Abstract Expressionism

The question came up: what was modern art in the 1950s? Here is a site about abstract expressionism:

http://www.artcyclopedia.com/history/abstract-expressionism.html

Here are some paintings by Mark Rothko:

http://images.google.com/images?q=mark+rothko&hl=en&hs=Lq7&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=ii&oi=imagest

Here are some paintings by Barnett Newman:

http://www.studio-international.co.uk/painting/newman.htm

Here's a site devoted to Jackson Pollack:

http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/pollock_jackson.html

Please take a look. There are some wonderful paintings here.

And this is what my friend, Gaye Chan, a UH art professor, says about the abstract expressionists:

I thought rothko's work was ridiculus too when I saw it in slides and books and posters.  then one day i saw a retrospective of his work and it made me weep.  same
thing with dan flavin.  it was in washington dc two days after W's
reelection.  flavin completely blew me away.

aloha, Susan

amlit338

amlit338

Coretta Scott King dies:
see the New York Times (nytimes.com) or the Washington Post (washingtonpost.com) for obits this morning.

aloha, Susan

Ask Professor Schultz!

As seen in the January 30, 2006 edition of Ka Leo O Hawaii:

amlit338

amlit338
and another thing...
White Trash defined!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_trash

and another! page 174 reference to Malebranche:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09568a.htm

amlit338

amlit338
Intellectuals and artists during the Cold War
Tomorrow we'll talk a bit about perceptions of "modern art" in 1950s America. Here are some links that might be of interest to you:

On the CIA's funding of artists and intellectuals:
http://www.no2anticommunism.org/en/index.php?info=doc&Id=15

A review article from the New Yorker by Louis Menand, a foremost intellectual historian:
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/articles/051017crat_atlarge

The arts and anti-communism (among other things):
http://www.sunrisedancer.com/radicalreader/library/declarationsofindependence/declarationsofindependence10.asp

amlit338

amlit338I might be lying if I said that I wasn't writing this blog out of obligation and expectation,heh, I haven't decided yet.
When I think about the Darger lecture and what I got from it, I'm having a hard time thinking clearly without seeing clip art images of little girls with penises.
I guess the paramount point I got from it is the fact that there could be Dargers out there everywhere. We could know them, and not know. Makes me want to have an a'ala park schizophrenic ghost-write my memoirs. He'd probably do a better job.
What makes me curious about Darger is the context in which his work exists. Would it have been so interesting, say, if Stephen King did what Darger did. His career would no doubt be over. What I'm trying to say, or ask is: does the fact that Darger was a hermit who had had a heartbreaking and incredible history, affect the way his work is valued today? I think it does. His story is as equally fascinating as his body of work is. And for audiences and pretentious obscure art fanatics, it's difficult to find that singular spot where Darger ends and "The Story of the Vivian Girls, in What is Known as the Realms of the Unreal, of the Glandeco-Angelinnian War Storm, as caused by the Child Slave Rebellion" begins. We love all things elusive. Darger and his work then become a novel specimen for critics and others to poke and prod and probe for years to come.

amlit338

amlit338

Events to attend:

It was great seeing Andrea at Prof. Franklin's talk, and Spencer at the Henry Darger fest. I'm hoping they'll share something of their experiences on the blog.

In the coming two weeks, you might attend one of the following:

--Thurs., Feb. 2 at 3 p.m. in Kuykendall 410, Anne Kennedy and Susan Schultz will be reading from their creative work.

--Wednesday, Feb. 8 at 7 p.m. in the Art Auditorium, Patricia Grace, an important Maori/Pacific writer, will be reading.

--Thursday, Feb. 9 at 3 in the Kuykendall Auditorium, Patricia Grace and others on "Indigenizing the Novel in Aotearoa: The Role of Culture and Identity." Grace is one of those writers you really should see.

aloha, Susan

amlit338

amlit338

Dispatches, by Michael Herr

Please read 85 pages or so by Thursday. The reading is not difficult linguistically, but it is emotionally rigorous, so do a bit at a time. The writing is also pretty amazing, so pause over some of it (if Flannery O'Connor had been a war reporter, she might have written this book). Prof. Mark Heberle will be joining us on Thursday, and will talk to us about Vietnam War literature. Be prepared to ask him questions; he's extremely knowledgeable on the subject.

