The Inevitability of Emotion

I recently read a TS Eliot piece, I'm a really big TS Eliot fan. He writes some pretty interesting and awesome stuff. It's usually always pretty dense, and complex and tough to follow along. Pieces include 'His Coy Mistress', "Love song of Prufrock'...The other week I read 'Tradition and the Individual talent' and I decided to write on it as a paper. Here is the actual Eliot piece.

http://www.bartleby.com/200/sw4.html

Here is my critique on a genius mentor:

            The encouragement of literature and literature studies thrives on the basis that literature provides a universal truth and meaning. T.S. Eliot argues through “Tradition and the Individual Talent” that as a poet or artist, one must remain completely disinterested. There is certainly merit to this claim, however, Eliot also states that complete repression of emotion is also necessary, to create the most beautiful pieces of art. He states that the author must step away from the writing and disengage entirely and that as a new critic, apart from the piece being analyzed, absolutely no external information should be taken into account; I for one believe this is impossible and there are subtle contradictions in Eliot’s words which agree.

            One of Eliot’s main theses is that ‘the progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality.’ When looking at this line in particular, it can be questioned whose personality is being ignored? The word ‘self-sacrifice’ states that the author must repress his own persona. This is in fact a reasonable claim, especially with the objective of providing a universal message. All humans perceive differently, which advocates the idea of being disinterested. If the author were to write only with the lens of his or her own, it would be very difficult to interpret ideas as a member of the audience without any knowledge of the author. This in general complies with Eliot’s claim; however, if the author were to wholly banish personality from the piece of art, no living being would be able to correctly interpret such writing. Instead the author must take a disinterested, neutral personality. This of course means that personality is not being repressed, it is just being monitored

            Eliot also says that ‘the business of the poet is not to find new emotions, but to use the ordinary ones and, in working them up into poetry, to express feelings which are not in actual emotions at all.’ This would further prove that some type of emotion is necessary while writing. The idea of expressing feelings which are not true emotions would hint that the author must strive to provide the reader with something different. In order to achieve great writing or poetry, the author must be able to provide the reader with something different; otherwise the author can fall victim to blatant paraphrasing or plagiarism. This would mean that the new feeling the author unearths is so magnificent that the author is only striving share his or her discovery.

            In order to create and express this new feeling, ordinary emotion is necessary. In order to do this, Eliot also says that ‘impressions and experiences combine in peculiar and unexpected ways’ and this is in order to create great poetry or art. There is merit to this statement, however experiences that an author may have and choose to write about, will certainly contain some extraordinary implication behind it. It would be impossible for the extraordinary instance to not have derived some type of emotion for the author as well, which would mean that the author is reporting on an incredible emotion they experienced.  Impressions are also combined, and impressions are subsets of opinions, which can also be derived from emotion.  

            Also knowing that an initial experience or emotion is necessary, the objective correlative or calculated emotion becomes prevalent. Like any reaction, scientific or not, an action needs to take place. Eliot uses a scientific analogy using platinum as a catalyst between two gases. The idea behind his analogy is that the author be the platinum catalyst and engages in a reaction in order to create a new compound. Being the catalyst, the author is involved in the reaction however not used or consumed within the reaction. In essence, Eliot’s argument is that the author is simply the medium transfer a word from one place to another, more specifically, that the author writes without emotion (as a catalyst) and as the audience we read his art which is the end substance. The fallacy within this analogy is that the catalyst is necessary for a reaction. Of course the author is necessary for a piece to be written, however a catalyst must engage in a reaction for it to truly be successful. Therefore, by extension, an author must truly engage in his or her writing, in order to successfully create a true piece of art. The very nature of being engaged is to be knowingly involved. This would state that the author is involved with his or her writing and this would carry some type of personal involvement. In essence, the author is incorporating some of him or herself within the writing.

