Is everyone recovering from the lecture on postmodernism on Tuesday? There are some pretty extreme concepts involved in the idea, and I hope we were able to get our heads around a bit of it. At the beginning of the next class I would like to take a few brief moments to tie up some loose ends on our talk about postmodernism (of course, the "pomos" love loose ends and, I imagine would poo-poo my idea of tying them up). I will bring a photocopy of a helfpul essay I found in an introductory theory book that exemplifies deconstrcution in action. Perhaps I'll mention some other ways of "deconstructive criticism."

After that, we'll make our move to the Beats. Though "there is nothing outside of the text," we'll take few moments to see what we know about the Beats and I'll bring a bit of info to class to help us contextualize who they were and some elements of their aesthetics.

Then we'll dive in.
Dempster gave you quite a few different readings. I'd like to try and cover the following (all links can be found on the course calendar post):
"Howl" by Ginsberg
"This is the Beat Generation" and Kerouac's response entitled "Aftermath"
The following by Richard Bautigan
"1942"
"A Need for Gardens"
"All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace"

I'd also like you to read and be ready to discuss this brief piece (also by Bautigan)
"Homage to the San Francisco YMCA"
http://www.beesnthings.co.uk/whatimsayin.html

Let's consider together what is transitional about the Beats. What hallmarks of modernism/structuralism and postmodernism/poststructuralism can we see?

Let's come ready to talk.

Cheers,
Adams

In "A Need For Gardens", what if the lion was a giant stuffed animal?  How does this effect the story? 

Hey everyone, look . . . I'm the first to post. No need to worry about being first anymore. Post away!

Professor Adams

Edit:

I thought I was first, but it seems I was beaten to the punch by one of the most interesting questions I have ever read in my entire life. A stuffed lion, eh? Can't wait to see the responses to that one . . .

No way! I definitely won!

p.s. I'm still bitter.

Bitterness will eat you up inside . . .

Wow. I'm curious to know what sparked such a question...

Here I go...

If the lion, a naturally free, unconquerable animal, was replaced by a stuffed animal, the purpose of the whole poem would be completely altered. The act of burying a giant stuffed animal would be as useless as burying a live, breathing lion, but the symbolic act of burying, or trying to oppress something unconquerable is much more meaningful than burying a measly stuffed animal. But if the lion were replaced with a stuffed animal, the futility of their act would be emphasized.

The emphasis would be on the futile act of digging rather than their attempts to oppress...

hope that covers it.

my question:

In is the poem "homage to the san francisco YMCA" titled so?

---

-Irving Washington

This is not my real post. I will do that later.  But, Sandra, who are you?  That was a genious level question.  I am in shock.  Wait...!  If the lion is stuffed, what does that make us?  Are we stuffed too? ooooo!  I definately lose.  I feel retarted.  Sandra, in a single question you just debunked our entire discussion in class, our entire understanding of the reading, and our entire understanding of reading itself.

TTFN,
Joshua

Ok so I think I understand your question michelle--what the heck does the title "Homage to the San Francisco YMCA" have to do with the poem/story.

Right?

First of all I love this poem.  It makes me laugh--I don't understand it really but it makes me love it all the more and the whole tongue-in-cheek feel of making fun of people who take poetry too seriously is wonderful.

Second of all--the title is like a chiasm to me--we don't really know what it has to do with anything until the very end--kind of like the man doesn't learn his vital lesson until the end.  ugh.  would a beat stray so far from the norm that they would just have a random title that didn't actually mean anything--maybe the sheer randomness-picking a unimportant piece of the story and glorifying it to the TITLE--is similar to the point he was trying to make--where people try to make poetry into the mundane and the ordinary--as vital as bread, as interesting as gruel but essentially used wrong and therefore as impactful as a silent shout. did i lose anyone back there? feel free to answer this question again anyone that actually has an answer. i just wanted to ask my question and get it over with. hurrah!! 

My question:  Do you relate to the beats? Do you think we as a culture need to re-embrace their values of extreme individuality and searching for spirituality?  What do you see as the fruits of the labor of the beats? How have they changed society?  Is there another form of beats right now--"Howling" into corporate america--angry bloggers bleeding their frustration into the void of the Internet possibly?

Question: [Why] is the poem, "Homage to the San Francisco YMCA," titled so?