Hope your weekends go well.

aloha, Susan

O'connor vs. Beaver

I must admit, that when I think of the 1950s, I can't help but imagine the world that is portrayed by the sitcoms 'Leave it to Beaver,' 'Green Acres,' 'I Dream of Jeanie,' and heck, even 'The Sandlot,'and 'Back to the Future.' I'm sure that I can't be the only one who believes that these fantasies were somewhat true. Of course, the time period can't fit the perfect cookie cutter that these shows provide, but it's nice to hope that things could have actually been good in America. I think I mentioned in class that the false world of the 'perfect stay-at-home mother, wise father, obedient children, and general innocense of society' was not shaped mereley by these programs, rather, by people in general. There's always the saying that "things aren't as good as the old days." I've been hearing this all my life. "It's so dangerous to go out these days...it was simpler back then...safer." The list could go on. This preconcieved notion that things WERE better had me reading the book from a different perspective, and I suppose this had me looking at the Grandmother in different light. I didn't see her as the false person that seemingly everyone else in the class did. She was definitely flawed, made mistakes, etc., but I didn't see these mistakes as so far removed from reality. I didn't end up hating her in the end, but feeling that she could have been so much more had she lived the life given to her a bit more wisely. It seemed as if she made the wrong decisions at the wrong time (i.e. taking them in the direction of the misfit), and the events just unfolded around her in a way that was definitely unbeneficial for the family.
In addition to comparing the story to the time period in which it was written, I feel it's important to mention that I read it as if it were in a time period EXITING the ideal 50s. I saw the grandmother as the person wishing to go back to 'the good old days.' Perhaps I made a mistake here, and this is why I was so soft on her, and didn't think she was full of crap. It wasn't until class that I realized this story was supposed to destroy the cookie cutter that I grew so accustomed to. Perhaps I may be a hopeless optimist, but for some reason I tend to constantly remind myself that O'Connor's 'A Good Man is Hard to Find' is ALSO a fantasy...and that these events don't exactly happen every day.
As far as what I got out of the story as a whole...we were discussing allegory the other day, and to be honest, I had one of those experiences where you've heard the word so many times before, and you assume you know what it means through extrapolation, but in the end you don't know jack. I went home to look the word up again and found that it is pretty much an aesop fable...a story with a moral. This story is nothing short of a violent aesop fable. I was reminded that O'Connor was a devout Catholic, and made it a point to keep this in mind when reading the story again. When I came across the 2nd to last line of the Misfit, where he comments that she would have been a good woman had she been exposed to danger every step of the way, I can't help but think about O'Connor's Christianity. In no way do I see a resemblance of Jesus in the Misfit, mind you (I suppose I just can't see Jesus talking about being evil, then offing gramma and 'doing her a favor.') However, the revelation did occur to me that perhaps O'Connor is calling into action for other Christians to be genuine. What I know about most people who claim to be of certain faiths is that they aren't practicing, and it doesn't mean anything more to them than just a title. I feel that O'Connor is telling Christians out there to live as if every minute is their last, and to make Jesus a bit more important than a last resort, or perhaps a mask to put on when the time seems right.
In the end, I genuinly enjoyed this story, and found no huge flaws in it...hmm...perhaps the children could have been less annoying...but then again is that me hoping for the cookie cutter again?

Revised syllabus redux

AmLit 338
Susan M. Schultz
January 23, 2006


Calendar

T, 1/10: Introductions and expectations
Th, 1/12: Read Howl, by Allen Ginsberg [1/15/38, MLKing birthday; 1/16/91: Gulf War I starts]

T, 1/17: Howl:[ Oral Report: NYC mental institutions in the 1950s.]
Th, 1/19: Howl

T, 1/24: Flannery O’Connor, “A Good Man is Hard to Find” (story, not book)
Th, 1/26: O’Connor, “The Artificial Nigger” [Oral Report: Civil Rights in the 1950s]

T, 1/31: O’Connor, “Good Country People”
Th, 2/2: Michael Herr, Dispatches [Oral Report: A short history of the Vietnam War]

T, 2/7: Dispatches
Th, 2/9: Dispatches [Oral Report: government use of euphemism during the Vietnam War]

T, 2/14: Yusef Komunyakaa, Dien Cai Dau [Oral Report: The draft in the Vietnam war]
Th, 2/16: Dien Cai Dau

T, 2/21: Dien Cai Dau [5 page paper due]
Th, 2/23: Toni Morrison, Jazz

T, 2/28: Jazz: [Oral Report: the Jazz Age]
Th, 3/2: Jazz

T, 3/7: Prof. Schultz away
Th, 3/9: Prof. Schultz away

T, 3/14: Barbara Kingsolver, Pigs in Heaven [Oral Report: Native Americans and adoption issues]
Th, 3/16: Pigs in Heaven Midterm

T, 3/21: Pigs in Heaven [3/20: anniversary of the Iraq War, 2003]
Th, 3/23:He Leo Hou: Kamau, by Alani Apio [Oral Report: HVB on Hawai`i]

T, 3/28: Spring Break
Th, 3/30: Spring Break

T, 4/4: Kamau [anniversary of ML King’s assassination in 1968]
Th, 4/6: Kamau [oral performance of the text, with commentary]

T, 4/11: Da Mayah, by Lee Cataluna [Oral Report: some aspect of local poliics]
Th, 4/13: Da Mayah

T, 4/18: Da Mayah [Oral performance with commentary]
Th, 4/20: Barbara Jane Reyes, Poeta en San Francisco

T, 4/25: Poeta [Oral Report: What does the Tagalog say?]
Th, 4/27: Poeta

T, 5/2: Last Day of Class

amlit338

amlit338: "Flannery and Faulkner"

After reading both short stories, I looked up Flannery O'Connor on the internet to read her biography and found that some liken her to William Faulkner. The only other book I ever read of Faulkner's was As I Lay Dying so I didn't see the similarities because the writing styles are very different. She is though described as relying heavily on regional settings and grotesque characters.

