French critic Roland Barthes, who’s a little harder to pin down. Some say he’s more post-structuralist than structuralist, others say he’s equally both. I’ll put him right here on the border: at the end of the structuralist cluster and the beginning of the post-structuralists (continued in my next post). For now, Mother, you’ll want to familiarize yourself with his work, S/Z, as well as with some of his more important terms such as doxa, demythologizing, death of author, play, text, ecriture, readerly text vs. writerly text, closure (closed text vs. open text), writing degree zero (or, zero degree of writing), narratology, ecrivant, and lexia (i.e., arbitrary excerpts).
OK, Mother, here’s the next installment. I’m running out of time, though, so there’ll be even less explaining here than in the previous post. Also, keep in mind that some of the links might not exactly match up with the terms.
Last week we discussed the first three clusters. Today we’ll do the next three, starting with post-structuralism and deconstruction. You’ll recall from last week that structuralism— post-structuralism’s predecessor— and semiotics overlap in many regards. Just to review, take a quick look at this explanation of semiotics.
Next is French theorist Gerard Genette, another major theorist of narratology. You’ll want to pay extra attention to his terms focalization and zero focalization (i.e., omniscient narrator), mood and interpolation, paralipsis and apophasis, anachrony (i.e., prolepsis, or narrator’s anticipation) and analepsis (i.e., narrator’s recollection), and verisimilitude. Also have a look at his notion of the focalizer. You’ll also need to learn the various kinds of rhetorical tropes (eg, irony, metonymy, metaphor, synechdote).
I’m really running out time so we’re going to have to rush through the rest of the terms: analepsis (flashback) and prolepsis (flashforward), and mimesis and diagesis.
OK, in this last installment we’ll be covering clusters 7, 8 and 9. Just in case you’d like to review, here are the first and second installments. I’m in a hurry, so we’re going to have to make this quick.
Oh, and don’t leave out A.D. Nutall’s notion of transparent criticism (eg, Aristotle’s formal descriptions) vs. opaque criticism (eg, Derrida’s criticism), and Judith Butler on performativity. And while you’re on Butler you might want to take a look at her writings on Zionism.
This concludes our three-part lesson, Mother. You can go back to your New Age self-help books now, hopefully with a new perspective. To review, here are Lessons 1 and 2.
Your dutiful son,
Beholdmyswarthyface