Answer: The poem is titled so because it is an homage to the san francisco ymca. Poetry cannot meet people's physical needs but the San Francisco YMCA can and does. It's a nice place to be.

My Question:
If the man in "Hitchhiker" is wearing "an awful raincoat making [him] look like a selfdefeated self-murdering imaginary gangster, an idiot in a rueful coat" why can he not simply take the coat off? If it is because of the rain, then what could this "rain" represent--to the "beat generation?"

--Brittani Foss

The beats N' me: I think, at some level, on the inside, I share some thoughts and feelings with the beats.  I like the idea of personnel freedom, but I drastically differ on how I think that freedom can be obtained. 

I don't think that an individualistic or open-ended spirituality is the answer, in fact, I know it's not.  Jesus is the answer.  The one and only way.  As a culture, I think it's important that we turn back to God, but not necessarily become more "spiritual."  Spirituality is often taken to be focussing on the spirit world, and generally, not just the spirit of God.  Launching into rampant spirituality is likely to lead to occultism. 

Jumping back to "extreme individualism," extreme serves as a superlative.   Extreme individualism would only be a good thing if idividualism is all good, and incorporation is all bad.  To be an individual and only an individual strays from the idea of fellowship.  Extreme individualsim could adequately be compared to anarchy, but as Allen Ginsberg commented in the video, the beats weren't particularly political.  I think many of their thoughts and ideas were anarchical, and had they been political, would have sought to put an end to the "controlling" government that was trying to inhibit their individuality.

I find the paradox of "Howling"--the epitamy of the beat movement and a cry for individualism--in corporate America.  Having become corporate, we necessarily are no longer individuals, yet I think there is something from Ginsberg that we cling to today.  Whether or not we live it out, I think there is a belief that we are free, that we are individuals.  Like the Gap add, "Be an individual."  How much of an individual are we if we all buy Gap?  This false belief is behind a few of the issues we may see today.   We don't really have that indiviudality, so people strive and work hard to find ways to be an individual, or if they can't find a way, they act out.  Part of the problem is in a sort of cognitive dissonance.  We want to be individuals, but we want to be accepted... we want to belong. 

Look what happened to the lion.  Whether or not he was stuffed, he was an individual, and he got buried.  If we are too much of an individual, we get burried.  Look at the Columbine shooters.  They were different.  People made sure they knew they were different.  If anyone strays too far from the majority, they are ostricized and picked on.  If those individuals that are outside the norm also exhibit devient psychologies, then horrid events like school shootings happen. 

The longing for individuality also seems somewhat of a joke.  An many postmoderns suggest, everything is about getting back to the trace.  Nothing is "individual," but rather, one may be few to currently do something.  The Bible even says it in Ecclisiastes: in all there world, there is nothing new under the sun.  It's all been seen, and it's all been done, in some form or fashion.  The best we can hope for is forming some kind of synthesis of ideas and other individuals. 

Q: I suggested that anarchy is what the beats would look like in politics.  Supposing they exhibited their beliefes some other way, what would that look like?  What would have happened if the beats had been political?  How would the poems be different if they were trying to motivate people politically?

Ok... Jeff's question about the Beats and Politics:

    I struggle between the idea that the Beats ARE trying to motivate and convince people of something and the idea that they are merely using words to convey meaning. I have a hard time imagining that anyone really writes without trying to communicate their own beliefs. Aren't the beats just using a different kind of politics? Politics that don't like mainstream politics? Politics that are frustrated with the political system? I'd imagine that they really are trying to motivate people, but just not how we'd imagine.

    I'm confusing myself.

    THe beats were all about Art for Art's sake--meaning that they weren't trying to persuade people of anything, supposedly... but really... because art is a means of communication and it shares your views with the world, doesn't that mean you can't help but motivate and convince through your art?

So maybe the beats weren't so apathetic as they'd like to make it seem... does any of this make any sense?

---

Kaitlin

I forgot to ask a question.

oops.

From the YMCA poem:
If poetry can't perform normal household functions and kicks you out of your house, then what is it good for? And why is the guy so happy at the YMCA, going crazy and talking to himself in the bathroom with the REAL plumbing?