I realized that the way that the Misfit talks in A Good Man is Hard to Find reminds me of the way pretty much everyone talked in Faulkner's As I Lay Dying, with very southern dialect that sometimes requires a second read-through to understand.

The bio also states that "her writing reveals an almost uncanny grasp of the nuances of human behavior". Like Faulkner, she doesn't try and make the situation pretty, but instead real. In the Faulkner book I read, a family’s mother dies and the book is about how the family members cope while transporting her corpse to a cemetery. The ironic thing is that most of them have other agendas and don’t even say so much as a sentence about their mother. I think that saying she knows human behavior is a very accurate description when comparing her to Faulkner.

One thing that stuck with me after reading A Good Man is Hard to Find was when she described the mother as "begun to make heaving noises as if she couldn't get her breath." (19) when she new her husband and son had been shot dead. I must admit that I initially thought the name Flannery was a man’s name so after reading this story and then finding out it was a woman was a shock to me. I like stories that shock though, otherwise I find them kind of forgettable after they have come and gone.

I Don't Get It...and Seahawks rule.

Some information of Flannery:

She raised peacocks, had disseminated lupus, and died at 39 after surgery for an unrelated complaint.

Just some interesting facts I stumbled upon for all you fellow bloggers that like to know random, possibly future Jeopardy trivia, information type things.

As for the readings...

"A Good Man is Hard to Find" continually stumps me, and I suppose it will go on stumping me for some time. Given, I understand the religious undertones and accept the fact that when the grandma says "you're one of my babies," she's making some reference to God and the fact that we're all God's children (according to Christianity...or more specifically Catholicism)--but I still don't know if i GET IT.

What I don't get is the message. Is O'Connor trying to say that all Catholic people are bad? Is she saying that religion in a crock? Is she saying that we all just need to be faced with death to GET IT? I DON'T KNOW!!! Or I suppose that's the point of writing southern gothic, allegorical, mumbo-jumbo, weirdness--it's up for interpretation.

Whatever it is, it's certainly confusing. As prof. schultz said, it gives me that whip-lash effect.

Oh yeah: Watch Superbowl. SEAHAWKS SEAHAWKS SEAHAWKS!

amlit338

Flannery was kind of a babe back in the day

amlit338"The Artificial Nigger" is fuckin sick. As in good. It's a classic tale I think most people, men maybe a little more, can identify with. It's a story of a man's pride getting in the way of his relationships with loved ones(possibly God???), and through the moral cleansing process involving guilt, remorse, mercy, and eventually forgiveness, O' Connor shows her audience that redemption is possible, no matter how prideful a (wo)man may have been in his(her) actions. It's really beautiful and heart warming actually. It's so comforting to know that Mr. Head and Nelson were able to resolve their conflict throught mutual racism, and that Head, very deservingly got his redemption and reconciliation. He made up with Nelson, and made it home safely. No longer did they have to wander lost in that city of darkness. Could there be a more happy ending?
I think in a way it's kind of ridiculous though, that O'connor went through all that trouble to make a moral point. Even to the point of exploiting african-americans, using them merely as a back drop, to show the skewed nature of Head and Nelson's moral judgements. There was barely any interaction with african americans in the story. At least no enough to sense that any of them were real people.
Having said that, I don't know if I truly believe that, but my other teacher got on my ass the other day for me saying it was ok for a writer we're studying to use Native American's stereotyped culture merely as a backdrop for a white boy's moral lesson("Indian Camp"). I'm so lost in this world of confusion, and can only find my way out by anxiously adhering to every infallible word that drops from my professor's lips. PLOP!!! That doesn't inlclude prof. Shultz though, cause she actually want's to hear what we have to say. Just wanted to vent a little of my welling bitterness cause my shrink is on vacation right now. Thanks for listening.

Flannery O’Connor <3 1950s.

Flannery O’Connor really loved the 1950s. So much in fact that she placed characters of the 1950s and twisted them into more grounded characters. O’Connor lived in an era of “Leave It To Beaver,” where American optimism was at its finest, after winning the second World War and having a surging economy.

In “A Good Man Is Hard To Find,” O’Conner puts a hearty family on a round trip with a grandmother. In “The Artificial Nigger,” O’Conner has a grandfather teaching his grandson a life lesson. These are the moral values of the 1950s.

Except that the grandmother provokes the death of her family. And the grandfather is a blatant racist.

