Chun Li was the first female in a fighting game that didn't need to be rescued.

Hello blog, long time no see.

Feminist theory has really made me stop and think about some of my actions recently. I'm a woman who lives with three men. It's still a little surprising to some when I sit down with the guys to play video games. I must be "one of the guys".

So why can't I play video games? What's the big deal if I played with Legos as a little girl?

The "one of the guys" label has boggled my mind for a little while. I think the real-world consequences that Tonya Krouse mentioned play into this. A woman that engages in tradition "guy" activities is rejecting the cultural expectation. Men might then question into what category that person falls into. Since I'm not fulfilling expectations of shoe shopping, I probably automatically get lumped into being that guy.

So where can I get my voice as a female? The idea of an essential woman identity is nonexistent.
In my mind, this leads to the question of who can be a feminist. Short answer: everyone. I would love to never get a confused look in response to me sharing my hobbies. I would love to have a female identity amongst my male household. My first thought was "what if the guys accepted me as a female?" I think this has serious implications. I'm still looking to men for acceptance of whatever identity I am. Being a feminist sure has a lot of political implications...

As far as my own identity, I still have a lot of thinking to do, and I should probably stop ranting about myself.
I have two more things I'd like to address: pornography and the question of approaching texts and culture from a feminist perspective.

Yes I think pornography degrades woman in an almost violent manner. Pornography has a voyeuristic effect that increases the objectification of women. Is there a way to reform pornography without abolishing it? What if a woman directed a pornographic movie? I don't think pornography can escape objectification in the current state of patriarchy. Anti-pornography feminists see this as a deep rooted form of oppression. Simply reforming pornography would do nothing.

Addressing the second question, there seems to be a lot to gain from approaching texts and culture from a feminist perspective. This opens the door so getting so many more voices heard, and so many more capable people advancing in society. Someone NOT looking at texts and culture like this is on the same level as a racist. What power is there to lose from this approach? The power just seems to be an illusion.

I'd like to end this post with an off-topic story.
My favorite band, The Smashing Pumpkins, has a woman bass player named D'arcy Wretzky. A woman in a rock band is a huge deal, oh wow. An interviewer once accused D'arcy of only caring about hair and make-up. D'arcy then attacked him with her lipstick.

I have the censored cover of Mantissa. Bummer.

"It's not my fault that I'm equally the programmed slave of whatever stupid mood you've created. Whatever clumsy set of supposed female emotions you've bodged up for me. To say nothing of your character. I notice there's not been a single word about his exceedingly dubious status. I wonder who's pulling his strings?"
"I am. I'm me. Don't be ridiculous."
She gives him a sarcastic little smile, and looks away.
"God, you're so naive."
"You're the one who's naive. I wouldn't tell my own character to suggest I'm not really me."
"Then why's he being referred to as "he" throughout? What are you trying to hide?" (88)

The most interesting aspect of this passage is that the characters are aware that they are in a novel. Around this point they begin to measure actions in lines of the text.

Erato is examining the role of Miles as an author (Wait, didn't we kill him?). In one of her moments of power, she once again attacks Miles for controlling her actions. As the author, he can determine what she wears, he can make cigarettes appear for here, and so on. She acknowledges that she's being jerked around within the text, yet Miles is a character just as much as she is.

There is no first person here, but Miles still assumes the position of creator of the text. "I'm me." Without his brain functioning, the text can't continue. But what IS pulling his strings? There seems to be a distinction between Miles continuing the novel, and Miles within the novel. There are a few points (one being when Erato erases the door) that Miles is not in control of where the text is going.

This passage raises the question of where this plot is coming from. The point of gaining back his memory is defeat writer's block. There are outside forces, however, playing into the plot. We watch Miles struggle throughout his own text.

Erato also points out that Miles writes himself as "he", and he can only refer to himself with an "I" in conversation. The "what are you trying to hide?" questions the reality within the hospital room. Why this separation? The story they are creating isn't real for Miles to have the close, first person authorship of.

