updates
Check here for homework
assignments, course announcements, and schedule changes. You're responsible
for the information on this site! Log on early and often!
The revised paper will be due on April 24th!
Tuesday, April 29: Bring a crapadelic rough draft of your paper. Please, for your own sakes--no bulleted lists of "This is what I plan to write about." Those lists are bullshit, and you know it; half the time you make crap up speculatively that goes absolutely nowhere once you start actually drafting. So: I beg you--craft actual paragraphs, even if your draft is only two pages long as a result. Even if you write no more than two sentences about each idea that would have been a bullet on your list. Construct sentences--more than one for each notion.
Print this draft out! Bring it in hard copy. We'll devote some time to talking about developing your ideas (a/k/a revising), giving helpful feedback to peers, reviewing formatting and synthesizing sources into your own writing, and so on. Please review Lit Crit Papers: What Faculty Know but Don't Always Articulate. Also? Make sure your crapadelic draft is formatted according to MLA guidelines for a manuscript (i.e., one-inch margins, running header in the upper-right corner .5" from the top of the paper, etc.).
Thursday, May 1: Bring two copies of another revised draft with you to class, please, and upload it to Moodle as well (there's a space there now for you to do that). This draft will be graded. See the assignment sheet for guidelines; basically, you're going for length, so explore the texts widely and elaborately. You need to produce around 1800 words to get an A on the draft. You'll hand off two copies to colleagues, and discuss them in class.
Before you sit down and write this draft, read about organization and structure here.
Tuesday, May 6: Have a revised version of your draft, printed. We'll spend some time talking about editing, stylistics, grammar, citation.
Thursday, May 8: Last class meeting! Final paper due!
For Tuesday, April 22: We'll continue our discussion of The Magic Toyshop. Have the novel finished!
For Thursday, April 17: Response to a Critical Essay due! And The Magic Toyshop! Try to finish the novel by Thursday; at the very least, read through Chapter 6.
For our first two classes on Carter we'll think about the book in terms of the formal properties of fiction. For the final paper for the class, you'll write a critical analysis of the novel using one of the critical perspectives we studied in conjunction with Heart of Darkness--that is, feminist, postcolonial, or queer theory. So keep those in mind as you read!
Some questions to consider as you read:
How would you characterize or categorize the novel generically? That is, we know it's a novel, but what kind of novel?
Earlier in the semester we discussed the novel as a "realist" genre--it purports to put before us an illusion of "real life." Is The Magic Toyshop "realistic"? In what ways yes, in what ways no? What events seem "real," and what what events strike you as "unrealistic"?
We'll be focusing again on the formal properties of fiction for the next couple of sessions, so pay some attention to plot, narrative point of view, setting, and characterization:
What happens in the novel, and why? What event sets the entire narrative in motion? Why does the plot unfold as it does? Is it driven by characters and their individual choices, or by social forces the characters can't control, or what?
Who tells us the story, and how does the narrator mediate between the events and the reader? Who, for instance, tells us that "Melanie left the house, a basket on her arm and a list in her pocket, like a French housewife" on page 88? The omniscient narrator? Is the narrator channeling Melanie herself? Who tells us that "Victoria tore the fringes off the hassocks and ate them" on page 9--and what does this consciuosness think of Victoria? Do we have access to internal views of the characters (that is, do we get to hear what they're thinking)? Which characters? Which characters, along with their motives, remain closed to us? How does our understanding of the Jowles change over the course of the novel?
When and where does the novel take place? How do the settings change, and what happens--what can happen--in each of those settings?
For Tuesday, April 15: We'll complete our discussion of Andrew Michael Roberts, and I'll give you time to discuss the essays among yourselves. To that end, come to class with a printed draft of your paragraph-by-paragraph summaries for one of the three essays! Devote some time to considering the paragraphs you find most challenging--the places you're least confident of your comprehension.
On Thursday we'll begin discussing The Magic Toyshop, so start reading if you haven't already!
For Thursday, April 10th: Andrew Michael Roberts: "Epistemology, Modernity, and Masculinity: Heart of Darkness." Read the essay again, carefully; come to class with summaries of paragraphs 2 ("Such an investigation . . . "), 12 (p. 126: "'Heart of Darkness' is a story about the gaining and passing . . ."), and 14 (p. 127: "The much-debated lie to the Intended . . . "). They should be typed, but you can write them long-hand if you show them to me before class. I will collect them!
For Tuesday, April 8: Andrew Michael Roberts: "Epistemology, Modernity, and Masculinity: Heart of Darkness." Available on the reserve readings page. Usual drill: mark up the text, highlighting/underlining clauses that summarize, and using marginal annotations for other comments, questions.
