Uncategorized

Alfred Romero

2/28/2023

Professor Frank

LIL 420

Revision Plan and Progress Notes

So, this essay will be a revised version of an essay I wrote my sophomore year in the class Wisdom Literatures. This essay revolved around the Book of Job, where I came to the conclusion that the Lord didn’t answer Job’s question, but that Job’s decision of not answering back to the Lord was the wisest move he could make. From my original paper only, this would be the only source that I’d be reusing. But, I never clearly answered another question that may pop up from a reading of that story. Why do the innocent suffer? This revised essay will take a turn towards that direction and incorporate other perspectives into that question from other readings of the text. 

Because I’m going to be answering a completely different question, I’d need new sources to widen the field of perspective. I met with Professor Anderson, the Professor who taught Wisdom Literatures, and he provided some sources that may be of help. These, so far, would include “The Grand Inquisitor” by Fyodor Dostoevsky, “the trial” by Franz Kafka, and “The Portable Jung” by Joseph Campbell. Additionally, not all of these sources may even be used, or more may end up being used. This list is just a general idea of where the project may lead to in terms of sources. 

2/20/2023: this marks the first meeting I had with Professor Anderson. To summarize, we discussed the basic outline of the project and where it could potentially go in terms of creative direction (more is discussed in the metacommentary page). This was also the meeting where he provided me with three sources that I could potentially use in my reading of the central question behind the “Book of Job”. Only one source has been discussed in great detail so far, that being “The Grand Inquisitor”. From this specific source, a set of questions have been provided as well in order to gain a better understanding of how this can be tied to my ideas. The list of questions are as follows: What is Karamazov? What is Laceration? What is the Enlightenment Paradox?. Additionally, pages fourteen through seventeen are recommended for analysis as the question of why the innocent suffer is answered from a certain perspective within those pages. 

At the end of the “Book of Job”, the Lord comes crashing down in a massive whirlwind in response to Job’s cries. After losing his wealth and a portion of his children, as well as having to go through a sickness bestowed upon him by the Adversary, Job asks the Lord why these horrible things would happen to an innocent man such as himself. The Lord redirects the question towards overwhelming Job by describing the power He holds over Job. Job accepts this and doesn’t answer back to the Lord and in return, the Lord replenishes Job back with his wealth and health. A question arises in whether Job’s response was considered wise, in which I respond to in my archival draft. But Job’s question, I feel anyway, doesn’t directly get answered by the Lord Himself. The “Book of Job” will serve as a reference point for this paper and an additional source, “The Grand Inquisitor”, will serve as the main support in terms of additional insight backed up by textual evidence. This is all in favor of answering Job’s major question: Why do the innocent suffer? Additionally, another question may be answered: Would a just God allow for the suffering of the innocent?

4/19/2023

Alfred Romero 

2/22/2023

Professor Frank 

LIL 420 

Metacommentary On Original Paper

My revision project is based on a paper I wrote my sophomore year in the fall semester in the course “Wisdom Literatures”, where I analyzed the “Book of Job” and came to the conclusion that the Lord didn’t answer Job’s main question. I instead directed the end of my essay towards the concept of the wisdom behind Job’s decision of not challenging the Lord. But even with my perspective towards Job’s decision, an array of questions still remains. In my meeting with Professor Anderson, the Professor who taught Wisdom Literatures, we discussed a sort of process towards approaching this project.

The first part would be to discuss more on the debate behind whether or not the Lord actually answered the question Job proposed. For those who haven’t read this work, this question from Job is a personal proposed question as to why the horrible things the Lord inflicted upon him happened if he did no wrong doings. This question can be broadened to a global perspective. Why do the innocent suffer? 

From this question, a variety of different responses can be formulated. At this point, I’d be fleshing out these responses, for lack of a better word, in order to gain a better insight into the different perspectives behind the major philosophical question. This would transition to utilizing certain sources that Professor Anderson gave me that would serve as support for the different perspectives that come out of Job’s story. Another idea would be to compare different religions’ perspectives on the question Job asks, but I’m leaning towards revolving around sticking with the sources I have. 

So, this project really comes in two parts. The first part would be to unpack that final part of the “Book of Job” and go more in depth towards Job’s question and the Lord’s response. The second part would transition towards the analysis of the different responses to this story.