Both characters seem to have a firm grasp on theory. I see Erato in this passage tag teaming the author with Foucoult. It later comes up that authors like having the name on the front for the attention. Is this why Miles is proud to assume the "I'm me" position of the text? He wants to have the control, and he wants to have the authorship. With the struggles within himself, and also with Erato, it isn't so easy to claim that position.

I will see you in another life, when we are both cats

I’m not ashamed to admit that I love Vanilla Sky. I don’t care how arrogant Tom Cruise is, or how sappy Cameron Crowe is. Jerry Maguire still gets me every single time.

After we touched upon postmodernism in class, my mind immediately went to the film. I don’t want to give away too much, but the idea of a lucid dream IS the hyperreal. The concept is very similar to The Matrix. The lucid dream is sort of a matrix, just not in some post-apocalyptic, robot-infested world. People exist in the hyperreal which is even further removed from reality.

The lucid dream takes past experiences and throws them into the conscious. The mind of David Aames is filled with pop culture reference after pop culture reference. So all these simulations are forming what he believes is his reality. In the film, there is a reason why his lucid dream has masked his reality (I’ll keep my mouth shut in case anyone is inspired to watch it).

I found an article called “Technology and the Time-Image: Deleuze and Postmodern Subjectivity” by Clayton Crockett. In it, he discusses time in the hyperreal. Vanilla Sky presents time in an unusual way. The simulations don’t exactly exist in a nice, chronological order. Crocket also touches upon whether Baudrillard has nostalgia for “finding something pure”. David Aames also gets to this point, where he wishes to find something pure. My lips are sealed.

I would even argue that Vanilla Sky involves psychoanalytic theory. David Aames has a whole bunch of problems with his unconscious that surface in the lucid dream. Not to mention he is being psychoanalyzed throughout the film (by the oh-so-suave Kurt Russel). I know psychoanalysis of a character leads to problems, but I think the film is trying to say something about repression.

I’d like to develop this essay around the idea of the lucid dream. It ties in with simulation, simulacra, hyperreal, and all that good stuff. The lucid dream, full of all its simulations, masks reality. It is a copy with no origin. The original may have been David’s life (yet, isn’t that full of simulations too?), but the lucid dream has developed to be more than that. My concern is that this idea could probably use a little tightening.

P.S. The theory is nice, but my main reason for choosing this film is that I can get all mushy when Tom Cruise kisses Penelope Cruz under the vanilla sky to Sigur Ros.

P.P.S. If you like Sigur Ros, watch the film. Spencer I’m talking to you.

There is no spoon?

I’d like to start out by saying I really enjoyed Ken Rufo’s post on Baudrillard.

The connection to structuralism is where I feel I’m a little weak, but here is my attempt to go through it. The connection has to be made through Marxist theory. I recently went on a little consumer binge and purchased a pair of $100 leather boots. I think the connection is that I paid so much to have the Frye brand. Sure, these boots are high quality. But I doubt they would have cost as much under another label.

But what do my boots have to do with all this? I think my boots are like any other commodity. The exchange-value is more important than the use-value. These boots better last awhile, but money!

Alright,that’s enough of me bragging about my sassy leather boots. The connection I see is that theory is a commodity as well. Theory has an important exchange-value just like the boots. “…Something we use to make our class papers or arguments look good…”. Since Marx developed these ideas, he created this commodity of theory.

I have a suspicion that after watching The Matrix, I might grasp the concept of simulation. As for now, it seems like Baudrillard is saying the simulation becomes reality. Through a process, a simulation first substitutes for reality. A simulation hides this substitution. Eventually, a simulation doesn’t even need this model. This is the copy with no origin (which really confused me at first). There is no copy behind it anymore since reality is absent. Bye bye real.

We have to understand our own experiences through these copies with no origin (simulacra). I believe it was Max who said we observe in comparison to something we observe in Die Hard. So when 9/11 occurred, we didn’t experience it in the real. We had to match it up with something we saw in an action movie.

“The world ultimately resists our attempts to theorize it” first struck me as “well then what are we doing?” Is it because of the simulations that it becomes impossible to try to theorize our world? All the theories we’ve studied create a way to view the world. Do these theories cause us to look at the world in a way that simply fulfills that particular theory?

And while I’m on a roll with asking questions, I’m hoping someone can help me out with this. I’m a little confused about ambivalence. Help?

