(Be sure to check out the assignment sheet for the First Essay and starting working!)
Rachel Blau DuPlessis is a poet and critic. In "Otherhow," she mixes together elements of poetry and essay writing to explore the links between gender and poetic form. Her own poetry is pretty different from what we've been reading, and she's an older generation (closer to Creeley's age). But what she talks about in the essay has a lot in common with Gurlesque: a rupture of the lyric voice (141), a distrust of "normal claims of beauty. Smoothness. Finish" (144), and a concern for "our sex-inflected cultural values" (143).
In our Blog this week, I want us to try to really flesh out with as much concrete historical and personal detail as possible DuPlessis's basic claim that the history of poetry is intimately tied up with ideas about gender. We talked briefly about how she suggests that "poetry somehow depends on positioning women" (140), and DuPlessis points to a range of motifs and genres of poetry: "Love, Beauty, Nature, Seasonal Change, Beauty Raked by Time, Mediating Vision or Muse, the pastoral, the carpe diem motif, the satire" (140). Now let's dig a little deeper.
Pick one of the following:
- DuPlessis writes about her own struggle as a writer and reader: "The page is never blank. It is (even if apparently white) already written with conventions, discourses, prior texts..." (151). Think about your own experience as a reader and writer. What are some specific ways you've felt your identity already written for you (as woman, as man, as white, as black, as gay, as young, whatever) as you come to the page? How have you felt already written cultural narratives "speak through" you?
- Why is she concerned with "rupturing narrative" in particular (145)? Many critics have argued that narrative (with its emphasis on unified voice, order, and control) is "masculine". How so?
- She writes, "Seize the mask. Not carpe diem... but carpe personam" (146). Why? In what way does this describe Maximum Gaga?
When I go to write a poem, a paper, anything I will always not only be seen as a woman, but as a 18 year old unexperienced girl. Because of this, it is so easy for me to feel like I am never being taken seriously. My poems I feel like are expected to be feminine, girly and innocent. When I give commentary on things, it is looked at as uneducated and as someone who does not necessarily know what they are talking about. I feel like it will always feel like I am turning in my 10th grade paper to my perfectionist teacher no matter what I write or where I write it.
ReplyDeleteAs a writer, there will be almost no opportunity to bring forth something completely new. Want a main character who acts derpy but is secretly intelligent and clever? Welcome to 80% of all anime characters and about 75% of either protagonists or antagonists in Western literature. Want a character who is crippled or has some other disability? Say hi to the tropes Handicapped Badass, Evil Cripple, and Genius Cripple, where everyone who is handicapped is either Superman or the newest Einstein plus or minus some evil crackpot schemes to take over the world. As it is, everything I try to make will fall into a series of different categories, my work sorted into pre-made boxes of brickerbrack from every media known to man. And that turns to excuses from others such as "you're a young writer, you'll be able to make unique characters once you've got more experience" or "your scenes don't come across the way you want because you can never know how it feels to be (crippled, mentally ill, black, white, asian, hispanic, male, female, insert literally anything here)". As an asexual student, for example, I feel like the representation for that identifying facet of myself is relatively free, in some ways, because there is so little representation of truly asexual characters. But just as my sexuality is only a part of what makes me who I am, if I try to write about asexuality, I can't limit it only to asexuality. Other elements will be pulled in, and the asexual bit will be just that: a bit of whatever else gets thrown in. But in a way, the lack of representation that asexuals are given in any medium is almost a sort of "we declare you do not exist" representation. Reverse representation, maybe? Either way, I want to show the world that my stuff can be--and is--different.
ReplyDeleteAs a female, I will always be misjudged in many ways. First off I am not a typical girl to write really girly poetry. Poems that have been my favorite, actually have been more logic and actually have written some for other women. Yes I am bi so that totally throws a curve ball into what a typical "girl" should act or write about. I think it is funny that men are supposed to have muses, or whatever, but I actually have had a muse. So that totally goes against the norm. Anyways back to the topic of getting judged for just being female, yes it happens a lot. Every time I try to write something now I think about what can I write about that has not already been said. To be different is one of my own self priorities. The identity of a female is supposed to be make up, tall, beauty, likes shopping, doing nails, artsy, all of the stuff the media poors into peoples mind on how a woman is supposed to act. I am none of those, I do not wear make up, shopping is not one of my favorite things to do on the weekend, doing nails no thank you I would rather buy a new pair of work out gloves. Its like identity of a female is strictly their, although it has changed over time it still exists.
