Tuesday theme – Sit Right Down

To balance the high-tech communication tools we’ll be discussing, the theme song for ENGL 203-04 today evokes an older, slower medium of expression. “I’m Gonna Sit Right Down and Write Myself a Letter” was written in 1935 by Joe Young (lyrics) and Fred Ahlert (music) and was made popular by the great jazz pianist Fats Waller.

Of course, since the singer (let’s call him “Waller” for now) is describing a letter he’ll be writing to himself, he won’t have to watch the mail to learn what’s in it: so maybe this isn’t such a slow-paced communication after all.

This theme song also looks forward to the discussion we’ll have on Thursday about Graff and Birkenstein’s They Say/I Say. The book’s premise is that academic writing typically takes the form of conversation, even if the conversation is one between the writer and an imaginary interlocutor. Waller’s letter will be from himself to himself – but he’ll be imagining it’s from his lover.

I’m gonna sit right down and write myself a letter
And make believe it came from you

The song’s wit lies partly in the way it becomes a song about writing, and indeed about the singer’s own power as a writer.

I’m gonna write words oh so sweet
They’re gonna knock me off my feet

This amusing prediction of self-astonishment (which is also, perhaps, an expression of authorial self-satisfaction) has tripped up some performers. Listen to Ella Fitzgerald get the pronouns wrong in this version, telling the listener, “I’m gonna write words oh so sweet,/ They’re gonna knock you off your feet.

She also substitutes “you” for “I” twice in what should be “A lot of kisses on the bottom, I’ll be glad I got ’em.”

Sarah Vaughan, too, sings “knock you off your feet,” but then recovers for the “kisses” line.

Both Fitzgerald and Vaughan are more interested in the music of this song than the lyrics, of course; and we might usefully think of them as entering into conversation with Ahlert (and Waller as the song’s canonical performer) through the way they play with the melody. At the same time, their slips are an indication that there’s a bit of psychological complexity to the singer’s situation.

Is this a jaunty, playful song or a sad one? Why must the singer pretend to write a letter in the lover’s voice anyway? Evidently the lover has failed to write. Why? The singer doesn’t appear too hopeful about their relationship, or it wouldn’t be necessary to “smile and say [taking on the lover’s identity], ‘I hope you’re feeling better.’” And, come to think of it, whose smile is it – that of the lover (in the singer’s imagination) or of the singer? If the singer’s, it could be a smile of pleasure (at the singer’s own cleverness), but it could also be a smile of resignation (in accepting the reality that the lover isn’t smiling … or writing).

The air of loneliness that hangs about this song of one-way communication imagined as two-way communication is reinforced, in Waller’s version, by the urgency with which he repeats the phrase “make believe” three times at the song’s conclusion, as if trying to persuade himself that he can be persuaded – if only he tries hard enough – that the letter is from the uncommunicative lover:

I’m gonna sit right down and write myself a letter,
And make believe – make believe – make believe it came from you.

And for whom are these urgent words intended? For whom is the song itself a kind of love letter? Why, the very same lover who hasn’t written and, for that very reason, probably isn’t listening – assuming the song even reaches them. Perhaps, after all, the song, like the imaginary letter it describes, is merely from the singer to the singer: a perfect and self-contained act of make-believe.

Nanette and theory

Discussing Hannah Gadsby’s Nanette in “Fluid Readers, Fluid Texts” on Thursday, we noted a few points in the monologue where Gadsby shifts naturally and more or less seamlessly from talking about her experience or her performance to theorizing about such matters as identity and comedy. We described this shift as “moving up one level of abstraction.” We also called it moving to a “meta” level or “reflecting” in general terms on human experience or the art of comedy. I suggested that what’s important for us to note about this move, as practitioners and theorists of criticism, is how it simply seems required by Gadsby’s effort to make sense of and articulate both what she’s lived through and what she’s trying to do in her show. She can’t explain why she feels she has to leave comedy without offering a view of what comedy is. She can’t tell her story without explaining what a story is, and how it differs from a joke. At the core of what she wants to tell us about her experience is the difference between humility and humiliation. To spell out that difference is to theorize about experience; to spell out how it relates to her performance is to theorize about comedy.

Throughout this semester, we’ll want to want to be on the lookout for those moments when, in reading texts, we make the same kind of “meta” move. There will be lots of them. When we move up one level of abstraction from a text to some theoretical concept, we’ll find ourselves in a kind of conversation that can be frustrating because thinking abstractly – even about seemingly simple things – just is hard. Simple concepts examined closely often turn out to be much more complicated than we thought. Take the concept of story.

As I mentioned in class, when Gadsby talks about stories having “a beginning, a middle, and an end,” she’s channeling a bit of Aristotle. Her definition does important work in her monologue, but without questioning that work we can note that story is not only one of the oldest but also one of the most scrutinized and contested concepts in literary theory. There is simply no one universally accepted definition or best way to talk about story as a concept. There’s an entire area of literary theory called narratology that’s devoted exclusively to this one elusive idea.

And yet it’s an idea we can’t do without in talking about literature – or, as Gadsby’s monologue demonstrates, in talking about life itself. Some of our readings for Tuesday will reinforce this point.

Thursday Theme – Tomorrow is My Turn

The theme song for today’s class in ENGL 203-04 is “Tomorrow is My Turn.” Here it is performed by Rhiannon Giddens:

As performed by Giddens, it comes across as a declaration of agency that feels very much made for our present cultural moment:

Tomorrow is my turn
No more doubts no more fears
Tomorrow is my turn to receive without giving
To make life worth the living
For it’s my life I’m living
And my only concern, for tomorrow is my turn

(Read the complete lyrics on Genius.)