To consider as you read:
What does Roberts mean when he says, on 118, that "knowledge, ideas about knowledge, and symbols of truth are differentially distributed among male and female characters and . . . such knowledge, ideas, and symbols are themselves used to set up, construct, reinforce, or modify gender differences" or "gendered epistemology" (120)? (What's "epistemology," for that matter?)
What is the evidence of some kind of sexual attraction to Kurtz on Marlow's part? According to Roberts--and according to what you yourself find in HoD?
Roberts suggests that there are two overriding preoccupations in the novel: the circulation of knowledge (Marlow's mutterings about what can and can't be seen, can and can't be conveyed, who is and isn't "out of it") and relationships between men (for instance, Marlow speaks to "you fellows" about his time among the pilgrims, the accountant, the papier-mache Mephistopheles, the man of patches, and, finally, Kurtz; there's also Kurtz's relationship to the worshipful harlequin). What's the nature of these relationships? What do men owe one another? Where do women fit in in their relationships?
Roberts references Eve Sedgwick's notion of "epistemologically arousing place holders" in relation to the circulation of knowledge (rather than the knowledge itself); what's all that about? What are these "epistemologically arousing place holders" and what purpose do they serve (again, according to Roberts)?
What, according to Roberts, is the naive or "realist" explanation for why Marlow lies to the Intended? Why does Roberts claim there's more going on?
How does Roberts historicize his discussion of Heart of Darkness? What does he see as the significance of the era in which the novel was written? What does he mean by "the love that dare not speak its name"? (You might want to google it.)
What is Roberts' point, ultimately? What does this all boil down to?
Deep Theory: If you're still feeling like you need/want more of the "deep theory" behind queer theory, have a look at these texts. Some are long and difficult; some are short and saucy:
Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick: from Between Men.
Judith Butler: "Imitation and Gender Insubordination." This text originally appeared in an anthology edited by Diana Fuss, Inside Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories, published in 1991.
Timothy Spurgin's "Handout on Queer Theory."
Judith
Butler 101. from Autostraddle
For Thursday, April 3: What Is Queer Theory? Read the introductory essay in our textbook, but have a look too at these resources:
David Halperin. Excerpt from Saint Foucault: Toward a Gay Hagiography. New York: Oxford Up, 1995.
Critical Theory. "What the Fuck is Queer Theory?" In desperate need of copyediting, but illuminating, just the same.
Theory.org.uk. "Queer Theory." The links to outside resources are mainly all busted--I don't know how well the site is maintained--but there's still some useful thumbnail sketches here of the theory and the theorists (well, Judith Butler, anyway).
Give some thought to where you've encountered queer theory in the past and what you imagine queer theory would have to say about a text like Heart of Darkness.
Also? Read the summaries of the sections of Brantlinger's article. We'll discuss them in class. If you have time, compare them to the article. What do the summaries capture acccurately about the original? What do they miss--or misconstrue?
I've also uploaded the sign-up sheet for Equal Pay Day, for those of you who volunteered to help out. It's not entirely legible, but hopefully you can at least make out your own names!
For Tuesday, April 1: Patrick Brantlinger: "Heart of Darkness: Anti-imperialism, Racism, or Impressionism?"
Read the
entire essay. As you read, think and jot down some notes about the following:
Brantlinger opens the essay by referencing Chinua Achebe's denunciation of
Conrad and Heart of Darkness as racist, and he returns to the claim at
various points in the text. What's Brantlinger's take on this contentious
issue? What were your initial reactions to the novel and its depictions of
race? Are you persuaded by Brantlinger's reading of the novel's racial
politics?
Brantlinger claims that Conrad was more appalled by the hypocrisy and
propaganda of colonialism than by its violence or the atrocities inflicted upon
the natives. How does he connect this claim to his later assertion that
Conrad did, in fact, admire Kurtz, just as Lionel Trilling claimed?
We also get in this essay a list of true facts that Conrad chose not to use in
the novella (like the presence of an Arab faction in the Congo); Brantlinger
also considers the source(s) for many of these facts. How does
Brantlinger use this information? Why are Conrad's omissions interesting
to him? How is Brantlinger using these historical details in his reading of Heart of Darkness?
In section III Conrad's "impressionism" is described as
"elaborate but essentially hollow" by Frederic Jameson. First, what's
meant by "impressionism?" What about that
adjective--"hollow"? What does it suggest? Why does
Brantlinger use it? Or Conrad's desire to avoid "embarrassingly clear
content"? Huh? He relates this "impressionism" to "misty
halos" and "moonshine." What's Brantlinger saying there?
Paraphrase his larger point.
