Comparative Criticism II: Critics at Large -- Graduate Seminar

Spring 2009 Graduate Seminar Comparative Literature 503

Alexa Huang Thursday 2:30 P – 5:30 pm

Comparative Criticism II: Critics at Large Why does literary and cultural criticism frequently draw and even rely upon paradigms developed in other fields such as political or social theories--now part of a lingua franca of humanities? What are the roles of literary and cultural critics today?

This seminar surveys literary and cultural theories from Romanticism to the present in a global context (paired with films and literary works), with emphases on the dialectics between the contingencies of history and universalizing theories, between textuality and visuality, between formalist and ideological approaches to cultural phenomena, and between print and new media.

Course Objectives Assignments in the seminar simulate tasks you will face in your professional career. You will thus acquire critical thinking, writing, and presentational skills necessary to succeed as a scholar. Further, assignments in this seminar will help you develop a publishable article for a refereed scholarly journal. There will be ample opportunity to work in original languages if you like. Required Texts

• Vincent B. Leitch, ed., The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (abbreviated as NATC)

• Thorburn and Jenkins, eds., Rethinking Media Change: The Aesthetics of Transition (RMC)

• Philip Auslander, Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture 2nd Edition (Liveness)

Suggested Texts

• Frank Lechner and John Boli, eds. Globalization Reader 3rd Edition (Blackwell, 2008)

• Michael Groden et al, eds., The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism (JHUP, 2004)

1

Tentative Schedule NOTE: The "For Reference" section below contains materials that do not constitute required reading but will be helpful. Thur. Jan. 15 Introduction: Critics at Large Thorburn and Jenkins, Introduction to RMC Vincent B. Leitch, ed., NATC: "What Is Interpretation?" pp. 2-3, and "What Is Literature?" pp. 4-7 Drawing for sides in the debate; decide your dates for oral presentations and reviews. Determine what "assignment package" you wish to do for the semester (see the next section). Thur. Jan. 22 The Question of Representation M Butterfly, dir. David Cronenberg (read David Henry Hwang's play if you like) Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Birth of Tragedy," from NATC Auslander, Introduction to Liveness Film review: Diana Presentation on Nietzsche: Renae Thur. Jan. 29 Comparative Racialization M Butterfly, dir. David Cronenberg Henry Louis Gates Jr., "Talking Black: Critical Signs of the Times," from NATC Choose one article to read from PMLA 123. 5 (October 2008) special issue "Comparative Racialization" Everyone except the presenter: 5-minute summary of a PMLA article, including thesis, strengths, and weaknesses (ungraded) Presentation on Gates: Patrick Debate: Resolved that M Butterfly has successfully deconstructed received notions of race, gender, and sexuality (hint: consider the performative nature of identity formation). Affirmative Team = Diana and Patrick Negative Team = Renae and Michelle

Thur. Feb. 5 Auteur and Author

Comparative Criticism II, Spring 2009

2

A Clockwork Orange, dir. Stanley Kubrick (if you have time, check out Anthony Burgess' novel) Michel Foucault, "What Is an Author?" NATC William Uricchio, "Historicizing Media in Transition," RMC Roland Barthes, "The Death of the Author," NATC For Reference: Stanley Fish, "Do Your Job," Save the World on Your Own Time, pp. 18-59 Alison Griffith, "Media Technology and Museum Display," RMC William Schmidt, "British Test 19-Year Ban On 'Clockwork Orange'," New York Times 6 Feb., 1993 Book review: Stanley Fish's Save the World on Your Own Time (2008) – Aaron See also Christopher Bigsby's Remembering and Imagining the Holocaust: The Chain of Memory (2006) Presentation on Uricchio: Craig Debate: Resolved that Kubrick's film represents a danger to society by inspiring the very violence it was seeking to explore and define. Note: The case should not be about whether the government is too authoritarian, or censorship is good or bad. Background: Two decades ago Stanley Kubrick and Warner Brothers abruptly withdrew Clockwork Orange from theaters across Britain, an unusual act of self-censorship amid public protests that the movie had stirred a wave of violence.