But the song was originally written in 1962 by Charles Aznavour and Yves Stéphane and was originally titled “L’amour c’est comme un jour.” The original lyrics (read them here in Italian and French) sound a very different theme from the English version (released in 1964 and performed by Honor Blackman, who, as it happens, played Pussy Galore in the James Bond film Goldfinger). Listen to Aznavour sing it here.

It was Nina Simone’s inclusion of the English version on her album I Put a Spell on You (1965) that gave it its present effect of boldly asserting a marginalized identity (perhaps more than one). Listen to her live performance here.

Both “L’amour c’est comme un jour” and “Tomorrow is My Turn” now have independent and continuing lives. Aznavour has performed the French version as a duet with Sting.

You can read more about the history of “Tomorrow is My Turn” in this story about Giddens from NPR.

Is it what it is?

On Tuesday in “Fluid Readers, Fluid Texts,” we discussed some of the ways in which the practice of criticism – the activities of reading and writing critically – can naturally give rise to theoretical reflection on that very practice. This theoretical reflection generates both a vocabulary for engaging in those activities and questions about that vocabulary. Text is an important word in that vocabulary, but there’s no simple, straightforward, universally accepted answer to the question, What is a text?

Too often, we’re led to believe that practicing criticism is simply a matter of understanding some basic critical terms – irony, for example, or comedy – and applying them. If it were only that simple.

The fact is, there’s no way to practice criticism intelligently without also thinking constantly at the next level of abstraction up from practice, where we find ourselves in conversation with other practitioners about what irony or comedy is and how one or the other of them actually works.

Two other theoretical concepts, we said, are representation and symbol. We’ll have lots of opportunities to think about how these concepts can be defined and how they work. For now, it’s worth nothing that both concepts can help us navigate the disorienting fact that in literature, and the arts generally, we’re continually dealing with things that are what they are at the same time that they’re something else, and so not what they are: a skull that’s a skull but also a reminder of death; words that are words but also the stuff from which a character emerges; daubs of paint on canvas that are also strands of hair. An elephant in the room.

A little respect

This story about the song “Respect” hits almost every theme we’ll discuss this semester in “Fluid Readers, Fluid Texts”: How and why does something come to be treated as a “text” in our culture? How do such factors as race, class, and gender enter into the equation? What’s “in” the text that doesn’t announce itself explicitly (and so must be discovered through “interpretation”)? How is the meaning of that text affected by its existence in multiple versions? By the identity of the “author” or the “reader”? How are both authors and readers shaped by culture? Where is the line between “identity” as an individual characteristic and a cultural artifact? And finally, what is “due” to each one of us by virtue of possessing an identity? What, in the end, is “respect,” and how do we show and get some?

The Real-Life Application of “Reapers”

Admittedly, I have trouble going back and revising my writing. Growing up, I always kind of had a chip on my shoulder when it came to this. I was always allowed to submit essays without any real necessary needs for extensive revisions. Even recently, I submitted an essay early in my History of Theatre class, and managed an A the first time around, meaning I saved myself a lot of trouble in the upcoming weeks. However, when it came to my “Essay 1” submission for intertextuality, I cringed as I found myself deleting all but 400 words of my formerly 1600-word essay for revisions.

Continue reading “The Real-Life Application of “Reapers””

Zulus and Biology

After going over Zulus in class today, it was fascinating to learn briefly about Percival Everett’s background. It was interesting that despite being a philosophy major in his undergraduate work, he was still well-read on other topics, such as but not limited to the sciences and biology. However this was not surprising to me, as philosophy literally translates to “love of wisdom”.

Continue reading “Zulus and Biology”

The Bedford: “Abecedarian”, Arbitrary or Extraordinary?

On November 2nd 2016, we participated in a class experiment dealing with alphabetical or an “abecedarian” approach to organization. It was interesting to really think about this, as it has always seemed just widely accepted that this is typically how archives and books such as the Bedford Glossary are organized.

Continue reading “The Bedford: “Abecedarian”, Arbitrary or Extraordinary?”

Western Medicine Forgets Patients

In his chapter, “Theory and Discipline,” Moran includes some interesting assertions about Western medicine. He attributes the advancement of medicine as a discipline to a strict hierarchy of knowledge (like debunking certain practices like bloodletting) and people. As for the personal hierarchy, Porter comments , “… physicians at the top and surgeons and apothecaries at the bottom, and other healers dismissed as quacks.” The hierarchy of Western medicine seems to have forgotten the patient, strewn at the feet of the pyramid. Porter finds a place for the patient and observes, “Western medical tradition has been distinguished by its explanation of sickness not in terms of the relation between the individual and the world but in terms of the body itself.” Porter asserts that sickness is viewed in a one-dimensional way – through the body.

Continue reading “Western Medicine Forgets Patients”

A Whole New “Terrain”

Reading through Moran’s Interdisciplinarity, Chapter 5 Science, Space and Nature, as I read about “bioregional authors”, it reminded me of a similar situation I have been in when it comes to reading Greek mythology. Most Ancient Greeks knew the stories of most if not all of the characters in the plays presented to them. However, in today’s society, it usually requires specific research and knowledge about these characters to even get an idea of what is going on. This is very similar to the knowledge on cultural geography and ecology necessary to understand the region-specific writing that Moran mentions.

Continue reading “A Whole New “Terrain””