Read carefully Brantlinger's discussion of the novel's genre,
especially its
status as a mass culture adventure story as well as a Work of Serious
Modernist
Literature (that's in section III). Smith, too, references the novel's
indebtedness to adventure fiction. What does Brantlinger mean by
"Gothic
romance"? And so what if the novella is a little of both? Why
does
that matter?
Compare what Brantlinger says about the Savage Woman (319-320) to what Johanna
Smith said said about her (193-195). To what extent are they saying the same thing? To what extent do their readings differ?
What makes Brantlinger's essay a postcolonial reading of Heart of Darkness?
if your last name begins A - C, focus on the introductory section;
D - F, focus on Section I;
H - L, Section II;
M - O, Section III;
S - T, Section IV.
Mark up the text; write some notes towards a summary; identify the passages you find most challenging. Come to class prepared to talk about them and to work on summarizing.
For Thursday, March 27: "What Is Postcolonial Criticism?"
We'll spend some time discussing the rest of Smith's essay before we begin discussing postcolonial theory. So review Smith's essay and come to class with any questions about it.
For our discussion of postcolonial approaches, read the introductory essay, and, if you have access to it, Mary Klages' discussion of race and postcolonialism (chapter 9 in Literary Theory). Postcolonial theory gets clustered under the general category of cultural studies--itself a sprawling, interdiscipinary enterprise--and poststructuralism. If you have time, and the inclination, you might want to read as well "What Is Deconstruction?" and "What Is the New Historicism?" for some additional theoretical background, since these are all related philosophically.
But what do you know already about postcolonial criticism? Where have you learned about it, and what did you learn? How does this essay jibe with what you've learned elsewhere?
For Tuesday, March 25: Johanna Smith: "'Too Beautiful Altogether': Ideologies of Gender and Empire in Heart of Darkness"
Be sure to reread the
passages in the novel that Smith refers to (e.g., the accountant and the
laundress, the Savage Woman, Marlow's visit to the Intended, etc.) and compare
your understanding of what’s happening in any given scene with Smith’s.
Are you persuaded by her analysis? To what extent yes, to what extent no?
As you read, consider the ways that Smith is structuring the essay; what
choices is she making in how she presents her insights? What do you find
effective in Smith; what do you find not so effective?
Some things to think about as you read:
- Think about the function of irony
in Smith's essay, especially in her discussion of the accountant and the
laundress. Reread that section of the novel (32-33); in what sense is
Marlow being ironic? Smith describes Marlow as "ironic yet
appreciative" (192); how so?
- How does the Savage Woman
"threaten the boundaries of masculine restraint," exactly (Smith
194)?
- How, according to Smith, does
Marlow "construct" the African Woman or the European women (try
focusing on one or the other)? Why is it necessary for him to
construct the feminine in these ways?
- I find that students usually find
Smith's reading of the Intended "far-fetched" (199-201). I
don't. Be prepared to talk about it!
For Thursday, March 13: Feminist and Gender Criticism.
Read "What Are Feminist and Gender Criticism?" in the Bedford edition of Heart of Darkness. For purposes of discussion, consider, first, what you understand to be the aims of feminism generally (apart from feminist literary theory), the aims of gender theory, and your relationship to these ideas. Do you consider yourself to be a feminist? Are you interested in gender theory, generally? Why? Why not? What do you understand to be the relationship between feminist theory generally and feminist literary theory?
If you bought Mary Klages' book Literary Theory: A Guide for the Perplexed, you should read her chapter on feminism (which is mainly concerned with feminist literary theory).
Finally, read the first several paragraphs of Johanna Smith's essay on Heart of Darkness (you were supposed to have done this for Tuesday's class, so it's more like reviewing them). We'll devote more time to discussing reading critical texts.
For Tuesday, March 11: Reading literary criticism.
We'll take a quick break to catch our breaths but also to prepare for our tussle with contemporary critical approaches. Take a few minutes to think about what kind of critical or literary theory you've encountered so far in your career: feminist theory? psychoanalytic theory? postcolonial theory? New Historicism? queer theory? Where did you encounter it, and how was it presented? (For instance, did you read any of the theoreticians themselves--Spivak or Freud or Butler? Did you read critical essays on literary texts? Or what?) What's your own relationship to so-called "theory"? Love it? Hate it?
Over the next three weeks we'll read three contemporary articles on Heart of Darkness written (more or less) through the lens of three different theoretical perspectives: feminist, post-colonial, and queer theories. And you'll produce a response to one of the essays in the form of a written assignment, the Response to A Critical Essay.
To prepare for Monday's class, then, please read the following:
the description of the Response to A Critical Essay assignment;
the handout "Making the Most of Your Reading";
the first several pages of Johanna Smith's essay in our edition of Heart of Darkness: "'Too Beautiful Altogether': Ideologies of Gender and Empire in Heart of Darkness." (Read, for Monday, just until the break at the top of page 192).