            Eliot also states that tradition is important within writing and that as authors we must be knowledgeable of our predecessors and take into account their contributions to the literary world. He states that new pieces of writing involve past ideas, however with some distinct change within the literature. This of course would also require additional exterior knowledge in order for the author to write. The art itself would need additional care and attention. Also, in order to come across a distinct change within a new piece of writing, some type of variance must occur between the author and the words of his predecessor. If such a variance is not present, the very idea of producing a new piece of literature becomes null. In addition, such a variance can only become present if the present day author discovers something new, perhaps by way of experience, and this of course would imply additional knowledge and/or emotion that the author has encountered.

            With regards to our predecessors of the literary world, Eliot also says that new pieces of writing and new authors should be set for ‘contrast and comparison.’ This would be necessary in order to find the distinct difference between the pieces of writing. Eliot also mentions that the aesthetics or style of writing may differ. This would implicate that the personality of the writers are different, and it would show through within their writing.

            The very notion of keeping the dead poets in mind is to preserve some type of tradition. Eliot also states that in order to achieve this tradition, it takes a type of taxing and rigorous labour. This would encompass additional knowledge. As a critic, while reading, in order to understand the literature itself, the reader must also have some type of knowledge of past writers or events. In order to truly appreciate and understand the literature, the reader must be able to acknowledge the variance in the writing. This shows the flaw of new criticism in general. In order to be an active and concise reader, one must be knowledgeable or aware of matters outside the text at times. It is by very nature that an engaged reader would also make connection to his or her own life. This nullifies the notion of dealing with the text and the text only. However, this does not retract the power of close reading because the reader would be applying his or her own thoughts to the text in order to discover the universal meaning.

            It would be impossible to identify the exact persona of the author will not be shown through their writing; however traces of their personality will be present. This is clear through the different aesthetics from writer to writer. With regards to personality and emotion, Eliot states that ‘poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality. But, of course, only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things.’ In a sense, this is very agreeable, as authors and even readers may consider pieces of art as an escape from both personality and emotion. Eliot also then states that it is essential to have both, personality and emotion, in order to escape them. I would argue that this is what makes the most successful writing, however, not in the sense that there is no emotion or personality present within the writing. If stated without any emotion or persona, the end result would be nothing short of a bland and monotonous failure. However to articulate ideas and thoughts through a new personality, with a new extraordinary emotion is what makes writing successful. The idea is that the writer can, for an instance, step away from his or her own shoes in order to articulate a perception that is new or striking. This in essence is an escape from the writers own persona and emotion, but stepping into a new unknown persona and sense of emotion. Within the quote itself, it states that it takes an author with persona and emotion to step away from it. Literally, this means that the author must step away from his or her own emotion and persona, and then articulate a universal message with a slightly different attitude.

            Eliot also mentions ‘that criticism is as inevitable as breathing, and that we should be none the worse for articulating what passes in our minds when we read a book and feel an emotion’. Criticism itself is the analysis or judgement of a particular subject. This inevitable criticism may be a parallel to emotions. It is inevitable as a human being to feel some way in order to stir up some type of judgement. In the line above, Eliot also mentions that we are better for articulating our thoughts and emotions as we read a book and this further proves that emotions are inevitable, whether they be mundane or extreme. In fact, this thought encourages the formulation of opinions and advocates processing our emotions while criticizing, and this process will come directly from the writing.

            Eliot’s notion of being disinterested as a critic and an artist carries significant merit. However the idea of disengaging personality and emotion entirely as a writer is seemingly short-sighted and it would be inevitable as a critic or reader to relate a piece of art to the outside world. The idea of being disinterested only caters to subjectivity; it would be impossible to create or perceive true art without unique emotion, personality or knowledge.

Bullet Proof Vest

Haven't blogged in a while...here is an oldie. 

Bullet Proof Vest


Ask me, I dare you, please
ask me, what I would do?
What would I do, for you?

I'd be your bullet proof vest.
I'd take that bullet in the chest.
I don't mind.

I'd run through trees and swamps,
through the ocean, just to say 'hi.'
But I guess, I'd be the one
of advantage there, huh?