---

Kaitlin

Answering Kwegner,

I think every generation has an equivelant to the beats.  Looking at the current political landscape the upcoming elections I think one could easily pick out the divide between this new generation and the generation of the baby boomers.  This new generation wants not only to change the discussion to other ideas and topics, they (including myself) want to be given a voice and power to do so.  I don't think we should ever re-embrace values that a previous movement had or made because the world and culture is never a constant, but an ever evolving, migrating, and undefined part of existence.  Therefore, to re-embrace values would be to go backward so to speak.  That is not to say that holding on to values as roots for growth is bad.  That is absolutely necessary.  But if we simply return to the roots rather than continuing to feed off of their base, we will never break the surface and grow.  I think there is somewhat of an overlap in the since that this current generation (mine and yours) wants (if I could pick out a theme) what is real and honest.  It has no sympathy or room for anything less than complete geniouness from one another.  A good example is if you ask someone from this generation to respect someone in a higher position they will not only ask why, but will also add that that position does not make that person any better. In fact, my generation tends to see everyone more on equal ground (Not that this generation is an advocate for equality, but only in the selfish egotistical sense.  Basically, the idea that we were all born naked so cut the crap because I'm just as good as you.) Hope that makes sense.  Its similar to the beats, except I think this generation recognizes the need for community more than before, although, there is almost a reverberation back to modernism in that technology is what we are working towards to have that community, and it will be a harsh day when everyone realizes that technology cannot ultimately connect anyone.  I could write a book on it but wouldn't be able to write the back cover, which is what I just tried to do there.   Since you asked a bunch of questions rather than one, I must stop myself from doing the same with my answers or this could get out of hand and I have too much to do already this week.

My question:  In Harrison Bergeron we are told that the equality was due to the 211th, 212, and 213th Amendments to the Consitution.  What would you suppose the ammendments were before those came along? 

P.S.  I'm not asking just for the heck of it. I think there really might be something to it. Please treat the question as if there is something the author is trying to convey by the amendments he leaves out.  Or maybe you think he had no particular reason in which case you better have a good reason or your answer will be lame and you'll have wasted mine, yours, and your parent's time and money and you should go work construction for the remainder of your life...not that there's anything wrong with that.

TTFN,
Joshua

To answer little Kaitlin-poo's pregunta...

"From the YMCA poem:
If poetry can't perform normal household functions and kicks you out of your house, then what is it good for? And why is the guy so happy at the YMCA, going crazy and talking to himself in the bathroom with the REAL plumbing?"

Well, we can only imagine that the man is in fact imagining the poetry speaking through the real plumbing, or is he completely satisfied with the fact that the real plumbing works, unlike his past residence?  Maybe he enjoys a nice bathroom break in silence, without those silly poets disrupting his every move,  but then again, it would not be silence if he is speaking to himself, now would it? Oh Brautigan...

As far as the what poetry is good for...We cannot escape poetry, whether it is a song playing on the radio, or your best friend reciting a sonnet (what?).  I guess what I am trying to say is, poetry is similar to plumbing because we use it everyday...unless your constipated. Ha.

So I am going to answer Josh's question...it feels like I always end up answering his questions. 

First of all, thanks for that little precursor, Josh.  Otherwise, I would not have taken your question seriously and posted about deers running wild in their sick, twisted world.  Gosh. 

Anyway, the ammendments before 211, 212, and 213.  I think that there was no reason for Vonnegut to write about them (I mean, he doesn't even talk about them in the story), but any reader can infer that with that many ammendments, the government was clearly trying to stop something from happening.  By that, I mean that it was clearly the government's intention to change the world and they tried everything they could by giving more and more and more and more ammendements until they finally decided to put everyone on a level playing field.  Perhaps Ammendment 210 was about a national IQ--"nothing above 65" and 211, 212, and 213 just happen to put all others to rest, seeming like a rough draft.

That is my point.  The ammendemnts before the ones in question were just rough drafts to the final moment.  That is to say, they were all working up to achieving the brilliance those three ammendments imposed.  By not allowing free thought, controlling and stipulating a standard of achievement people were supposed to follow, and general stupidity, a totalitarian government was developed. 

If you don't think I answered this properly enough, just post a response.  Actually, about your precurser, that was pretty "Harrison Bergeron" of you.  You know, controlling how I answered the question and all.

 

My question: If life is the meaning of life, as Edgar asserts in "The School", then what is the reason for all the death, and what do you think will cure the town?

---

~*~ Don't forget to floss! ~*~