Bang bang my baby shot the author down

"We know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single "theological" meaning (the "message" of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture."

This is taken from "The Death of the Author" by Roland Barthes.
The first interesting point I noticed in this quote is "none of them original". That line, I guess, shot the author dead. It's difficult to comprehend no text being original. An author is not having a brilliant and unique idea and then writing it down for our understanding. Whatever a person decides to write about already exists.

The blending and clashing is also significant in regards to the "innumerable centres of culture". I take this to mean that ideas existing in our culture are what make it into a text. So many of these ideas are combined together to form a text. Different elements come together to form something. But everything pre-exists the text.

In the introduction of the Foucault reading, the term "author function" is discussed. It's a notion we seem to hold on to just so we can make sense of stuff in our minds. It seems like without the author, we would have difficulty classifying things. I don't know anything about Shakespeare, but I can list a whole bunch of stuff that he wrote.

After a bit of digging, I found a post by I cite on Making Readers
The initial question is what makes certain bloggers find her post? The post deals with her subject matter drawing in a certain audience. Can the author create a particular audience?
The author is posting subject matter that interests her. An audience with similar interests is drawn in through tagging and searching. There are some topics that she can't write about because the discussion through blogs has already begun.

"I can assume, in other words, that the readers are mirrors of a particular fantasy I have of myself."

But does this really have to do with the author of the blog? I think Foucault would said no. The blogging topics are the "innumerable centres of culture" happening all around us. Blogs are the way of blending and clashing whatever topics are popular right now.

Authorship is something Spencer and I have tried to discuss a few times. I think we attempted to post something earlier regarding the topic? I'm crossing my fingers that he will want to discuss this more.

Is my boyfriend a narcissist?

Derrida’s feelings toward the camera are connected with psychoanalysis. Derrida is uncomfortable being filmed because it is a false representation. He then goes back and views the scene in which his wife and he don’t discuss any details of how they met. He seems interested in viewing actions that he hardly remembers doing. According to psychoanalysis, he is viewing the self through the other. The other in this instance, is himself on film. It is something outside of the self that is showing him something about himself. Derrida seems uncomfortable with the other when he views the portrait of himself. He prefers the actually representation of himself versus a self realized through the other.

Derrida discusses the notion of love between two people. As mentioned previously, he questions whether or not you love a person for their singularity (the who), or qualities that that person has (the what). He further deconstructs love to a level of narcissism. People love themselves through another person. You look for qualities you like in a person. When that person ceases to embody those characteristics, you don’t love them. You really search for what pleases you. People end up loving themselves by finding someone with appropriate characteristics that engages back with them. In regards to post-structuralism, Derrida is examining how we establish the meaning of love. The narcissistic quality of love allows us to also examine the self from the other.

When Derrida discusses improvisation, he is deconstructing the idea that it is done on the spot. Improvisation is all rehearsed. When put on the spot, we refer back onto things we’ve learned or heard before. Things we bring up during improve are already familiar to us, we simply present them when called upon. Improvisation isn’t digging into the self for a creative answer. Responses from improve are from something other than the self. This could relate to the idea of the ego, or the social self. The superego contains everything needed for improvisation. We reach into what has already been internalized for an answer in improve. What is then presented is the ego.

I'm still thinking of the second half of Lacan's quote "I am where I do not think" I interpret this as our unconscious (where we do not think) is where we develop part of the self. The unconscious, according to Lacan, is also a system like language. This implies that we develop the self through language.

Derrida had an adorable cat

Derrida is reluctant to be interviewed throughout most of the documentary. His unwillingness to be on camera actually helped me understand deconstruction a little bit more than before. The interviewers try to get into Derrida’s personal life, but Derrida can’t help but point out that the camera is always present. He is deconstruction the idea of his image on camera. To him, the image is a false portrayal. Derrida is visibly uncomfortable when he is shown a portrait of himself. These are not real representations of him.

