Blogs

A little cliché to find meaning and thus struggle in the first sentence of a class reading (and I find I am not alone in this based on two notecards in my Ghana study), but in Literacy and Diversity Lemke explains that “the forms of literacy should be as diverse as are the interests and purposes of people in our society”. This idea first began my thought process of the many different types of literacies that can exist: “cultural” literacy, literacy regarding a certain academics (such as being literate in physics), literacy for a language (fluent in English), and even literacy for certain abilities. My second thought actually came from my friend, who on her notecard wrote the thought that if literacy should be diverse, then literacies would possibly separate people. I did not give much thought to this until I read numerous tweets regarding how some people were struggling with Twitter because they did not understand the “literacy” of it (the character limit, remembering how to respond to someone or more than one someone, attempting to follow a conversation). As only a few people in our class had a Twitter before the course started, and were thus not as “literate” with Twitter as Alice or the few others who already had accounts, would this not separate our class? If the purpose of the Twitter hashtag was to generate thoughtful discussion amongst all students, if half the students were literate at Twitter and the other half were not, would the second half not be left behind in confusion and lack of understanding? Perhaps, a lack of learning and making meaning?

Although writing in a natural or physical science discipline can be easily distinguished from a literary text by the subject topic, different genres of writing branch out of science as well. As a physics major and a student in other science courses, I have had a range of experience in different types of science writing. Presenting my laboratory work for an experimental physics course, an individual research project on the chaos in heart rate for classical mechanics, or a popular science report on human evolution for biology, I must say that each writing experience was unique regardless of the topic in question. The writing assignments are framed in a specific context, either by the professor or the course itself, that allow for a genre of writing. As mentioned by Debbie in class on Thursday, the different genres of writing appear as a result of the context of each sample. A sample from a magazine such as Harper’s or an academic literary essay from the PMLA fall under different genres as each addresses a different audience with different backgrounds on the topic. Other writing samples cannot be understood out of a historical or political context at which they were originally written. Whether a science paper is to be published in Scientific American or the Physical Review Letters does create separate genres in scientific writing as a result of the expected audience and their varying technical and science background.

Originally, I saw Goblin Market as being about the dangers of “strange men,” but by looking at commonalities in the interpretations offered by other critics, I can see that Goblin Market lends itself to a wide range of interpretation.  The common thread seems to be that the goblins must represent something forbidden that young women could fall prey to (drugs, sex, food, consumerism…etc…).  The real point of importance to me is what all of these interpretations could say about women and sisterhood.  Regardless of what the temptation is, the roles given to women are both one who falls victim to temptation, and one who selflessly rescues a weaker victim.  On one hand, it seems very feminist to have a heroine who does not need the help of a man.  On the other hand, it seems that everyone who falls victim to temptation in the world of Goblin Market has been a woman, the only reference to past victims was also a woman and there is no significant mention of human men.  What would have happened in the poem if a father, brother, or other male figure was present?  While a female helping another female seems very feminist, a temptation that only corrupts women seems strange and could be promoting women as the “weaker sex.”  I am still not sure whether Christina Rossetti deserves a seat at the table – although she promotes independence and sisterhood, the sisterhood came at great expense and does not seem to exist in a broader world that includes men. 

In high school, it has been engrained in my mind to write in a certain structure: intro, evidence, commentary, evidence, commentary, conclusion. Since I've started college, however, I realized that there is more than one way of writing. In my ESEM class last semester, I found it quite liberating to write as I felt; to present my ideas in such a way that made sense to me, not to the instructor, not to the other students, and especially not to the oh so standardized curriculum. Most importantly, I found it refreshing that I do not have to submit my writings to turnitin.com, a website that supposedly prevents any type of plagiarism; it even considers copying your own ideas from a past paper plagiarism.  Academic writing, as I've found this past semester, is not limited to a certain structure; its credibility does not solely depend on the number of sources one quotes from. But rather, it is a genre of writing whose boundaries and borders can conform to whatever you need it to be.

After reading the Goblin Market, I felt like there were many ways to interpret the meaning of the story, but after coming to class I did not realize just how many ways you could see the story until Prof. Dalke was listing off the list of theories people have written in response to the Goblin Market. Whether Christina Rossetti intended the audience to read it in one way or another, it’s fascinating that there are people who see it in a more separate way than the tradition feminism idea (like the idea that Lizzie’s experience represents the ills of Consumerism).

For me, I felt the bond of the sisterhood represented the bond that all women should share with each other; not necessarily in a homoerotic way as some writers have responded to the Goblin Market, but in a way that all women should trust in other women and to stand together against men who will hurt us.

Feminism should necessarily be about how females are better than males or that females should be seen higher than males in society, but more the need for equality. Both men and women can hurt. Both men and women can love. There should not be a difference. It reminds me of a quote from a plaque my mom hung in our restroom back home.

“Woman was created from the rib of man.
She was not made from his head to be above him,
nor was she made from his feet to be trampled on.
She was created out of his side to equal him,
under his arm to be protected by him
and near his heart to be loved.”

I went to this class just to see what it would be like, because it fit in my schedule and I thought it might be interesting, but by the end of class I loved it and I'm so excited to learn what comes next.

My thoughts on Goblin Market seemed much different from everyone else's, but I was surprised that many people had pretty solid opinions on what it was about. Although I could just be seeing what I find familiar, I felt like it was telling a story of a woman who had an unhealthy relationship, and then regaining what she had lost.  It reminded me of the Twilight series (which is, in my opinion, a prime example of an unhealthy relationship) when Edward breaks up with Bella and she launches into a months-long bout of depression. Of course, Bella doesn't have a lesbian best friend to help her learn that she doesn't need a vampire (literal or literary) to use and abuse her in order to feel happy and satisfied in life.

It seemed to me like she was giving in to temptation, simply because you're not supposed to and you want to satisfy your curiosity. The concept of the "bad boy" has been sexy since at least 1865 and has evolved from goblins to the Fonz to Edward Cullen.

This first week of class has given me a lot to think about, but I’ll start with my thoughts about the course in general. I think that as students at Bryn Mawr or Haverford we are expected to take responsibility for our learning, but I’d never really thought about taking responsibility for helping others learn as well. Framing the course as a potluck in this way resonated with me, and helped me to understand that we all see things in different ways. By using our different experiences with feminism and literature, we can help each other to see different sides of the text or issue we are considering. In addition, the style of evaluation is very new to me as well. There is a fair amount expected of us, but I think that withholding evaluation until the end of the course will help me to think of my work as a cumulative portfolio, and make connections that I may not have if every one of my papers were being graded individually.

  For as far as I can remember, academic writing has been driven by extensive research (from the writer and sometimes the readers after reading the essay) and supported evidence. Academic writing may allow writers to present their opinions as long as they do not overshadow the facts. Although academic writing requires additional research, I strongly believe that some disciplines (Science vs. Humanities) are more open to having a writer’s opinion complement research. 

I took to heart one specific line in the Stallybrass piece, "The cure for the disease called thinking is work." I'm a creative writing junkie, and I took Short Fiction II last semester with Karen Russell who said, that the worst piece of writing advice she ever received was to, "write what you know." Writing only about your experiences is a hindrance. After all, even if you've never worked on a farm, can't you imagine what it would be like? Limiting yourself in this way is a "disease", one that can be cured, as Stallybrass suggests, by work. Thinking, and over thinking, and then rethinking your over thinking just to make sure your work is based justly, isn't beneficial to anyone. Just write. Just work. Let horrible prose or hypotheses or whatever be written. It's better to write junk than nothing.