Stone Fish Bridman Lewis Dean Jay
So, Literary Analysis with Bruce Stone... He gives us this book for a general overview of the theories, making them easier to grasp; but it's rather watered-down and lacks focus. So he also gives us Literary Theory. It's [insanely] densely-packed logical arguments, less about how to read literature, more about philosophy in the action of reading and criticizing.
Here I've been reading Stanley Fish. He's a deconstructionist, and of the most slippery kind. He applies logical in/consistencies to communication, specifically literature, and its in/ability to effectively exist, let alone convey of an idea. Which is fun enough, but he takes what could be 40 pages, and crams it down to 5; I spend 10 minutes on one page and have to reread half of it. He's so slippery, so apt at tearing things apart, that he appears to have gone quite mad in recent years; and madness is awesome. I don't feel like any quote could do the readings justice, but Fish does use a fantastic quote from physicist P.W. Brigman:
"Finally, I come to what it seems to me may well be from the long-range point of view the most revolutionary of the insights to be derived from our recent experiences in physics, more revolutionary than the insights afforded by the discoveries of Galileo and Newton, or of Darwin. This is the insight that it is impossible to transcend the human reference point.... The new insight comes from a relation that the structure of nature my eventually be such that our processes of thought do not correspond to it sufficiently to permit us to think about it at all."
Lewis, my teacher for 2 criminal justice classes, is actually turning out to be not too shabby, except for these stupid, time-consuming student presentations. But he has decades of experience as a defense attorney, so I can bounce all kinds of "what-ifs" at him. The best part is I can never get a black & white answer out of him. That is a good thing. He always says "That depends on...." which really illustrates the fine line law (and interpretations of laws) walk. He's a wealth of simple, straight-foreword meat n' potatoes information about the judicial system; I never thought I'd find that at Parkside.
I'm a little disappointed with Dean's online class; I'm one of only 3 people who talk and I'm not the biggest fan of his reading list. And the format is frustrating.
I've decided to be pragmatic and pursue publication of that article Jay's been pestering me about. I have very little confidence in my ability to articulate an essay about film, but it can only be a positive experience. I have no clue how to word what I need to word, though; the film's plot is structured in a very specific chronological/anti-chronological format, and I have no idea how to convey the information non-visually. I gave a rough draft to Jay, though, so we'll see.
I wish I had more to talk about. As busy as I am, I should.
Oh, and here's that t-shirt I mentioned but couldn't fucking verbalize.
Here I've been reading Stanley Fish. He's a deconstructionist, and of the most slippery kind. He applies logical in/consistencies to communication, specifically literature, and its in/ability to effectively exist, let alone convey of an idea. Which is fun enough, but he takes what could be 40 pages, and crams it down to 5; I spend 10 minutes on one page and have to reread half of it. He's so slippery, so apt at tearing things apart, that he appears to have gone quite mad in recent years; and madness is awesome. I don't feel like any quote could do the readings justice, but Fish does use a fantastic quote from physicist P.W. Brigman:
"Finally, I come to what it seems to me may well be from the long-range point of view the most revolutionary of the insights to be derived from our recent experiences in physics, more revolutionary than the insights afforded by the discoveries of Galileo and Newton, or of Darwin. This is the insight that it is impossible to transcend the human reference point.... The new insight comes from a relation that the structure of nature my eventually be such that our processes of thought do not correspond to it sufficiently to permit us to think about it at all."
Lewis, my teacher for 2 criminal justice classes, is actually turning out to be not too shabby, except for these stupid, time-consuming student presentations. But he has decades of experience as a defense attorney, so I can bounce all kinds of "what-ifs" at him. The best part is I can never get a black & white answer out of him. That is a good thing. He always says "That depends on...." which really illustrates the fine line law (and interpretations of laws) walk. He's a wealth of simple, straight-foreword meat n' potatoes information about the judicial system; I never thought I'd find that at Parkside.
I'm a little disappointed with Dean's online class; I'm one of only 3 people who talk and I'm not the biggest fan of his reading list. And the format is frustrating.
I've decided to be pragmatic and pursue publication of that article Jay's been pestering me about. I have very little confidence in my ability to articulate an essay about film, but it can only be a positive experience. I have no clue how to word what I need to word, though; the film's plot is structured in a very specific chronological/anti-chronological format, and I have no idea how to convey the information non-visually. I gave a rough draft to Jay, though, so we'll see.
I wish I had more to talk about. As busy as I am, I should.
Oh, and here's that t-shirt I mentioned but couldn't fucking verbalize.