Alfred Romero

10/4/2021

Professor Anderson

Wisdom Literatures

A Conversation With The Unknown

Writing Assignment 2

“Answers to Job”

Alfred Romero

Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Christianity, and Islam. All are similar because they’re all ideologies that impose ethical and moralistic guidelines for followers to abide to. The concepts of religion and tradition can boil down to the concept of ideological belief. While all are similar in that they group humans up into believing in something bigger than themselves, each differs from another in terms of what they ask from their followers. Part of ideology can be seen as objective. The other part can be entirely up to the interpretation of the individual. This is where conflict arises, not only between opposing ideological beliefs, but within the same ideologies as well. People can think they’re right about a certain topic and use religious ideology to justify that what they believe in is right. This situation is a major factor that results in ethical or moral dilemmas. One may ask the question, “Is it right to do what I do for the sake of what I believe in?”. There isn’t a right or wrong when it comes to these situations as it’s dependent on the ethical and moralistic values of the individual. The Book of Job is a story from The Hebrew Bible that contains themes of religious interpretation through the character Job, who is “blameless and upright and feared God and shunned evil” (193). A concept from this story that could be interpreted by the audience is wisdom. The concept of wisdom can be seen as the experience from learning in life and the emergence of wisdom appears when Job answers God’s questions. One day, the LORD and the Adversary observe Job and argue whether he’s only such a good person because the LORD has blessed him all his life. After the LORD gives permission to the Adversary to punish Job, with the exception of killing him, the Adversary torments Job as a test to see if he’ll break his loyalty and resent the LORD for the curses they inflict upon him. 

After the LORD and the Adversary’s agreement, all of Job’s livestock and a portion of his children get killed by Sabeans. The rest of his children get killed by a great wind that caused the house they were in to collapse on them. Job then receives an illness from the Adversary, as a rash started to grow all over his body. After discussing the situation with three other friends, Job rejects their interpretations and starts to question his relationship with God. His main question reflects on why these curses are happening to him out of all people. In Job’s perception, God should “surely know [he’s] not guilty” (203). Job knows he had done nothing against God’s will his whole life and is in disbelief that God was allowing these curses to happen to him. The thought of knowing he had done nothing wrong transitions into questions that Job has for God, as he asks God, “Why do You hide Your face, and count me Your enemy?” (206). At this point, he’s already sure with himself that he has committed no wicked acts. He wants to face God and ask him why someone as good as himself is being punished rather than other worse people on the planet. He wants to understand God’s sense of justice and the logic behind himself becoming the “taunt” and “mocking word” to creatures below him (209). God’s actions don’t make sense to Job and while he wants to understand the reason behind his curses, he still refrains from resenting God or cursing at His name. Although he questions the actions of God, he still knows his place as a human being and he remains aware of the power of God. Job’s knowledge of how incomprehensible God’s power is shows his wisdom in not picking a battle with God. Rather than cursing at a being whose power is unknown, Job wants to understand his situation first. Job’s eagerness to learn about what he’s dealing with before he starts his battle highlights his awareness of his situation. Job’s questions at this point of the story set up what he learns from God by the end of the story. By asking these questions, Job is beginning to learn about a theme in life he doesn’t understand yet. 

While Job’s interpretation revolves around the questioning of God’s actions, the interpretations from his friends about his situation are the opposite. Rather than questioning the actions of God, Job’s three friends (Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar) believe that Job has brought all his curses to himself and that God is rightfully punishing him for his sins. While they all agree with one another about this base interpretation, each of the three friends individually speak to Job with their input on Job’s situation. Eliphaz goes first and he brings up the irony behind the fact that Job has “reproved many”, but “cannot stand it” when it’s his turn for punishment (196). He claims that all Job can do from this point is to “call out, pray”, and trust in God’s decisions (196). Bildad speaks after Eliphaz and he speaks to Job in a more aggressive tone than Eliphaz did. He claims that Job questioning God is “one huge wind” and that his children died “because of their crime” in offending God (200). He recommends Job to stay patient because God will eventually fill his “mouth with laughter” and “lips with a shout of joy”, as God wouldn’t “spurn the blameless nor hold the hand of evildoers” (201). According to Bildad, if Job stays true to himself and continues his upright behavior, then God will eventually stop his curses and reward him. Zophar is the last to speak and he claims that the wisdom behind God’s decisions is “higher than heaven” and deeper than Sheol” (203). Because God and His intellect stretch “longer than earth” and “broader than the sea”, Job would be left with no choice but to accept what God has given him, as a human like him wouldn’t be able to comprehend the logic behind God’s decision making (204). The fact that none of these characters are right with their interpretation shows how humanity knows so little outside of itself and how individuals can convince themselves that their ideology is the truth rather than an interpretation. It is unwise of Job’s friends to have this mindset, as assuming an interpretation is the truth prevents the learning needed to overcome obstacles in life. When Job asks his questions regarding the curses being inflicted upon him, he’s simultaneously setting up an opportunity for himself to learn something from his situation. With Job’s friends, they assume that what they believe in is right and don’t learn from Job’s situation, as they don’t question anything involving the situation. Learning can’t happen without asking questions regarding a situation, as that’s the only way to gain the insight needed to advance in life. 