I'd climb a mountain and yell out loud
eat a snail, sell my heart or crack a nail
I don't mind.

I'd pay money and run miles,
catch a star and name a planet.
Basically, I'd do anything.

Most importantly, I'll always
be honest and true.
That is what I would do,
for you.

Always.

Stay Disinterested

Anyone that may be reading this, or my blog in general, is probably somewhat interested in what I have to say. Either that, or you're really bored. Just because I'm in a decent mood, I'm going to go with the former (also because it makes sense in this blog post).

Before I get into the meat of this blog post I just wanted to introduce a word many people probably are not familiar with. This word is 'disinterested'. Now this word does not mean 'to NOT be interested'. No, that is what UNinterested means. Disinterested is being unbiased. Looking at something with a fresh and clean perspective.

The idea of being disinterested is important, for it will help you find the truth in things. Bias can taint. Stay disinterested.

My love for rhetoric has me learning more about critical theory, and today I want to talk about a feature we all (hopefully) have: eyes.

I personally think eyes are amazing, I mean they let you see things. Even when you close your eyes, you can see things, in the form of dreams or even abstract and figurative truths. The physical eye itself is even quite beautiful. They can come in various colours, from a hazel brown to glassy periwinkle blue.

It is also commonly said that the eyes are the gateways to truth. Our own eyes can define us, or share something about us. When someone is happy, our eyes are bright, they light up, are bigger, we keep them open. When we are sad or upset, they reflect this with tears. Even with anger, we put certain stress on our eyes which is evident to others (and the use their own eyes to see this!).

Not only this, but we can train our eyes to be able to read things. More than just books and words, but behaviour and mechanisms of others. We can see that habit of scratching ones hair as a sign of nervousness, or a twiddling of thumbs to imply boredom. Our eyes show us these, they show us the truth.

Moving back to the gate way of truths, that is quite a strong statement. The gate way of truth would imply that your eyes, are the gates, and store and encompass what we feel, our emotions, desires our identities. Why else do people ask others to look them in the eye when in a serious encounter? To measure how truthful they are being. Their is something in the eyes, that will hint something about us. Looking straight into the eyes of someone, is quite an experiment and experience. You could see a soft melancholic tinge or even a passionate excitement.

I'm particularly fascinated by eyes, not only for their beauty, but for that truth. I actually believe it, by looking someone in the eye, you can learn so much about them. By using your eyes, your trained eye, you can discover things. Much like in baseball, you use your eye to fend off the strikes from the balls. It shows you the goodness to swing for, and the badness to lay off of.

I was very recently having a conversation with a new friend, and they asked me to tell them more about myself, and this got me thinking (as usual). How much of myself can an my eye truly see? It can see others for who they are. For instance, if you were to look at me, you would be able to see me, literally for face value. Curly hair, short etc. How much you read me, would depend on how well you know me, your experiences with me. The more the better obviously. And all along this time, you would be able to see me.

Now if you were to look at yourself, it is impossible. You cannot truly see yourself in entirety. Even if you were to look into a mirror, it is only a reflection of yourself. Not only that, but it is a backwards image of yourself. You are looking at a reflected image. The actual definition of reflection is light or particles or something that is being thrown back at you. To put it into simpler terms (ironically using math), if you were to reflect a graph about an axis, you would be turning it upside down, it would be a backwards image of the original. Although it resembles the original, it is not truly the original. Therefore, it would be hard to argue that your reflected image in a mirror, is exactly you.

Now of course this may be subjective, however it does bring up an interesting point; how much of yourself do you truly know? We constantly struggle with the ideas of survival or identity, and we constantly battle between decisions to distinguish right from wrong, the best from the worst. When we apply these types of ideas to others, it becomes much simpler to read them. For instance, you as my reader are probably reading this because of the interest you have in my words. Perhaps you like the idea of taking my nuggets and thinking about them (or maybe you're just being nice to me). Regardless, their is some interest motive that keeps your eyes (oh look: eyes) on this page. Now if I were to ask myself why I am writing this, it would be a little more difficult to answer. I could probably come up with a decent and passable answer, but here is a better example.