Affirmative Team = Craig and Rebecca Negative Team = Xu, Diana, Aaron Thur. Feb. 12 Reader-Response Theory and How (Not) to Read a DVD The Merchant of Venice, dir. Michael Radford Wolfgang Iser, "Interaction between Text and Reader," NATC Priscilla Murphy, "Books Are Dead, Long Live Books," RMC For Reference: Luis Arata, "Reflections on Interactivity" in RMC Paul Erickson, "Help or Hindrance? The History of the Book and Electronic Media," RMC Film review: Rebecca

Comparative Criticism II, Spring 2009

3

Book review: Nabil Matar's Europe Through Arab Eyes, 1578-1727 (2009) -- Michelle Presentation on Iser: Mark Debate: Resolved that the meaning of a work of art is the author's intention. Thur. Feb. 19 Structuralism and Deconstruction Franz Kafa, Metamorphosis Ferdinand de Saussure, in NATC Northrop Frye, "The Archetypes of Literature," from NATC For Reference: Jacques Derrida, excerpts from Of Grammatology, from NATC Haun Saussy, "La, tout n'est qu'ordre et beaute: The Surprises of Applied Structuralism" à ANGEL Rey Chow, "Reading Derrida on Being Monolingual," New Literary History 39.2 (Spring 2008): 217231 Book review: Russell Berman's Fiction Sets You Free (2007) -- Renae Presentation on de Saussure: Xu Thur. Feb. 26 Theorizing Comic Cultures Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, dir. Larry Charles Sigmund Freud, "Jokes and the Species of the Comic," from Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewussten For Reference: George Bernard Shaw, Pygmalion Film review: Craig Presentation on Freud: Diana 5:30 pm Tue. Mar. 3

Parody as Etiology

Modern Times, dir. Charles Chaplin (we'll watch short clips together) Kung Fu Hustle, dir. Stephen Chow (watch this before class)

Comparative Criticism II, Spring 2009

4

Mikhail Bakhtin, "Forms of Time and of the Chronotope in the Novel," The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin, ed. Micheal Holquist (focus on pp. 158-184) Henri Bergson, Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic (selections) Film review: Modern Times by Patrick Kung Fu Hustle by Mark Presentation on Bakhtin: Craig Thur. Mar. 12 Spring Break Thur. Mar. 19

Mediatized Visuality and Otherness

Happy Times, dir. Zhang Yimou (based on Mo Yan's "Shifu, You'll Do Anything for a Laugh") Susan Bordo, Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture and the Body --> NATC, pp. 2362-2376 Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism and Consumer Society --> NATC, pp. 1960-1974 Auslander, "Tryin' to make it real," Liveness For Reference: Rey Chow, "Towards an Ethics of Postvisuality: Some Thoughts on the Recent Work of Zhang Yimou," Poetics Today 25. 4 (Winter 2004): 673-688 Angela Ndalianis, "Architectures of the Senses," RMC Presentation on Auslander: Michelle Book review: Rey Chow's Sentimental Fabulations, Contemporary Chinese Films (2007) -- Xu Tue. Mar. 24 Individual Conference 30-minute individual meetings between 12:30-5:00 pm Draft of Journal of a Changing Artwork or Theory Draft of final paper abstract Thur. Apr. 2 Aesthetics and Social History City of God (Cidade de Deus), dir. Fernando Meirelles (based on Paulo Lins' novel) Walter Benjamin, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," NATC Lu Xun, "On Photography," Modern Chinese Literary Though, ed. Kirk Denton