But this is where I assume O’Conner has fun. She places characters she is commonly bombarded with, and puts them in situations that are—for lack of a better adage—out of character. Perhaps O’Conner did not see the 1950s as optimistically as her contemporaries did.

Imitation is the highest form of flattery. O’Conner imitated the 1950s that she witnessed.

Henry Darger and other American artists

I strongly recommend the Henry Darger bit--one of those odd and eccentric American artists, like Joseph Cornell, who did his art when no one was looking, and was only discovered after his death. The wonderful American poet John Ashbery (still alive) wrote a book, _Girls on the Run_, based loosely on Darger's work.

Dear Faculty Members and Graduate Students in the English Department,
it is a pleasure to invite all of you to attend talks by two distinguished scholars this week, Jonathan Goldberg (Sir William Osler Professor of English Literature at the Johns Hopkins University) and Michael Moon(Professor of English at the Johns Hopkins University).

While their topics are quite different from each other, they certainly lend themselves well to being part of our Chadwick Distinguished Lecture Series.
Jonathan Goldberg will talk about "Homoeroticism in Literary History: Some Early Modern Couples"
on Thursday, January 26, 2006, at 3:00 pm, in Kuykendall 410
Michael Moon will discuss the work of the "outsider artist," Henry Darger in a seminar entitled
"Insides Out: Contexts for Darger" on Friday, January 27, 2006, at 3:30 pm, in Kuykendall 410.

Reading material in connection with both talks is available in Kuykendall 402.

Two showings of "In the Realms of the Unreal" (a documentary by Jessica Yu on the work of Henry Darger) will also be held in preparation for Professor Moon's talk:
Jan. 25 (Wed.), 3:00 pm in Kuykendall 410
and
Jan. 27 (Fri.), 2:00 pm in Kuykendall 410

Even if you have no time to read the material ahead, please join us and encourage others to attend as well. If you have further questions, contact David Baker or Valerie Wayne, whom I'd like to thank for organizing these events.

Cristina

OMG, WTF JUST HAPPENED? (Slaughter of the Innocent)

I think what shocked me the most about this story, A Good Man is Hard to Find, was the innocence of the narrator. The narrator portrayed this happy-go-lucky family trip. It was an interesting story in itself, but when the criminals showed up at the end all hell broke loose and it really caught me off guard. I couldn’t believe this cheery little story of a family trip had turned into a car wreck followed by vulture-like criminals killing the entire family off two-by-two. What made it even more surreal was how calm all the characters were about it. The man merely sits around chatting with the grandmother as he has his men execute the rest of the family. I almost didn’t believe that they were going off to die, even though I knew for sure that that was the only reason they could be going to the woods.
I think this story would not have been as good without the feigned innocence. The narrator foreshadowed the criminal showing up by having the grandmother use it as a reason for not going into the area, but it seemed such an insane occurrence that I never even considered it an option. Had the author given more hints as to what was going to happen, it would not have been such a surprise to me. Also, if the Misfit had not had a complete air of nonchalance toward what was going on, it really would not have been so shocking and surreal.

Towards a reading of O'Connor

I'm going to post some links that might interest you, as we work toward interpretations of O'Connor's short stories. In no particular order:

the pastoral (a literary form that values the country over the city): http://www.bartleby.com/216/1312.html

Levittown (or the Suburbs) (bringing the country closer to the city): http://server1.fandm.edu/levittown/default.html

_Leave it to Beaver_:(1950s TV show that highlighted the white nuclear family living in suburbia): http://www.leaveittobeaver.org/

_Green Acres_(TV show about a city slicker who moves south to a farm): http://www.maggiore.net/greenacres/

Flannery O'Connor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flannery_O'Connor

Southern gothic: http://web.uccs.edu/history/courses/hum399faulkmor/faulknergoth.htm
(Have any of your read Faulkner's "A Rose for Miss Emily"?)

The New Criticism (the form of literary theory that O'Connor studied, as did most of us): http://130.179.92.25/Arnason_DE/New_Criticism.html

Check out a few of these links and see if they don't help you get a grasp of the context in which O'Connor was writing in the 1950s.

aloha, sms

amlit338

amlit338
When to blog

I can't get out of bold! Moloch! Please send your blog entries in before class on Thursdays. That way, I know what you're thinking, not what you've thought. Remember that blogging is a course requirement! Moloch!

aloha, Susan S.

amlit338

amlit338

Washington Post article on Hawai`i. OK, I've written my letter to the editor, now you can write yours. This is inane!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011801429_5.html

aloha, sms

Hee Haw!!!

