After reading For the
Etruscans by Rachel DuPlessis, many readers would agree that they walked
away having problems understanding the text.
Interestingly enough, confusing the reader was likely one of DuPlessis
primary goals. DuPlessis’ text
interrogates the difficulty of creating a female aesthetic when women still
struggle to gain power over language. In her essay she quotes Frances Jaffer:
“Stein says we no longer
have the words people used to have so we have to make them new in some way but
women haven’t had them at all and how can you deconstruct a language you never
constructed or it was never constructed by others like you, or with you in mind”
(DuPlessis, 273).
For
DuPlessis language is male, white and western. Her essay becomes a space to not
only examine the problematic relationship that women have with language; it
also serves as an example of a woman (DuPlessis herself) taking control of
language. DuPlessis’ essay is confusing because it is creating its own version
of the female aesthetic. The structure of the essay seems chaotic. Paragraphs
have no logical order; quotes follow quotes with no explanations, words are
written bold for no particular reason.
DuPlessis tries to create a piece of writing that is as scattered as the
female mind. The female aesthetic should, “[blur] art and life, [blur] social
creativity and ‘high’ art, [blur] between one’s journal and one’s poem, blur
between the artifact and the immersion in experience” (DuPlessis, 282). By
blending genres and ignoring convention women create a language that is all
their own.
DuPlessis also remarks that the issues involved with creating a
female aesthetic resonate with other marginalized groups. By complicating
language, groups composed of women, minorities and other marginalized
communities can develop a unique voice. At various points during the semester
we have engaged in discussion about the standards used in teaching English. For
example the five paragraph essay. DuPlessis is clearly advocating that certain
groups must ignore convention or risk being voiceless.
While educators should work to provide students with the tools necessary
for them to write, speak and communicate effectively, DuPlessis reminds us that
there are reasons a writer may need to break from convention. I would like to
use this first post to discuss benefits/costs of breaking convention. Can
educators teach students how to follow the rules without limiting their ability
to be experimental?
My
next post will discuss the preservation of voice and I would ultimately like to
discuss how technology influences language.
I think that now, DuPlessis' essay is one of my favorite pieces as it relates to language and writing!
ReplyDeleteI agree that educators should EXPLAIN the rules and provide them to their students, but never enforce them to no end. Language and writing is so flexible and ever-changing, that students should experiment and find their way. So many famous writers these days, and especially the classics, became famous because they didn't follow the conventional rules. It's good to know the rules, but it's even better to know how to break them for the greater benefit :)
My English professor during my freshman year actually encouraged me to break the rules. This was one of the best pieces of advice I ever received. I think it's important to note that I didn't receive this advice until later during my educational experience. By the time I reached college, I had already learned the rules. So I agree that it's important to learn the rules first (so you know what you're breaking).
ReplyDeleteI think teachers can allow students to be experimental and follow the rules. At my undergraduate college, this was actually encouraged. Freshman students were required to read Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” in a mandatory course called “African Diaspora and the World” (ADW). This class was universally despised, particularly the readings that encouraged us to follow the “problem-posing” type of education, where both the students and teachers learn from each other and have open discourse on relevant topics. At the time most of us hated this type of learning because we were so used to the “banking” approach to education and wanted to be taught by the professor and not have to learn things on our own. I believe Theory of Exposition is similarly structured and many of us have experienced the kind of frustration I felt in the ADW course. We didn’t know what to think about negotiating our own grades, coming up with our own ideas for the syllabus, peer grading our classmate’s paper, etc. This course was like an experiment and we followed the rules. I believe by the last few weeks of the semester, most of us discovered that not only were we learning, we were learning a lot. It just felt very weird because we’re so used to being “receptacles” that the teacher “deposits” knowledge into. So it is possible for teachers to give us a lot of creative freedom and not have to fear rebellion. This final project (and the overall content of this class) proves that educators can “break from convention”, and the consequences just might be that students learn to have agency outside of their professor.
ReplyDeleteI think that "the rules" should be used not as the end all be all of writing, but rather as a guideline from which to branch. I'm reminded of the poet e e cummings. He's considered to be a great poet (and I would agree), but he constantly breaks convention in order to maintain his own style. It's obvious that he had a firm grasp of the English language--I don't think anybody could be a renowned poet without that basis. However, he always broke the rules of what was "normal" in his rhyme, his meter, his stanza structure. Heck, he even made up words every now and again. Another example would be a jazz musician. The soloist needs a full understanding of the song he's playing and the scales that fit into it. He would be lost without a working knowledge of progressions and changes, but the solo he creates is still going to defy anything that has been done before because it is his own. I think the straying away from the rules displays a fundamental knowledge, appreciation, and respect for convention. It's strange to think about, but you know what they always say, that "the rules are meant to be broken."
ReplyDelete-David Morgan
David, I love the jazz musician example! For my undergrad, I was a double English and Music major--music focusing on guitar. I had the hardest time with improv because it just didn't click. I relied so heavily on the music in front of me, I couldn't come up with something on the spot. Other musicians in the jazz band I performed with could improv like no one's business. Whenever I asked for advice, they said, "Just play what you feel" or "Just stick with the notes in the key and you'll do fine."
DeleteI thought the advice was ludicrous; I couldn't take solos and just stuck with the rhythm and chords.
But I find myself giving similar advice to people who ask how to write. "Write what you know," I'll say, or "Find inspiration in every day events." My brother was struggling with a creative writing assignment, so I suggested he take something he knew, change it to make it his own, and then write about that. I also told him to write how he talks, pretend he's verbally telling someone a story. For him, that worked, and he was able to complete the assignment based on my advice...
...which was pretty much the same advice I got back in jazz band.
It's important to know the rules first, and important to know how to break them. It's also important, like David said, to also view them as guidelines. The Beatles song "Yesterday" begins with a note that isn't even in the song's key. But it sounds right being there. A lot of music has that; that's why sharp, flat, and natural signs were invented.
But when it comes to learning the rules and how to break them? Each person learns differently. None of the people in my jazz band had taken improv lessons; they just knew how to do it. When I write, I just know a comma should go there, a semi-colon there. I can't explain it; I just know it's right. And I also know that when writing poetry or creative fiction, rules can go out the window if it makes sense for it to. But explaining it can be so, so difficult.