vestige.org

Linda Hutcheon’s book, The Canadian Postmodern: A Study of Contemporary English-Canadian Fiction, introduced readers and critics to the concept of historiographic metafiction (or at least gave the concept a name). The concept, and to a lesser extent, the book, has been very helpful in terms of my own work as a critic, but I can’t help but think that Hutcheon’s major talent lies in stating the obvious. And as many of her comments stem from her readings of postmodern writers and critics, I can’t help but think that many of these people either grossly underestimate pre-modern literature, or have never read any of it. From the preface to Hutcheon’s book: As a cultural practice that has actually been defined, in part, by the impact of feminism, postmodernism is of particular interest to me as a woman too. As both a reader and teacher I have been influenced by what feminist… Continue Reading →

George Orwell was an intelligent man, and after reading this essay (link courtesy of Jon) I don’t think any further evidence of that fact need be presented. (Read the article in context.) Orwell, in 1946, was writing about what he saw as the decline of the English language. To a certain extent I agree with him, and not simply because his logic is sound and his argument convincing. I agree with him because when he cites certain passages as meaningless (or as containing less meaning, such as his re-writing of the passage from Ecclesiastes), I can say, with just a hint of shame, that I actually understand them. This seems like a paradox, since I am saying that I understand passages that are devoid of meaning, but it isn’t. I understand those passages because I have encountered those phrases before, and have memorized their meanings. This kind of language is… Continue Reading →

Julianne (should I use Dean Allen’s interesting, but ultimately annoying word “herself” to maintain a certain level of her privacy? Should I use any sort of quaint, but ultimately diminutive name? I haven’t decided yet.) is training to be an historian, in the same sense that I am training to be a literary critic. Last night we discussed biography and autobiography, and I mentioned how much fun it would be to write an autobiography. It’s the sort of thing I can see myself doing, and it offers some interesting opportunities to be creative. First, I think I would have to take certain liberties with my life story. I’m a creative person and creative people like to make things up (Robertson Davies once said something like, “If you ask a writer enough questions, you will start to get answers you cannot wholly trust.”), and that’s exactly what I would do. I… Continue Reading →

From Julian Barnes’ Flaubert’s Parrot, on the subject of Flaubert’s work not promoting positive virtues, in the form of a trial for obscenity: Is this book sexy? M’Lud, we bloody well hope so. Does it encourage adultery and attack marriage? Spot on, M’Lud, that’s exactly what my client is trying to do. Is this book blasphemous? For Christ’s sake, M’Lud, the matter’s as clear as the loincloth on the Crusifixion. Put it this way, M’Lud: my client thinks that most of the values of the society in which he lives stink, and he hopes with this book to promote fornication, masturbation, adultery, the stoning of priests and, since we’ve temporarily got your attention, M’Lud, the suspension of corrupt judges by their earlobes. The defence rests its case. Great stuff.

I’ve recently found myself embroiled in a rather lengthy discussion on feminism. The discussion focused on feminism in general, defining it, and defining terms like “the patriarchy”. I argued mostly for the sake of arguing, often taking stances I don’t genuinely believe just to stir the pot (but I am not a troll; I never stepped across that boundary), but it got me thinking. One person suggested that my definition of subjectivity, rights based on selfish transactions, and non-transcendent ethics “devolved” to power. And he was right, but I don’t think it’s necessarily a devolution. So I got to thinking how definitions of subjectivity are currently both the most influential and highly contested factors influencing contemporary literary criticism. Which also got me thinking about power, transactions, and human interaction. So here we go, with my completely under-developed theory concerning human relationships as transactions in which power is the prime currency… Continue Reading →

My book list this term is hideously long. It’s so long the far side of it lives in Manitoba. Here is a sample of said list: A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens Tristram Shandy, Laurence Sterne About a Boy, Nick Hornby Flaubert’s Parrot, Julian Barnes Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes Vanity Fair, William Makepeace Thackeray Love in Excess, Eliza Haywood Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett The Frence Lieutenant’s Woman, John Fowles This is just a sampling, of course, but it should be noted that while several of the works (Flaubert’s Parrot, Waiting for Godot) are quite short, many of them are quite long. I cannot, at this point, fathom how I will manage to read all of these books (including, of course, the bulk of my texts, which are not listed above) between now and early April. But I will. I’ve already read Waiting for Godot, which I commented on below,… Continue Reading →