amlit338
Everyone seems to be on the anti-drug campaign here. Some attributing Ginsberg n' Co's madness to substance abuse. I'm gonna go out on a limb and stick up for the junkies and street freaks of the world because it's a little unfair as of now.
Are drugs so much a cause, as much as they are a consequence? Consequence of what? I guess we'd have to ask a junkie to truly find out what kinds of things would drive them to lives of substance abuse because something tells me that the outside looking in assumption theory doesn't really cut it. No. Drugs and the bum rap it's been getting all these years is just too easy an answer? There's got to be something more to it... But what?
Then there's this Moloch dude, who's eating kids and having a bull head with horns and stuff. That's pretty intense. I read somewhere that sacrifices were made to him too. And then more sacrificial religious symbology: "Who barreled down the highways of the past journeying to eachother's hotrod-Golgotha jail-solitude watch." I looked up Golgotha and it refers to Calvary, the hill Jesus was crucified on.
It's interesting to see the contrasts of drugs, sex, "man boy love" as coined by AJ the other day, and seemingly sheer madness, with all these religious iconographic images and concepts. Is the contrast really that drastic? I've heard the saying "Religion is the opiate of the masses" and I think the words "religion" and "opiate" are interchangeable, along with sexual pleasure, violence, etc.
What I think all of these have in common, is the way they can be used as successful tools to escape. Escape what? Choose what you like. Moloch? Now if I only knew what Moloch is supposed to be. Or who he/she is supposed to be. It'd be a lot easier if Ginseberg were alive, cause then we could just email him.
My theory, and that's all it is, completely subject to change, is that they were doing all this shit, both fast living and metaphysical searching as means of escape. Escaping what exactly, I don't know, but my 2 guesses are society...easy enough, and also, in a more broad sense, escape from the pains of being men/women. "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." I read that somewhere and I think it's relevant. Both religion and indulgence are not so different. At least I don't think so.
I think Ginsberg n friends were offering themselves up as sarifices. And in the way Christ's life became significant only when it was sealed in blood, so it was here. Only through their own personal suffering could their endeavors hope to mean anything significant, then and most especially now. I think they were trying to illustrate a way of living with out boundary or border, and during a time when it was near impossible. Redraw the lines... Only so they can be erased again.
Solomon didn't fair so well in the end, but that's what makes section III so beautiful and poignant. Like two buddies coming back from the trenches of war. Things are much different in each of their lives. But Ginsberg reconciles all the madness and smooths out all the lumps in his and carl's lives with a simple statement: "I am with you in Rockland" damn... G-berg. It's a shame your dead. whatevs.

Drug haters may find a few guilty laughs here: Kinda long, but worth it, totally.


http://www.sacredcow.com/media/source/store_items/relentless/great_times.mp3

http://www.sacredcow.com/media/source/store_items/relentless/drugsgood.mp3

An interesting speaker

This guy is amazing--I saw him on CSPAN one day. He wrote one of the very first histories of African Americans, among many other important books. He's 90 years old, but you wouldn't know it to see and hear him.


>> A Conversation with JOHN HOPE FRANKLIN
>> Led by James O. Horton
>>
>> Tuesday, January 24, 2006
>> Korean Studies Center Auditiorium
>> 3:30-4:30 p.m. Public lecture and conversation
>> 4:40-5:00 p.m. Booksigning
>>
>> http://www.hawaii.edu/amst/images/flyer_franklin.pdf
>>
>> Sponsored by:
>> The Office of Student Equity Excellence & Diversity
>> Department of American Studies
>> http://www.hawaii.edu/amst/news_amst.htm
>>
>

a small REACTION! to howl.

I must say that I was extremely shocked to read the words that I found located within the contents of Ginsberg's Howl...of course the shock was somewhat of a delayed affect due to the fact that it took several pages to get used to the fact that Howl has almost no punctuation,
whose writer almost refuses to fold and use friendly dots and ticks to separate one thought from another,
who almost defies the physics of the sentence structure we came to know and love in kindergarten,
who obviously has the biggest lung capacity in the world and thinks everone else shouldn't waste time to breathe,
who has had some pretty obvious affect on my writing in this blog.
There, that's all I'll do. This style that he chose to use, at first, seemed to me to be screaming for attention, but not in the "I'm a genius, and this may catch on sort of way," but moreso in the "what can I do to seem more artsy, and brilliant." I wasn't sure if he really was serious about this, and quite frankly, I found it difficult to take him seriously at the same time. Of course, keep in mind that this was only a few pages in. After a good time period of biting the bullet and reading line after seemingly endless line, I started to take things in. EMPHASIZE STARTED.
It wasn't until class that I really got to be the poetry sponge that I long to be, and actually soak in the mess of "stanzas in gibberish." I have a strong feeling that the reading aloud portion of class had a great deal to do with this drawn process. Putting into contrast the poet in addition to his work with the time period and societies he coexisted, allowed for the pieces to not only fit, but really blend together. I no longer see the poem by its lonesome in the pages of the pint sized book its printed on, but when i look at it now, i see the struggles he really was forced to deal with; for lack of better words, this really messed up, jacked up, bizarre poem really does make strange sense.
I went from "what the hell is Susan making us read!!!????" to "hey this dude is starting to make sense." Granted, I don't agree with the majority of things Ginsberg almost boasts about (good / bad)...*AJ - if you read this I'm totally with you on the MAN-boy issue....bleh.*
I do think it's possible to not agree with a word in a poem, but come to the conclusion that the poem makes sense, and the reader may still walk away empty handed in the sense that every word on the page is disagreed with, but simultaneously - be loaded with knowledge on HOW to approach a new type of literature.
This exercise made me realize how important it is to mix literature with history. I've often contemplated what it would be like to ask the poet themselves "what the heck did you mean by this?" due to the fact that so many elements can be misread / misinterpreted. Yesterday we dug deaper and looked at a gaggle of documents that help shed light on areas that were once so gray...and in a way, I feel like we did get some answers to "what did he mean by this?"

