so i am writing this paper. it's on irony in a certain phenomenal text, The Hour of the Star, by a certain phenomenal writer, Clarice Lispector. (coughreaditrebeccacoughcough!) Lispector claims she's not a writer, the narrative voice in the novel claims it's not a novel, the story is altogether beautifully self-contradictory. really impressive.
so, like i said, i am writing this paper on the irony of the novel, and i thought, what better way to write about irony than in an ironic style that mimics the text in question while still showing my familiarity with (and contribution to) the existing criticism about said novel?
part of the process would also be to mimic the false randomness of the novel, which (ironically) claims to have no technique or style, but obviously does. in doing so, i would also be practicing what is called by some (Irigaray & Cixous) l'ecriture femenine that subverts male-dominant discourse (which is unified and direct) by its plurality, multi-directionality and hibridity...
i think it could be brilliant! well, not really, but at least stylistic and fun, the opportunities for which are few and far between in grad school. there's only one problem....i'm not sure if my professors (yes, there are two) will approve of this or if they will think it's substandard writing because it won't exactly follow the (ahem, "male-dominant-unified-discourse") norms of academic writing....
in short, they'll either be delighted or disappointed.
while i feel pretty confident that i could argue my case quite successfully if the latter turns out to be true, i'm not sure i will have the opportunity, given that this is the last paper of the semester.
so here's my question: should i include a note of some sort to explain & justify my strategy, or be really bold and just do it without explanation like a true (fake) feminist???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I'd go for it, but write the note. Take from a guy who tried some stunts with his papers which kind of backfired becauese of lack of explanation. I don't think a "nota praevia" would take away your paper's peculiarity. Oh, and about male-dominant-unified-whatsitsname, though I agree, wouldn't you say that there are exceptions in the male territory? Take Cortazar's Rayuela, for example, or any philosopher with a platonic influence. They're always circular, and never go straight to the point (like Pascal). Now that I think of it, Heidegger wouldn't fall in that male-dominant classification, either. What do you think?
P.S.: They told me about a guy who had to write a paper on risk. He handed it over, and inside it only read: "This is risk".
i definitely agree that there are exceptions--although the french feminists try to get around this by saying that, although these authors are men, their writing is also "feminine" because of the characteristics you mentioned. (some other male writers of this type that i particularly like are Roland Barthes, Lezama Lima, Sarduy...i wouldn't necessarily call them "feminine" as much as neo-baroque, elliptical, playful or just artful.)
overall, i think that the french feminist theory of a counter-literature serves more to reinforce stereotypes, rather than break them down...
thanks for your advice--the more i ask others in the class, the more i agree that the "nota praevia" is a good idea, since one of the profs in particular can be rather whimsical.
i like the "risk" paper, by the way! i don't think i quite have the guts to do something like that!
This may be way conservative, but I would talk with the professors beforehand. If they say yes, then write ironically with confidence, and do a fantastic job. If no, then at least you know the parameters within which you must compose, and can stay inside them safely.
How fun are you?? I hope you get to do the more creative. Let us know.
(And, um, remember to show me the book when I see you next week? Thanks!)
So... What'd you do??
well, it was AS daring as i had initially planned (i wussed out)...but i did keep the irony, interspersed with ridiculously wordy passages and parenthetical self-reflexive comments about the writing of the paper (for example, "i think i had better dress up this paper with some difficult literary terms")
after re-reading it, i did decide to send an email JUST in CASE they didn't like (or get) it...
i'll let you know when i hear back or get my grade in the class. :)
the response to my email was better than i could have hoped (!):
"Jenna, [the irony] was very evident and one of the most insightful and creative papers I've read in a long time."
WHEW!
Hurrah!
Jenna is SOOO smart and good at being intellectually ironic.
i get so much practice with all my intellectual friends!!!
Congratulations! I'm all for a more playful (or "ludic", because it has to be fancy to sound intellectual and deep) way of thinking and writing. So many times a more symbolical, narrative approach delivers a far more accurate description of whatever you're investigating than a "serious", "scientifical" essay.
i absolutely agree, Eduardo. i think if we admit that language can never convey exactly what we intend, that gives us a little more freedom to try to create a feeling or reaction with language instead of trying to explain everything scientifically to the letter.
Ooh, thank you for your insight C.S. Lewis, I mean, er, Jenna...
my life's goal has come true! i've now officially been compared to c.s. lewis. and you are all my witnesses :)
i'd just like to say that my little sister is my hero and i view her with ultimate respect and hateful jealousy.
that being said, i think i will be returning to college next fall.
Post a Comment