Comparative Criticism II, Spring 2009

5

For Reference: Tom Gunning, "Re-Newing Old Technologies," RMC Bring your abstract for final paper to class (keep it anonymous) to for mock review (ungraded) Presentation on Benjamin: Aaron Thur. Apr. 9 Humanities and Theories of Human Rights Guest lectures by Dr. Sophia McClennen and Dr. Eric Hayot Poems from Guantánamo: The Detainees Speak, ed. Marc Falkoff à ANGEL Poems by Chinese immigrants on Angel Island à ANGEL Sophia McClennen, "The Humanities, Human Rights, and Comparative Imagination" à ANGEL Eric Hayot, Introduction, The Hypothetical Mandarin. Sympathy, Modernity, and Chinese Pain (2009) For Reference: James Dawes, Introduction to That the World May Know à ANGEL Yunte Huang, "The Poetics of Error: Angel Island" à ANGEL Thur. Apr. 16 Humanities + / - Digital Culture Jacques Derrida, "Signature Event Context," Margins of Philosophy David Thorburn, "Web of Paradox," RMC William Mitchell, "Homer to Home Page: Designing Digital Books," RMC Everyone except the debaters: 5-mimute analysis of a DVD or digital project of your choice (ungraded), such as YouTube, virtual archives, Second Life, online scholarly full-text editions, etc. Book review: John Pavlik's Media in the Digital Age (2008) Debate: Resolved that newer media forms for literature democratize the relations between readers and authors. Affirmative Team = Mark and Rebecca Negative Team = Patrick and Craig Thur. Apr. 23 Aesthetics and Taste

Comparative Criticism II, Spring 2009

6

Pierre Bourdieu, excerpts from Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste," from NATC Gao Xingjian's Nobel Lecture 2000, "The Case for Literature" (published in PMLA) Statutes of the Nobel Foundation paragraphs # 1 through 10: http://nobelprize.org/nobelfoundation/statutes.html#par1 For Reference: James English, The Economy of Prestige: Prizes, Awards, and the Circulation of Cultural Value (Harvard, 2008) Amartya Sen, "How to Judge Globalization" Globalizaton Reader 3rd Edition (2008) Timothy Taylor, "Strategic Inauthenticity," Globalizaton Reader 3rd Edition (2008) J. Hillis Miller, "A Defense of Literature ... in a Time of ... New Tele-Technologies," Neohelicon: Acta comparationis litterarum universarum Everyone except the debaters: 5-mimute analysis of the prestige of a prize (for literature, film, fine arts), memorabilia or souvenirs related to celebrated writers or artists Presentation on Bourdieu: Rebecca Debate: Resolved that aesthetic education has a value that transcends the political. Affirmative Team = Renae, Xu, and Craig Negative Team = Michelle, Aaron, Mark Thur. Apr. 30 Conclusion: Critical Theories, Remediation, Re-mix Auslander, "Live Performance in a Mediatized Culture," Liveness Journal of a Changing Artwork or Theory due Book review: Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin's Remediation: Understanding New Media (2000) Thur. May 7

Final Paper due

Grading Policy ____________________ Assignment package # 1

Comparative Criticism II, Spring 2009

7

Attendance and Participation Debates Presentation with a 5-7-page position paper Book or film review (2 pages) Journal (8 pages) Final paper (5-7 pages)

20 % 20 % (10 % each) 20 % 5% 15 % 20 %

____________________ Assignment package # 2 Attendance and Participation Debates Presentation without a paper Book or film review (2 pages) Journal (3 pages) Final paper (15 pages) Grading Scale A 94 and above B80-82 F 59 and below

20 % 20 % (10 % each) 10 % 10 % 10 % 30 %

AC+

90-93 76-79

B+ C

87-89 70-75

B D

83-86 60-69

Requirements 1. You should bring the texts to class the day we are to discuss them. 2. May all students participate regularly in discussions and encourage others to do so by listening courteously and arguing constructively. Everyone has something to say and no one is happy when the same one or two students monopolize discussions. 3. Debate Rhetoric, oratory, and the arts of persuasion have been the foundation of humanistic education since Aristotle's time, and especially in Shakespeare's day. Debate helps the audience and participants to look on both sides of every question, and debates within Shakespeare's plays helped to make the works heteroglossic and open-ended. As a graduate student, the most important "debate" you will have is your dissertation defense. Why not open your minds to contrasting views now? You will participate in two debates. Each debate team will have three members. Debaters should get together outside class to plan strategies and arguments. A volunteer will be sought to moderate each debate, from among those not involved in the debate. We will not try to determine which side “won,” but we will discuss which side had the harder case to make, which arguments worked and which didn’t, and so forth. We’ll follow a loose format of our own without adhering to strict official protocols of debate. The numbers in the table below give the sequence of events in the debate. Note: Between the constructive and rebuttal phases, there will be 5 minutes for members of each side to confer among themselves.