I find it interesting that Derrida enjoyed the documentary. I imagine it’s because he views the false image of himself, and he watches himself hide his personal feelings. At one point, the interviewer was digging into Derrida trying to examine his love life. First, Derrida is questioned about the first time he met his wife, in which he kept most of the details to himself. Then when Derrida is asked what he feels about love, he is unable to answer at first. Derrida talks about whether or not you love the single person (who), or do you love things about the person, for example intelligence (what).

Derrida seemed to deconstruct most questions he was asked, and probably answered them in a way that the interviewer did not expect. For example, when he was asked to chose a philosopher to be his mother, Derrida answered his granddaughter. Derrida deconstructed the notion that a person typically thinks of “fathers of philosophy” rather than a female figure.

It was almost uncomfortable to watch an interviewer ask Derrida about Seinfeld. Derrida responded that if she thought a sitcom was an example of deconstruction, then she should go back and reread. It seemed that interviewers sometimes tried to ask him unusual questions hoping for a witty response. Derrida ended up deconstructing their questions and giving them an unexpected, but at the same time, intriguing answer. The documentary becomes a lesson on deconstruction.

The meaning of this title is arbitrary

"The bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary" (35)


Saussure says that essence is not found within a word. Our minds are what give a particular word meaning. The meaning given to a word is thus random, there is no outside element influencing what meaning is given to what word. He explains this by saying that no ideas pre-exist language. Language is a “link between thought and sound”.

An example I had thought of was when I was younger, I didn’t know what a yield traffic sign meant. To me, it was just a sign with a word on it. Finally, my mother explained to me how cars yield, and what the sign meant for her to do while driving. There is no way I could understand what yield meant just by reading the sign. Once my mother explained the definition of yielding to me, the sign had a new meaning for me.
This has larger implications with Saussure’s langue and parole model. He uses a word in the French language as an example of parole. If a person doesn’t understand the French language (the langue), that person won’t understand that particular world.

Previous theory suggests that language is a reflection of our world. Structuralism, instead, says that language is what constitutes our world. This theory goes against Liberal Humanism in that we are not the source of meaning. Also, words don’t simply define the world around us. They are what give meaning to every single idea. A text is limited language to describe the world around us.

The Eskimo language example that was brought up in class is a good example of how this theory shapes the way I think about language, and ultimately literature. I’m not going to see the differences in snow. It’s all simply snow to me. If we had different words to differentiate types of snow, I would have to examine snow to tell which kind it is. But instead, I lump it all into one word of “snow”. Eskimos will have a different reality from me. They will understand differences in snow that I won’t. I think this transfers into literature as well. I’m only going to see and understand the picture that the language presents in my mind. I will read a text, and create the picture of the text in my mind. I will only picture what the language of the literature presents. If I read the word “snow”, I picture that one type of snow in my mind. I’m limited to the reality of the language.

This shirt brought to you by capitalism

I have a friend who owns this t-shirt. This was the first thing I thought of after reading Christopher Craig’s post. This friend wears the t-shirt proudly, as if he’s pointing out to those Reds that they’re trapped within the system of capitalism. I find this to be a similar example to Communist Manifesto marketed with trendy jeans. This shirt takes it a step even further. It blatantly points out that Che Guevara has become a commodity. My friend is a supporter of a capitalist system, but what does his shirt really say? Maybe his actions are slightly misunderstood in the respect that he is pointing out that Guevara is a commodity. Most people view the shirt and have a good chuckle, not even considering the complications posed by the statement. In the end, my friend still paid his hard earned $15.95 to a company in exchange for some twisted consumer item.

Has capitalism eaten up activism? I seem to think so. I’m required to express a radical idea through clothing. I could wear the classic Che Guevara shirt. Capitalism already has that base covered. Or I could wear some trendy jeans that are marketed to me as revolutionary. The fact that clothing has become a symbol of activism is a sign that marketing companies are doing their job right. People look right back into capitalism to spend their dollar in attempt to make a statement.

Another example expressed was the type of English course taught in a public high school. I am a graduate of not just any public high school, but a regionalized one, home of the foreign language department budget cuts. When we first discussed liberal humanism, I thought “These ideas seem to go back to junior year English class.” We were sent home with a copy of Hamlet and told to find these great themes. After my first exposure to theory, I then thought “Why didn’t anyone tell me this before?” Not once was I told to do a Marxist reading of Shakespeare, nor had theory ever been mentioned. I feel like that sums up what Marxist criticism is trying to say. My high school teacher was instructing me to consume a text that coincides with the dominant ideology.

