WK10-DQ

Ch. 7 Performance:

Henry Sayre, in his chapter on Performance raises some questions in regards to agency and art, on pg. 92 he writes "This dialectic between the //intentions// of the composer or author of a work and the //interpretations// to which it is submitted by its performers has traditionally been the critical crux around which the idea of performance has turned in literary as well as musicological and art historical, studies." How does this shift in agency come in to play when we are reading a piece of literature as literary scholars, as opposed to performing it for an audience? In what ways do we as readers become performers of a piece ourselves? Moreover, how do the author's intentions still hold agency over our "inner performances" or do we disregard the author entirely? ---MS---

On page 95 we see an example of "noise poetry" and it is described as an "attack" on natural language. Do you believe this is an attack on "natural language"? James Cameron's //Avatar// and Tolkein's //Lord of the Rings// trilogy had their own fictional languages that were celebrated and beloved by fans--yet this poetry is an "attack"--so what makes it an attack? And what is "natural language"? -Sam

Performance seems to blend several different concepts we've covered into one generalized idea. How does the practice and internalizing of performance combine concepts of authorship, intention, and interpretation? -JF

Chapter 12 Determinacy/Indeterminacy

On page 164, Graff writes, "...This tendency to define literature as the opposite of science led to the theory that "ambiguity" of meaning is a distinguishing feature of good literature." Do you believe that ambiguity is a sign of good work (such as literature, film, etc.)? If you look at what we consider classic literature this seems to ring true--but is it consistent or fair to judge a work based on its ambiguity? -Sam

It is stated on pg. 170 of Graff's essay that "the point here is that language attempts to build up positions of authority which language itself calls into question." If we think of language in this way, as an indeterminate set of signs that relies solely on contextualization, then can it be said that words do not mean anything without the outside forces, or contexts, that can be applied to the definition? Also, how can this lack of meaning be applied to a literary analysis? Furthermore, what does this say about literary studies? ---MS---

Is every theorist treading down a path of indeterminacy which will lead to cyclical logic (only I know what I'm saying, but the minute I try to define it I am again using language and therefore, my definition is yet again indeterminate and the cycle begins again) and eventually the death of the author/reader's agency and possible meaning itself? Or, do theorists use indeterminacy to help deconstruct meanings within the literary trope of author/reader to give birth to new interpretations? ---MS---GL---

Also, I really like the question Graff poses in this chapter and think it would work well for class discussion. He writes on pg. 174 "Is all literary meaning (or all textual meaning) indeterminate, or is indeterminacy a feature of some kinds of texts but not necessarily all? ---MS---