Today, and actually over the past week, I have been asked, 'How do you do it?' To this question, I don't think I have an answer. Each time I was asked this question, the context was simple: I attend both university and act as a Teaching Assistant in high school. My schedule is seemingly packed with days ranging from 8 hours to 15 hours. Many times, I have been asked, how do I keep up? How do I stay on top of everything? My only logical explanation is because, well, I want to. Or perhaps I am crazy?

My point here is, really, how much do we understand ourselves, or what we really want? How many times do we look at others and find truth? Now this isn't a bad practice, but then I ask, how much do we appreciate the truth in others? How much do we look for the truth inside of ourselves? And I think this idea is important, we can understand others, but to truly be happy, we must also understand ourselves. Maybe we need the eyes of another to help us see ourselves, for instance our eyes would need the help of a telescope to properly see Saturn. Similarly, maybe we need a set of glasses and bowl of minute rice to really think about and look at ourselves.

Then again, we always have mirrors.

Rhetoric - What's up?

Those of you, that speak with me would know that I love exploring rhetoric. I also have a very keen and critical eye and love close reading when I'm reading. What close reading is, is looking at the article that you have much more critically, and really trying to extract as much information out of every word. You can then try making connections, sounding smart, or whatever. I just think it is fun and interesting to close read and find out what really is or may be going on within the text and how it transcends the text, to you. 

Now you may call me a nerd here, an English nerd, whatever, and I would like to say you are probably absolutely right. I would always, 100% advocate that we all try to be as nerdy as possible. We'd just be much smarter people if we were. I'm going to stop here because I'm digressing from what I want to blog about.

Just at the start of last week, as I went back to university, I was very excited about one of the courses I was taking. I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised to know that it is all about being critical while reading. Our first class, we pretty much opened the floor to hear definitions of what being critical is, and what I personally think, is that being critical is about looking at something much more deeply. It's about really getting down to the nitty gritty and in essence finding out about...everything you could possibly want to know of value. 

Now I touched a bit on being critical while reading, and this is all cool and dandy and I'll probably rattle off some of my own observations and examples (which people think I'm crazy for) but what I wanted to key in on a bit more was the application of being critical. Not with writing, but with everyday life and language, specifically with regards to speech and conversations.

We all love to talk in some way or another and we all have many many many conversations. How we all speak is different and varies. I could probably write a very very large anthology on all types of rhetoric and speech epitomes of all languages and all, but obviously I won't because I'm not that bored. But I will however try to show you a little bit of what I think with regards to us communicating with each other and the merits of understanding each others rhetoric and language, and how tuning your own rhetoric, can be quite amazing.

Now what is rhetoric? I use the word a lot, and if you study writing, politics or law, you'll definitely come across this word; if you don't, there is a problem. We all use rhetoric, subconsciously and even consciously. In fact the most popular type of speech is a form of rhetoric.

Rhetoric is the art of persuasive language. Doesn't mean you have to be arguing or even proving something to use rhetoric, it just means you're probably trying to get somewhere in your conversation or at least guide it a little. Today, sarcasm is used a lot, because people love it. We all love to joke around or pass comments using sarcasm, and this is a form of rhetoric too.

For instance, I was having a conversation once, and I cannot remember exactly what was being said so I'll fabricate it a little...here is the a little of the 'conversation':

'You're crazy.'

'Rude.'

'Gosh, I wish I was crazy...crazy is cool.'

'You are crazy.'

'Don't lie to me.'

'Lie to you? Never.'

Now if you take a look at that small conversation, you would probably notice some sarcasm in it. You would probably also wonder, 'Why would I want to critically look at that?' and that is a legitimate question, because you probably wouldn't. I just happen to have lots of time and no life.