I also appreciate the last line. “Hence, our ability to grasp and practice Marxist criticism provides us with the tools necessary both to understand literature from a class-based perspective and also to acknowledge the ideological forces that consistently attempt to shape our lives.” Theory is actually practical in this sense. If a person can do a Marxist reading of Shakespeare, for example, I would believe it would be hard to avoid not analyzing other things around us. When learning abstract theories, knowing that this can affect my life outside the classroom gives me an extra boost when reading dense material.

I think I need a follow-up

Right after class today, Spencer and I had a conversation and we realized we both had the same questions regarding Marxist theory. Must write down ideas quickly before we forget.

Immediately, we both considered creativity. I had mentioned Guy de Maupassant last entry. After this discussion, it seems the author is less important when the message is carried through the text. Does this completely remove creativity from the author?
Is he just a medium for the message of the text?
Does he not impose any creativity on his text?

Next, Spencer and I discussed when the text is consumed. It seems the only creativity that exists in a text is through analysis.

Help?

This thing called human nature

All of my classes this semester seem to link together in a very smooth fashion. The topics have been coinciding and building off of each other. This week, the topic of human nature snuck into every discussion. In philosophy, we discussed if people are born good or bad. In speech, we touched upon post-structuralism theory, and that people are constantly changing and shifting. I wouldn’t be surprised if we were to come across the subject in French class. Maybe when my vocabulary improves.

The idea of human nature has really been lingering in my mind. This is literary theory, but I can’t help thinking about this elsewhere. Liberal Humanism holds the idea on a high level. Tenet #4 states that human nature is unchanging. Take philosophy class for explain. Does that mean I would have to pick either “humans are bad” or “humans are good”? Immediately, I don’t feel comfortable sticking to one side or another. I would have to take off my American lenses and try to determine exactly what behavior is acceptable here and everywhere else in the world.

This directly relates to tenet #6. The purpose of literature is to transmit human values. A piece of literature must (silently) identify some great truth about humans, and then present this value to us. That piece must also speak to any culture of any time. Again, my French vocabulary isn’t great, but I can already sense that this would be difficult. One of the French authors I’ve most recently enjoyed is Guy de Maupassant. I can’t see an American reader getting the same values out of a text set during the Franco-Prussian War. I know next to nothing about his time period, but I can read his literature and I can find something to take away from it. I think certain texts have meaning outside of their respective culture, but I don’t think it’s as transcendent as Liberal Humanism describes. I don't think his literature, or any, could really escape that environment with little influence.

Marxist theory takes a more realistic perspective on literature. The ever-so-important of class struggle will always come through in literature. Not only is the time of the text important, but also when it is consumed. If the time and culture of texts has this much importance, there wouldn’t be one big human nature truth. When I read Guy de Maupassant, I could relate the piece to his 1880s time period. Some voice is coming through in his literature, whether on purpose or not, as an insight to his situation whenever he was writing. Wanting to know his struggle is much more appealing and realistic to me than trying to find one major truth that we all live by.

I feel more comfortable with the idea that there is no such thing as human nature. Truths are temporary and culturally specific. I'm not obligated to raise my hand in philosophy class and say that all humans are bad. While I read my French books, I'm not forced to find one unified meaning. Instead I can study the products of a culture and time.

Hello world

My name is Racquel Morin and this is my junior year. I live in an apartment, so the hand of responsibility has recently slapped me in the face. I've never had a blog before, so we will see where this goes. I'd like to keep track of some progress I make this semester.

I find theory a bit intimidating. I see it as something that only certain people have access to. Sure, we all use theory, but we don't exactly identify it. My college career thus far has been a big introduction to "theory", so that leads me to believe that it's giving me some great insight into my school work. Marxist theory is by far the most appealing to me. I see it as having the most relevance in my life and studies. I'm looking to see more theory have actual meaning, not just some concept in a text book.

So I can start on a good note, here is a picture of my adorable kitty!