amlit338

amlit338
from Bridget:
Howl reaction

After reading Howl a couple times it began to make a little more sense each time. The poem being so difficult to understand intrigued me to do so unlike other poems I have read (the frog poem!). The first time I heard it was out loud during class, so I was able to hear the strong diction he used to express what he sees others around him doing. To me simple things like saying cocksucker makes a reader wake up and possibly re-read the stanza, and just are in awe of the language. Being sidetracked by the language I needed to read it again. The second time I read it I realized more detail in terms of cataloging what he sees in others surrounding him, possibly down the paths with drugs he’s once been down. I also then noticed his background of the mental institution, to where he’s standing up for those who are still there and affected by it greatly with unnecessary treatments as he says “generation destroyed by madness.” Then in a way showing us the people of the world that are thought of un-normal people, but the way he shows us that they are there and just as confused as the rest of us, taken down certain paths because of drugs and stay along it forever not being able to get out.
Written in the 1950’s this poem broke away from the norm, being the first to do so moves it along the decades and I’m surprised I have never read it before. Though it has said to be all hyped up and possibly considered as a label which draws in the readers, if you only look at it as a starting point for more creativity and also a freedom of speech, I think after careful consideration it deserves all the attention it has received. It was the first thing written for people to relate to in a way no one has before, even though it was shocking, their opinion changed over time when they realize its reality, and you shouldn’t be so skeptical on what and who surrounds you. The things he talks about are the same today where if you changed the date to the present people wouldn’t be as shocked by the language and could easily relate to it today. The downfall if it was written today it wouldn’t be as popular, and would be thrown in the pile of related material (wouldn’t sell a million copies!). This poem was written with perfect timing, if he wrote if any later someone else could have possibly broke down the traditional poem writing barrier. The date therefore is important, and we see how people will have the same problems and act the same way through many decades. There are things that have changed, if you look at the reference of the mental institutions, along with treatments and diagnosis, its changed for the better (especially shock therapy!). Another thing would be the music in the beat generation. After listening to the music in class, I noticed more of the similarities with his poem. It is far more normal today if you look at rap music and hear the profound language, as opposed to using that style of language with the beat generation turns quite a few heads. Also by having all of this language a part of our everyday life, I wonder what is going to shock us next? We live in a world at the moment where we are getting used to everything that was shocking us in the past. What’s next?

OK. Based on the info from that Wiki Susan posted and some other links I found he either supported their (NAMBLA's) right to free speech and/or actually did talk at one of their meetings. Either way, he supported the group. The group is a political entity that encourages the breaking of laws which protect children. To have sex with them. Yes, freedom of speech is good, but if the KKK or something like"Rapists INC" or "Serial Murderers Annonymous" wanted to spread their message of hate, would you support them? Not if you didn't agree with their message, right?

Must I play devil's advocate to myself? Sigh:

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up. --Martin Niemoeller, German Luthern Pastor

^^One of my favorite quotes ever, by the way...

I think that if he was honestly not into this sort of thing, this quote would have to sum up his thought process. I personally would still never voice my opinion for such a group, but... then again... they aren't coming after me yet. And I don't have sex with young boys!

amlit338

amlit338

Ginsberg and pedophilia:

It seems there's a big debate over this. Here's a link to the Wikipedia talk site, where people talk about what's been put on-line (Wikipedia being an encyclopedia in process, to which most anyone can contribute).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allen_Ginsberg

amlit338

amlit338

Current language from Congress on homosexuality:

I thought I'd put together a few recent comments by elected representatives on the question of homosexuality and see how they compare to those we read today in class. I fear they're not much more tolerant, in some cases:

Here's Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma:

Coburn on homosexuality: “The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power … Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That’s a gay agenda.”

Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania:

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

OK, those guys are Republicans. Here's a Democrat, Sen. Robert Byrd of W. Va:

Perhaps what was most disappointing for a liberal watching events unravel was the fact that so many Democrats joined the Republicans in supporting DOMA. Senator Byrd (D-WV), was a cosponsor. He said, "the drive for same-sex marriage is in effect an effort to make a sneak attack on society by encoding this aberrant behavior in legal form before society itself has decided it should be legal." He also went on to link the fall of Greek civilization to homosexuality. Implicit in his argument is the belief that homosexuality is intrinsically evil, and the feeling that the legalization of gay marriage would somehow push America down the slippery slope towards apocalyptic doom.

amlit338

amlit338
This is from Gary:


----At first, “Howl” was very hard to read; now, it’s still hard but after discussions in class, I have a better idea of the context in which to observe this poem. Although I don’t have many connections with the poem’s content, I do enjoy the attempt at what the poem, in my own opinion, is trying to do: it captures the reading audience with its first person perspective and moves the listening audience with its insight on the conditions of the life as seen by the narrative voice.I see the first part of the poem as one stream of thought, the visions of what is happening to the “best minds of my generation.” This first line alone pulls in the reader to give him or her ownership of these thoughts (although not his or her own) and as the section moves on, there are glimpses of something recognizable, creating a greater connection with the poem overall. There is so much information in this first part that it would make it easy for anyone to make a personal connection to any one line because of personal experience or knows someone “just like what Ginsberg describes.” I see his descriptiveness in the first part as a whole as his view of society in general, that these people are being obsessed for discovery, to see “if I had a vision or you had a vision or if he had a vision to find out Eternity.” It reminds me of a journey of self-discovery and the process by which these people were doing it would consume them.There is one part of the first section that caught my attention: “to recreate the syntax and measure of poor human prose and stand before you speechless and intelligent and shaking with shame…” The vision I get is of a man who, as Ginsberg put it, was once a great mind and after being in an institution has become conformed to society’s belief of normality. Another line comes in section two of the poem: “Moloch the crossbone soulless jailhouse and Congress of sorrows!” I feel that here he is referring to the institution of not just the asylums but also government that have, in a way, created this situation for the thousands that came out of treatment worse than they went in, truly, the monster of the problem of mental health in our country during the 1950s. Although the third section begins with the name Carl Solomon, I also believe that Ginsberg is referring to the masses (the other writers and poets, possibly) within the asylum, especially with the line “I’m with you in Rockland where your condition has become serious and is reported on the radio.” I think it is not just a reference of the condition of one person but of all the people within the system. Also, as I mentioned before, returning to the first person voice, the poem gives ownership to the readers, making the reader feel that he or she is with these people – perhaps as a better understanding of what is going on in these asylums.Not quite the most exciting read, personally, but I did appreciate the imagery and truthfulness this poem portrays. I agree with some of my classmates that this poem can speak to audiences of this generation as well because, although perhaps we have become better at treating mental health issues today, many of those suffering today in society can be seen within the lines of “Howl.”

Bullshit.

okay, here's the deal. i don't really know what i want to say about this poem it's 1:30am and i'm tired and want to sleep (and sorry about the improper capitilization and punctuation--when i hear "blog" my mind goes into lazy editor mode)--but, with all disclaimers out of the way, back to Howl.

The main thing is figuring out where to start. Howl is a jumble of thought and expression that if I read fast enough and with the least amount of breath possible, makes my head want to explode. If anything, you gotta give Ginsberg credit for the sheer volume of this one very very very long sentence. I could go on more about the structure (how the first part is basically recreating chaos, the last creates more rhythm and structure with the repetition of "I'm with you in Rockland" and the middle "Moloch" section is somewhat of a happy medium)--but honestly, I'm more interested in making my words different colors.

Sorry, I'm quite intrigued with the power of The Blog.

ANYWAY,

Howl is intriguing, it puts into public all the taboos humans have been raised to be afraid of. "cocksucker", "pubic beards", "fucked in the ass"--it's funny. It's funny to read, it's funny to say, it's funny to HOOOWWWLLL!!!! it's funny to use exclamation points!!!!!! Whether it's genious or madness i'm still on the fence about. But it's entertaining as hell.

Maybe that's all Ginsberg wanted, to make something long and extravagant that makes everyone go "oooooooooo" and behind closed doors he's laughing at what suckers everyone is for looking for the "deeper meaning" because in the end there isn't one. Maybe like Ginsberg writes himself, "the whole boatload of sensitive bullshit!"--that's all it is. a bunch of bullshit. life is just a bunch of bullshit.

amlit338 <---what is this?!?!

Suffering Perpetually from A Bad Case Of Referential Mania

amlit338I'v never been good with words. In fact, whenever I try move my thoughts from my head to the outside world, they bottleneck at my lips and nothing comes out the way I want it to. Pictures are worth a 1000 words? Or gasps? HOWL!!!

Ginsberg did after all, change “anarchy” to “Arkansas.” To which is believed it was solely lyrical based.