Anyways, if you take a look at the line saying 'Gosh...I wish I was crazy...crazy is cool.' it is the first hint of intentional sarcasm, on my part anyways. It's a little ironic (to me) because I meant it literally, not entirely seriously...anyways...bad example. Looking at the second example, which is probably the better one, it is the line saying 'Lie to you? Never.'

Take it in for a minute....interesting...isn't it? No? Let me try convincing you then. I hope the sarcasm is blatantly obvious, as it is clearly there. The 'Lie to you' part is obviously setting up the end 'Never'. The kicker of this sarcasm is really the 'Never' and what this basically shows is the acknowledgement that, lies are going to happen, but probably not seriously. It's a clear playful joke. Shows a level of ingenuity however also a a sense of realism.

Yeah I think a lot...

It's not just that that interests me though; after having that little epiphany with regards to sarcasm and looking specifically at the word 'Never', I started thinking more of conversations, and more particularly at word usage. I've actually been pondering this for quite some time, and if you have conversations with me from time to time, you would know that sometimes I innocently ask 'What does that mean?' or I'll question your answer...because I think very critically...almost always...and am not very hip.

What I do think is hip though is being able to read into things like this and really understand what is going on. Seriously, makes you look like a genius, mind reader, smart...it's cool...trust me (and if you don't, I'll probably blog about it later anyways).

What I figured I would do is every now and then write a new blog on a new word or phrase or whatever which I find interesting or serves as some type of median to learn something. Since I've gone on so long already, I'll keep this coming one short, and hopefully grab your attention so that you read future blogs (that will probably look at cliches, particular words, catch phrases, movies, Beauty and the Beast, Hollywood, sports, almost everything. Rhetoric is everywhere.

Today I'll keep it quite simple. Quite often when we see or greet someone, the second thing we usually say (after Hi/Hello/Salutation) is 'What's up'. Almost always, the response is 'nothing' and then it's your turn to regurgitate the same thing and then perhaps start your actual conversation. This strikes me as confusing. Why not start the conversation after the initial 'what's up'. Even if it's a random, useless conversation, you could reply to a 'what's up' with, 'I feel quite silly' or something...I don't know..just weird to me.

So I ask you, what do you actually mean when you say 'What's up'? Do you expect an honest response back? If someone asks you 'What's up', are you going to tell them what is actually up? Is this sarcasm? Have we destroyed using the term 'What's up?' Is it now just a quick, mundane formality that transitions us to the main event?

Yes. I think too much.

Devils Advocate

Warning: This one is long! (If you actually make it to the shoutouts...guaranteed you're one of them.)

I was the man of the hour...(or day) just a little while ago. Being the person I am, I began to really think about what a Birthday is and what mine was. Yes it is a little interesting to leave the teens to the 20's and beyond and all that cool stuff, but I couldn't help but think: so what? Is it really a big deal?

Here is what I came up with...

I first started thinking about Birthdays, and literally, they are what they are. Birth-days. The day you are born. Considering the calendars that majority of us own, we eventually pass by the day we were born on and deem ourselves a year older. Quite practical, yes. How big a deal? Well that could be subjective, yes it was a year since you were born, or 20 years, or 50, does it not eventually give you less utility? Is the utility diminishing? (Sorry for the eco reference, I've just recently gone back)

Continuing on that stream of thought, I think that age is only a number. Sure their are perks or connotations here and there with age, but age is not too big a deal...I think. Knowing today I turn 20, and tomorrow I am 20 and 1 day old...but that isn't a big deal, that begs the idea that today may be just as (un)important. Because really, the days we call a birthday, really is only another day, right? Right. You can't really argue with that, because it IS just another day. You can officially say you're a year older and that is cool, but we grow older everyday...Birthdays just round off to a nice solid number. I won't lie, rounding up does feel more comfortable.

On Birthdays, people also generally wish each other a 'Happy Birthday' and this is a very nice gesture. And on your birthday, you'll probably hear it a lot, from people you are close with, don't generally speak with, lost contact with, people you don't know, whatever. It's quite nice to hear it, but why not hear something nice everyday? Why not show appreciation for friends and family everyday? Or try to genuinely keep in touch with each other anyways, everyday? But I can understand that it is impossible to know everyone. These were just passing thoughts I had while trying to play devils advocate.