Comparative Criticism II, Spring 2009

Affirmative Team

8

Negative Team

CONSTRUCTIVE PHASE (16 minutes) 1. Give first constructive argument (3 minutes)

2. Cross-examine the affirmative speaker on first constructive (1 minute)

4. Cross-examine the negative speaker on first constructive (1 minute)

3. Give first negative argument (3 minutes)

5. Give second constructive argument (3 minutes)

6. Cross-examine the affirmative speaker on second constructive (1 minute)

8. Cross-examine the negative speaker on second constructive (1 minute)

7. Give second negative argument (3 minutes)

REBUTTAL PHASE (8 minutes) 9. Negative team gives 1st rebuttal (2 minutes) 10. Affirmative team gives 1st rebuttal (2 minutes) 12. Affirmative team gives 2nd rebuttal (2 minutes)

11. Negative team gives 2nd rebuttal (2 minutes)

4. Oral presentations You will do a 10-minute presentations on topics of your choice that are related to issues raised by readings of the week. Begin your presentation with a brief biography of the critic. Include questions for discussion in your presentation. You may talk from notes (i.e. delivering the presentation “teaching style”) or read more formal papers (i.e. conference style). Do not go significantly under or over time. While handouts are not required, your fellow seminar members would appreciate handouts containing bibliography, outlines, key terms, and other information. You may reference your own project, or new creative or critical works that excite you. You would need to give a good sense of the critical work’s argument, for the sake of those who are not familiar with them. Feel free to show videos to illustrate your points, if you choose to discuss stage or film adaptations.

5. Book or Film Review Being able to (1) summarize or describe new scholarly works or performances, and (2) evaluate them, is very useful and important. You will need these important skills not only to review books, films, or theatre performances, but for other professional circumstances such as being asked to referee an article or a grant proposal (in your future career). You will complete one review (of a book, a film, or a theatre production) following the format of reviews published in top refereed journals in the field. Sample reviews are available on ANGEL. Please post your review to ANGEL the day before class. You will do a brief 10-minute presentation in class. If you so choose, you may do your review and oral presentation on the same day. You should understand that in the "real world," reviews are solicited. You would probably have to wait until somebody invites you. You should not mail out unsolicited reviews.

6. Journal of a Changing Artwork or Theory

Comparative Criticism II, Spring 2009

9

You will make diary entries on a chosen artwork (novel, drama, poetry, film, epic, painting, etc.), which will change perspectivally according to the approaches of various critics read in the course. Alternatively, you can also write about a chosen theory or critic's perspective, and demonstrate how different works of art activate different aspects of that theory. Post your entries regularly to the appropriate folder on ANGEL so that you can learn from each other. This assignment helps you establish the habit of indexing materials for your research and track the development of your thoughts. The MLA advisory committee has outlined the following benefits of indexing work in the MLA Newsletter 39.2 (Summer 2007): 1. Bibliographers find indexing personally enriching. Committing oneself to read publications in a field on a regular basis provides an excellent opportunity to keep up with the current scholarship in the discipline. It keeps one aware of current interests and trends, and allows one to keep on the cutting edge of research. 2. One becomes acquainted with aspects of a discipline that one might never experience. Indexing forces the bibliographer to broaden the scope of his or her knowledge. Indexing articles outside one's field of expertise gives a broader perspective and appreciation of what is being done in all fields. Even articles not exactly in one's field can provide helpful examples for use in teaching. 3. The processes of notation and classification sharpen one's intellect. One gets to know libraries and online resources. This knowledge about bibliographical practices assists in research.

7. Final paper proposal (graded as pass / fail) By the deadline listed in the schedule, submit a one-page proposal, the type of thing you would submit in response to a Call for Papers for a conference. This is a "real world" type of writing. Describe your project succinctly, and situate it within the existing criticism (but without references, which these proposals/abstracts do not include), so readers can tell what's new or interesting about your work, in less 500 words. Within the context of a seminar, this exercise functions as the means by which you let the instructor and the class know what you plan to work on for your final paper. Your proposal, kept anonymous, will be blind-reviewed by a mock "conference panel adjudication committee" in class.