I saw the most impressionable minds of my generation manipulated by
Ginsberg, praising Howl’s words,
As if prejudice against Ginsberg mediocre magnificence were unbearable
and unspoken about,
Young students yearning for rude poetry filling with egoistic self-centering
dialogue that voiced the benefit of a few “best minds,”
Who grindingly absorbed tattered words of a lyrical poet who used
shock and awe as if it were the only way
for his society to understand him and himself,
Who professed Ginsberg’s genius even when the madness of
such an act only added to the prestige of the situation,
Who were students of pre-worn academies,
the very same people
whom Ginsberg found obscene and despicable



I am (obviously) not a poet. And to be fair, I cannot even imitate poetry.

Allen Ginsberg was a good lyrical poet. Ginsberg’s poetry was meant to be heard out loud. However, neither of these statements should have made the poet one of the most widely respected literary heroes.

Ginsberg’s Howl is a well-written epic poem. But the moment a scholar began dissecting and discussing its importance to society was when Ginsberg should have stepped in and said, “hey look guys, this was just a poem dedicated to my buddies about how we lived in the 50s. I think its swell that you want to make it bigger then it is but it really is just a buddy poem.”

Instead, Ginsberg relished in his popularity. And it may be presumed that if Ginsberg (rest in peace) were alive today, he would be giddy with excitement that college courses still attempt to discuss his poem Howl as if it were the greatest American literature ever written.

Because what is Howl other then a series of dialogue between Ginsberg and his mates?

Too much of the poem is abstract. Too much attempts to find the underlining meaning of the word, “cock,” have jaded perceptions of the mediocrity of Ginsberg’s original meaning.

Allen Ginsberg was a good lyrical poet. Americans just love a crazy anti-hero. Because it is hip, like the angelheaded hipsters.

amlit338

amlit338booya

A Howling Groin Kick

I must say that Howl did catch my attention. Most poetry I have read (must emphasize the most part so as not to anger our poet teacher) has been merely cheesy, sappy, cute, butterfly filled crap that just makes me want to… well, howl. Before this past semester, I had never really read any poetry (Linh Dinh) that made me want to read more.


Howl has that certain something. It kicks you in the balls and doesn’t take the time to censor itself. What makes it stand out and appeal to most people is the gritty surreal world he shows them. Sure, most people have tried a little pot and maybe a little bit of alcohol, but for today’s generation, guzzling down the harder drugs is not something that is common among the literate educated class. Acid, PCP, Methamphetamine, Coke, Crack, Heroin, Mushrooms; they just aren’t part of the daily lives of the masses. They alter your mind in ways that can be damaging, but the experiences can, to some, seem enlightening; it can sometimes give them an ungodly feeling of being close to heaven. This is one glimpse of insanity Howl gives the reader.
Another glimpse of insanity is in the mental institution in the final part of the poem. Most people have never been incarcerated in one. To read about it is interesting because most people do not know how they are run or what it is like to be in one.


The point was made in class that it is similar to prison. I have to kindly disagree. It is nothing like prison. Yes, you are incarcerated, but that is where the similarities end. I have visited people in these places. In a mental hospital, the patients are forced to take mind-altering drugs. They are forced to go through intense and dangerous therapies. They are processed through them like factories. Pharmacology has been studied and advanced, but today it is still tiny stabs in the dark that mostly turn out to only be stopgap measures when they do work. People with actual mental illnesses can be drugged up for the rest of their lives, but they will never be as normal as the rest of us. Drugs only sedate the patients and unfortunately “cures” for mental illnesses have not been found. The psychiatric community as a whole has given up on finding cures or innovative treatments and merely repeats the same chop-shop methods. Even outdated treatments, such as shock therapy, have come back into popular use. Whether or not they have “perfected” shock therapy, they are still shooting the patient in the head with a strong blast of electricity to try to shock the crazy out of them.

amlit338

amlit338

Tinfish show

Please stop by the Art Building's Commons Gallery this week to see the exhibition of Tinfish covers. I'm the editor of Tinfish Press, so I have my reasons for asking!

aloha, sms

amlit338

amlit338

English 338
January 17, 2006
Prof. Susan M. Schultz


Flannery O’Connor, A Good Man is Hard to Find


Some questions to contemplate


1. What is your visceral reaction to the story?

2. What is your intellectual reaction to the story? Explain.

3. Think about names in the story, who has a name and who does not. Consider other names, what they might mean.

4. What is “a good man”? Does your definition of the term change over the course of the story? In what sense could The Misfit be a good man?

5. Find a thick description in the story and think about why it’s so good. O’Connor’s a damn good writer. Think about what she does best.

6. Is the story racist? Why or why not?

7. Think about page 22, the last page. What do you make of it?

amlit338

Happy MLK Day

For a transcript and recording of Dr. King's famous "I have a dream" speech, go to http://americablog.blogspot.com for January 16. It's worth listening to the speech. See if you can tell where Dr. King stops _reading_ and starts _improvising_ .

aloha, Susan

Welcome

Welcome to amlit338, the blog of Prof. Susan Schultz's class at UH on American Literature since 1950. You will be blogging at least once a week, writing reactions to the reading, to class discussions, and offering announcements of events in the community related to the course.

aloha, Susan