This is pretty much what I did all day, be devils advocate. I was trying to figure out why Birthdays are important, if they actually are a big deal, because to be honest, my day was as regular as my day can get. I woke up, made my bed and wasted time by doing something a little less than productive. I ate dinner, and did not feel all that special; maybe I am cynical or a total party pooper, but it just felt like any other day to me. And so, to avoid a potential grumpy bout, I continued to question whether January 5th (or whenever your Birthday is) is a cool, important or special day, and became inquisitive instead.

The answer I came up with is: it can be. Any day can be in fact. Not just a birthday, but any day because we grow everyday, we learn everyday. Everyday has the potential to be special and important, not just birthdays.

Yeah, I sound like a dink...BUT...

Birthdays definitely are a tiny bit different, because it's a day of recognition. Everyone, no matter who you are, where you are, we all have our days, good or bad. And Birthdays are a day where we can feel a little loved again. Let me explain a little more.

I started looking at the wish of having a 'Happy Birthday', or wishing someone a 'Happy Birthday'. Many just say it because it is what is socially correct and accepted, many probably genuinely mean it too, and even if they do not, they took 20 seconds of their time, to tell you, that they are happy about your existence. They are appreciating the fact that they can speak to you or send you these words to hear or read. The very fact that they can see you physically take up space or in some way find and see you in some way. Happy is (obviously) a positive feeling, coupling it with Birthday, and a wish to someone, basically says, Happy Birth Day. Or Happy day of birth. Or 'I hope you have a happy birthday', and by extension saying, 'I hope you enjoy your day, this day, where years ago you were born and came into existence. You have every reason to be happy, and I really hope you are, because you are awesome/having you around really does have an effect.'

This ultimately donned on me, as my mother came home from work. I stood up to go say hello to her, and she hugged me tight, wished me a Happy Birthday and a healthy life while kissing my forehead. The warmth of a mother always makes you feel good, and this made me start thinking, 'Hey, today is special, my mom thinks so, look, she just gave me something that is awesome, a simple hug.' I then continued thinking and received several texts and of course hundreds of Facebook messages wishing a Happy Birthday. Some had smiley faces, some did more. One was even a paragraph, and I truly, truly loved the messages I received.

Some of my most favourite messages (without dropping any names- consider this an indirect shout out) were:
My mother giving me a huge hug, my aunt who made me lunch and cares for me oh so much, my grandmother patting my head, an attempted noogie, the paragraph I received as a wish, Antarctica, being called Gramps, Leafs win, a message from Padji, hearts, pretending to be an integral part of an office that I do not have access to, HBH's, being wished multiple times by the same person, prunes, positivity, being awesome and many of the heart felt yet simple 'Happy Birthdays'.

I truly have some outstanding people in my life.

This to me is miraculous. Not only is the fact that 20 years ago, January 5th, I came into existence. I was introduced to planet earth as a little baby, growing into an infant, child etc, but the fact that others too care. And not just for me, but you'll see on yours too, there will always be someone that cares, and says those words to you, or wishes them upon you, or would wish them upon you.

So late in the evening I figured this out, and my regular, mundane day, became that much better. It became special. I overlooked a few things and came to understand how I truly feel about birthdays. How appreciated I may be, how I appreciate others and overall, the love and care that family and friends can have for one another. It is truly remarkable, and makes every day, especially Birthdays, that much better. These birthdays, these wishes, are the reasons that every other day is worth living though, because it matters. You matter.

Yes any day can be important; but, they are all connected. It all started on that day, your day, when you were born. The importance started then, that moment, on your birthday. Everyday is potentially special because of your birthday, because you are here. And this day, your birthday, will always be highlighted in someones calendar, because you are making a difference.

I would like to thank everyone for making my 20th, a day to be proud of. You all make the world turn.