8. Final paper You are required to write your final paper in the form of an article that is prepared specifically for the expectations of a leading journal in the field (length, format of documentation, approach), including the PMLA, Comparative Literature, Representations, Philosophy and Literature, Film Quarterly, Camera Obscura, differences, ELH, Research in African Literatures, positions: east asias culture critique, and Studies in English Literature 1500-1900. Please use a 12-point font and double space. More details on the final paper requirement will be announced. Read Marianne Hirsch. "Editor's Column: What Can a Journal Essay Do?" PMLA 121. 3 (May 2006): 617-629. Beth Luey, Handbook for Academic Authors, Fourth Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), especially the following sections of chapter 2 ("Journal Articles"): Writing Well, Preparing the Manuscript, Revising Oral Presentations, and Book Reviews. Susan Peck MacDonald, Professional Academic Writing in the Humanities and Social Sciences (Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1994), especially chapter 5 "Renaissance New Historicism: Epistemic and Nonepistemic Textual Patterns" Evaluation Guidelines for Seminar Papers

Comparative Criticism II, Spring 2009

10

The Superior Paper (A/A-) The paper has not only fulfilled the assignment, but has done so in a fresh and mature manner. The paper is literately composed, with minimal errors of spelling and grammar, in a scholarly tone and appropriate level of diction, has a meaningful title that is connected to its strong and easily identifiable, insightful, sophisticated thesis, which is supported by a sound argument and well-chosen primary and secondary sources and examples. It makes a substantial contribution to the topic. The paper explores a topic that is manageable within the prescribed length and demonstrates its author’s thorough understanding of the primary materials and ability to analyze them from a fresh and exciting perspective. The author anticipates and defuses counter-arguments in a persuasive manner. Further, a superior paper defines key terms in its argument and avoids jargon; its paragraphs have excellent transitions and well-connected mini-thesis. The organization is effective, and the conclusion is suitable in tone and answers the “so-what” question. The Good Paper (B+/B) The assignment has not just been followed but fulfilled. The paper contains occasional lapses in spelling, grammar, and diction, has a slightly unclear thesis, but it has an effective introduction and conclusion. Secondary sources and evidence cited do not support all points made. The author acknowledges but does not address counter-arguments. The paper explores a topic that is not well defined and unmanageable, but it does demonstrate its author’s understanding of the primary materials and ability to analyze them. The author’s interpretation of the material in question is hindered by a regurgitation of other critics’ interpretations. A paper in the B+/B category defines key terms, but its argument is clouded by jargon. The paper has a few unclear transitions, or a structure that does not always move the argument forward. The B- / C+ Paper The paper has problematic sentence structures and frequent problems in diction and spelling. It does not have a well-defined topic and a strong thesis. The argument is not supported by appropriate evidence, and quotes appear without critical analysis or evident connections to the argument. The paper has unclear transitions, and does not anticipate or address counter-arguments. The C / C- Paper The thesis is difficult to identify. The paper suffers from major problems in sentence structure, grammar, spelling, and diction. It uses very few and weak examples, and does not demonstrate a clear understanding of the primary and secondary materials. Transitions are confusing, and the structure does not move the argument forward. The paper contains unnecessary plot summaries or character sketches, and restates obvious points or other critics’ interpretations. The D+ / D Paper The paper suffers from more serious problems in thesis, structure, argument and use of evidence, and diction. It makes no attempt to follow the assignment; the choice of topic or thesis is poor (too broad, too narrow, or inappropriate). The Failing Paper The paper is difficult to understand owing to major problems with diction, structure, format, argument and use of evidence. It does not have an identifiable thesis and does not follow guidelines for the assignment. Above all, the paper is off the assignment, even if it is correctly and coherently written. It may be plagiarized; either it is someone else’s paper or it has used sources improperly or without documentation.