After reading the beginning of the essay once, try marking it up using the techniques outlined in the "Making the Most of Your Reading" handout--that is, highlight or underline the sentences and phrases that, when read back, provide the best summary of what Smith is saying. Use marginal annotations for your own comments or questions.
Think too about any rhetorical strategies you see Smith employing here. How well does she construct her argument in these first few pages? What transitional terms does she use to make explicit the logic that gets us from one sentence to the next, for instance? Are there points in the text where her argument becomes unclear to you? Why? Can you diagnose what the problem is?
Bring your marked up book with you to class on Tuesday!
We'll also spend some time on Heart of Darkness, since there's still a lot to say about the text. The timeline we crafted in class can be found here. For discussion purposes on Tuesday, review these several passages in the text:
- Desciptions of Kurtz: and his report to Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs on page 65 to top of 66; page 82 (when Marlow follows Kurtz back into the jungle and persuades him to return to the boat); page 86 (Marlow's assessment of Kurtz after he dies). How would you characterize Marlow's relationship to Kurtz?
- The description of the setting, especially bottom page 50 to top of 51. Where are we--literally and figuratively? How are we being invited to see the setting?
For our discussion for next week we'll focus on the formal properties of fiction in the text. More generally, though, here are a few things to look at/think about as you read; you might want to choose one formal property to concentrate on as you make your way through the text:
First, plot. What actually, literally, happens here? The text is famously oblique; keep track of what's going on. You might construct a little outline of Marlow's movements, marking pages when he actually leaves one place or arrives at another. (I'm not kidding--it's easy to miss these details.)
Then think about plot focusing on some of Hawthorn's ideas: order and anachrony. The novella begins some time after the events Marlow narrates; Marlow knows all along where this story is going. Where do we get foreshadowing? The plot mainly unfolds in chronological order, but Marlow periodically makes cryptic references to some future revelation. Keep note of that. And from pages 63 - 66 there's an epic paragraph where Marlow is suddenly all the hell over the place, temporally speaking, in a strange, rambling meditation. What's that all about?
Does the novel skip over events? Are there, in other words, ellipses, gaps?
Also: Marlow has an annoying habit of interrupting the narrative to philosophize or to address directly the other men on the Nellie. When does he do that? Why?
Narration/characterization: it's Charlie Marlow's world. Who is he? What do we know about him, and how do we learn it? We get our first description in the fourth paragraph; he speaks for the first time on page 19. But the entire novella is, in some ways, the revelation of Marlow's character, through his narration. What do you think of him? Do you like him? Does he make you complicit in some way, as Hawthorn says some narrators do? Complicit in what?
Make a note of Marlow's use of irony (e.g., he refers to the Accountant that he meets on page 32 as a "miracle"; he calls the scrawled note that Kurtz attaches to his report "that valuable postscriptum"). Try to keep track of other moments when Marlow speaks ironically, or uses other figurative language, like understatement.
At the same time, take note of moments when you think irony is being directed at Marlow--that is, when you sense Conrad is taking the piss out of him. Is Marlow meant to be mainly reliable or mainly unreliable (if we think of reliability as a measure of the distance between the "norms" of the author and the narrator)? One specific motif in the text to watch for: on page 21 Marlow, discussing the rationale for imperialism (which he calls "aggravated murder on a great scale"), makes a distinction between "sentimental pretence" and "an unselfish belief in the idea." "What redeems [imperialism]," he says, "is the idea only." What do you understand by this distinction? How does the distinction play out over the course of the novella? Is Marlow speaking for Conrad, or is Conrad distancing himself from Marlow?
What about other characters? The manager? The brickmaker? The harlequin? The Savage Woman? The Intended? We experience them all through Marlow; are we meant to trust his assessments of these people? And, of course, there's Kurtz himself. Track your understanding of who this Kurtz person is--what do we learn about him, when do we learn it, and how do we learn it?
What about the framing narrator? Who's he? Why does he exist--why can't Marlow narrate the entire thing (it's not that hard to imagine). What does the framing narrator provide?
As for setting, there are several: the company offices, the Outer Station, the Inner Station, the home of the Intended, and so on. We generally think of the novella as happening in the late 19th century in the Belgian Congo, on the Congo River. The setting, however, is never explicitly named, aside from the Thames Estuary at the very beginning (in some respects the entire novel takes place near Gravesend, no?). But Marlow talks about the settings quite a bit; locate a few descriptive passages (remembering that setting includes not only place, but time and social milieu, too) and think about where it is we're meant to be and, possibly, the figurative resonances Conrad is trying to squeeze from those settings.
Okay! That's plenty to think about as you read!