ReplyDeleteOn #3,
ReplyDeleteWhat she is basically saying here is, do write from the expected angle. Returning to our discussion last week on the 'grand canyon experience', society cultivates very specific (if often stereotypical) 'persona' from which any specific experience should be approached and discussed. For instance, if we're talking about feminism in modern, hip society it is expected that we will take the feminist side. We are expected to write from that (feminist) persona. However, what DuPlessis is getting at is that this persona isn't always the one you personally feel the greatest affinity to. Rather, she says the writer should "seize the mask", that is the persona or viewpoint from which we write, and choose whichever persona fits our particular views, however unconventional.
This is what Maximum Gaga is all about. It flies in the face of conventional norms without apology because it is necessary for writers to express who they are, not who society wants them to be. That is why it's so hard to read, because we, the readers, are the product and perpetrator of society's expectations.
When DuPlessis talks about "carpe personam," she means to apply face to the background characters that females tend to be in narratives (in this case she means 70s western cultured movies). She plays on the word object, referring to these faceless women, who barely have any persona besides delicate flower in a box, the prize for the men swooning over them. They are the "silent faces of the others" in the stories. Basically, she's encouraging the women to be the subject of the narrative, not the "object(ified)." She wants the woman's side.
ReplyDeleteWe see Maximum Gaga bring this out, especially in Minky Momo. We see a young girl who blossoms, turns into this awesome, grotesque, wonderful monster of femininity. She's the one who takes pride in men sleeping with her, she's the one who plays with aggressive flirtation. She stands up for herself when some creep is giving her the "down-up" look. And Max. Gag. does this all in a language that is pure emotion, not the strict no-nonsense narrative that tends to ignore the woman's side of the story.
I guess I'll do the first one, because identity politics is pretty neat. As a teenager, I was in a prestigious Catholic school. Uniforms, nuns teaching, theology classes and lots of cash. In English, our reading was stuff like Heart of Darkness, Dante's Inferno, and (unfortunately) Ayn Rand's Fountainhead. All of them had men as heroes bravely trudging through hardships.
ReplyDeleteNone of this appealed to me. My peers loved this stuff. On the whole, the narratives of becoming a hardened man was foreign to me. This was about when I discovered myself with a shrinking and ultimately dissolving grasp on masculine identity. The heroes that were the gender that I was told I was supposed to perform and stay inside (uniforms) were just these weird dudes going on outlandish adventures to probably kill somebody or to get banged.
I didn't want to drive a cool car or care about college or a trust fund, I wanted to wear lipstick and cute leggings and listen to punk music. But this weird sort of alien identity that wasn't me was making me go through these motions of conquering tests and courses and college applications and interviews.
#2
ReplyDeleteDuPlessis discusses the Medusa story and how her turning people to stone is not the cause like it is commonly known as, but rather the effect of her rape. I personally did not know that Medusa is raped (apparently neither did my roommate). She also brings up that a woman’s voice or side of the story is unnecessary, such as in Medusa. I never heard that Medusa was raped in any of the movies or short stories about heroes confronting her. I never learned it when studying mythology in my classes over the years. The woman’s voice is just another tale adding into the tale that is already being told. DuPlessis described how she feels when she sees a movie and can ‘see’ herself in it. It is not by her or for her, but rather made for a certain version of her. The movies are made around assuming that all women share similar experiences and can relate to a character only because she is a woman.
I don’t know if I fully understood everything that DuPlessis was trying to explain with the rupture of the narrator, but I do know that I now feel a need to go back and reread the Medusa story.
Perhaps it is easier for me as the author and a psychology major to derive the sources of some of my poetry from somewhere in my unconscious. Especially during assignments with a more creative aspect to it, I will see bits of my strengths as well as my weaknesses come out in my poetry. My strengths and weaknesses, as well as underlying desire sometimes, produce work of differing but mostly equal prowess. My weaknesses for example, come off with a dark underlying tone, as well as rhythm if I catch the feel of the poem and structure it appropriately. This usually comes out as foreboding or incantation like, in my opinion, however my strengths such as quick wit tends to read more positively, partially mischievous; they come off with a faster pace, more sing-song like.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to reflection of my individual biases and identities, in particular I have noticed that my poems often carry a feeling of being small but potent, or packed with meaning, a characteristic I would compare with my person. However in some ways, writing allows me to remove myself from my usual scope, and attempt to write through the lens of a particular individual, subject, or even a representation of an abstract concept. By mentally shifting my perspective, I feel that I connect more deeply with the subject, and therefore produce better content from it. This method is not absolute, of course I still apply filters to my thoughts subconsciously whether I know it or not, however it is a good way for me to analyze as well as limit my biases.
The rupturing narrative I got was a masculine narrative that was widely accepted. On page 146 she says, “An intense play between subject and object(ified) is created in the invention of stories for the semi-silenced, or unheard female, or other marginal characters in traditional tales.” I think since males are main characters, or the heroes is one way that the rupturing narrative is masculine, and that most stories are told by a man. I think most people would have trouble accepting great myths from another side. She pointed this out with Medusa. I think that it is masculine due to the fact it is widely accepted. She says she has to “seize some power over story as a social institution” (146). Saying that men don’t have to do that but women really have reach out.
ReplyDelete#1
ReplyDeleteAs a young woman I feel like my writing is expected to be either something about how the girl gets the boy and learns to truly love herself at the same time (I’m not judging) or a feminist argument shaming the patriarchy (Again, I’m not judging this either). In reality, I just want to write a good old fashioned adventure novel that doesn’t involve supernatural love triangles of life and death proportions. Being a girl, I am expected to be very emotional and sensitive in the ways I express myself, but that is the complete opposite of how I am. In my writing I don’t want to talk about just feelings, I want to talk about adrenaline and danger and action. At the same, every character has emotions that need to be addressed in the story in order for character development to ensue, but I’m worried that if I address them then I could get a ‘girls being emotional’ type response. It’s like if you deviate from the norm, you are forced to hypercorrect in attempt to avoid inevitable criticism.
#2
ReplyDeleteThe way I understood rupture was a break or disharmony in something and the way I took in the section on it was that and more. The little section on rupture explained it as an object or item or something that doesn't stay on one task but broadens and broadens the topic or subject even more and more without relating back or giving detail on something. It never gives an explanation of something but does question the question which someone would say would be the answer but not here. DuPlessis seems to be concerned with rupture and rupturing narrative because with it comes a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of certain subjects and objects. For example she brings up in the Rupturing Narrative Sequence section about how the mid-70s feminist aesthetic and the uncovered truth about a lot of stories were that they did not include female(s)' experiences and that how “The 'images' projected on my screen were not constructed by me but only with a particular version of me in mind.” Following that was the explanation of fabricated writings and its instruments which she brings to our attention because, “...the dominant injunction to me as delightful object in one poetic romance, but carpe personam, the female injunction to myself as critical subject in a politics of narrative,” or you could say a battle with lies and bad explanation. Next she brings into view the idea and objects of marganial characters and that “without their tales of cause and effects, reasons and fates leave the impress of absence, gap and void,” and how they were their but never looked upon like the quote she pulled from Woolf, 'in imagination the pressure of dumbness, the accumulation of unrecorded life.' Next to explain is the masculinity in writings when it comes to the emphasis on unified voice, order, and control which in my mind is an explanation in it's self when men are more known to be more out going, strong, and powerful or at least like to get their point across but not just across but in your mind and overpower you.
#1
ReplyDeleteThere's two major things I struggle with self consciously when writing. First of all, I always have this feeling that people will never take my writing seriously because of the type of person I am. Back home, and still here in college where you meet more cultured groups, people still are either surprised or in disbelief when I tell them I want to be a writer. There's this stereotype in peoples mind that I don't fit, because of this I feel sometimes am overly conscious about what I'm writing.
Another thing that has come to affect me is the fact that since literature is so developed, its very hard to come with completely original material. I say original material because there has literally been character profiling and plot classifications of everything. The over confident protagonist that eventually has to humble himself to succeed, the weak heroine that needs to be saved all the time, the goofy sidekick. It has also been seen where the protagonist is the one that is weak, the heroine is the goofy one and the sidekick is the serious one that cleans up the others mess. There's been male protagonists, female protagonists, anthropomorphic protagonists, abstract protagonists... Hell even Death has made an appearance as the narrator of a very powerful story.
The reason this an issue is because when I try and get extra creative and think outside of the box, I mash a lot of different ideas together and it simply becomes too much to pack into one story and is too complicated for the reader. But alas, writing is an everlasting refinery process which the more you write the more you learn what to, and what not, to do.
Technology hates Grey
ReplyDeleteNarrative with unified voice order and control is typically seen as masculine. This is because it is usually the man who is in control. As part of a patriarchy men are typically in charge of their households and just about everything else, I mean we've never even had a female president. The unified voice is typically masculine as well, and now with many female writers pushing against it it will only be seen as more masculine. Order is also seen as a much more masculine thing because it is typically men who have to uphold order