After hearing Job’s pondering, God comes down from a whirlwind and confronts Job about his situation. God asks Job multiple questions, which serve to show Job his inferiority as a human when being compared to God. The questions are rhetorical and start by addressing Job, but then become more about the superiority of God’s power by the end of each sentence. God first asks Job of his presence when “[God] founded earth” (212). The questions after then compare Job’s accomplishments to what God has already done, like “[appointing] the dawn to its place, to seize the earth’s corners” and “[coming] into the springs of the sea, in the bottommost deep walked about” (212). He’s asking Job if he’s ever accomplished these feats in order to highlight the gap between their accomplishments. The questions after this series of questions showcase the abilities of God and what He can do versus the limited powers of what a human, like Job, can only achieve. Job can’t “send lighting bolts on their way” or “tie the bands of the Pleiades” (213). God knows Job can’t do these things, but God still asks him in order to show Job how little his understanding is since he’s only human. The questions God asks Job consist of the difference in accomplishments, abilities, and some even about knowledge, but they all share the goal in letting Job know that he’s in no place to be questioning God because he’s only human. Job answers back submissively, saying he knows that “[God] can do anything, and no devising is beyond [Him]” (217). As a human standing before God, Job knows his place and remains obedient to God. Job’s questions at the beginning of the story initiates a learning experience for himself. His questions lead up to God’s response, which teaches him that he would be utterly defeated if he ever chose to battle God. His answer of submission reflects his wisdom as he’s learned the magnitude of his inferiority and from that, has chosen not engage in a battle he knows he would lose. 

While there are interpretations present in the story, interpretations can also play a role in the audience as well since there may be conflicting ideas within the ending of the story. Personally, I feel as if God doesn’t answer Job’s questions. He shows Job the differences between Himself and a human like Job, but he never tells Job the truth behind the whole situation, that is the wager He made with the Adversary. I think Job’s response to God’s questions is justified. It’s unconfirmed if he’s upset or not inside because God doesn’t answer his questions, but as a human standing before a being who has power that’s incomprehensible, I think answering submissively was wise. In terms of the overall ending, I have mixed feelings. While God forgives Job’s friends for their misinterpretations and gives Job new fortunes, I can’t get past how frightening the power of God is. The ending makes sense to me, but it’s crazy to me how God has the power to do what he does to Job, and then completely reverse Job’s situation by the end of the story. While God treats Job and his friends right by the end of the story, the power difference between God and humans really stands out to me as God is like the puppet master of the show. I’m reminded of the relationship between humans and animals. The difference between us and animals is normal to us because we’re so used to being in control, but when compared to God, we become livestock caged in a farm. While God doesn’t slaughter us and eat us, the image of being powerless and locked in a cage, or being controlled by strings is what I visualize when comparing our inferiority to a being like God. God gives everyone a good ending in the story, but the fact that he’s the writer of everyone’s story is frightening to ponder. 

The concept of wisdom can be interpreted as the experience from learning in life and in the Book of Job, Job shows his wisdom through his response to God. While Job questions God’s actions, he realizes he can’t do anything against God. He knows he’s literally powerless against God and while he doesn’t get answers to his questions, he knows that God isn’t obligated to answer him directly as his superiority is incomprehensible to humans. So, he submits to God’s power and gets a happy ending. But what if he cursed God instead, or talked back in an aggressive manner, would he have had the same positive ending? Probably not. It was wise for his wellbeing as he didn’t choose to pursue a battle he knew he wasn’t going to win. But it’s not as clear cut as that. Choosing to fight even though the odds are stacked against you isn’t unwise. Situations like this are what can lead to positive social change or any other type of victory that proves your enemies wrong. In those cases, however, most understand the whole story and what’s at stake, not just for them but for the other side as well. This story represents the lack of understanding with what one may go against and that’s ultimately what the emergence of wisdom communicates here. It would be wise to take the downfall in a battle due to a lack of understanding about the situation one may be in. Fighting when the chance of victory can be visualized is admirable, but blindly fighting the unknown and letting pride carry intellect can lead to downfall. Job knew this and that’s why he won at the end. He didn’t win because he beat God, he won in his life because he was wise enough not to pick a battle with the unknown. 

Alfred Romero

2/1/2023

Professor Frank

LIL 420 

Journal #3

After brainstorming in the form of reminiscing, I’ve decided on the three factors that I want to discuss in this journal: “The Epic of Gilgamesh”, What is wisdom?, and my second writing assignment in Wisdom Literatures titled “A Conversation With The Unknown”. 

A memorable work I encountered within my time in Wisdom Literatures was “The Epic of Gilgamesh” (in fact, all of the three listed above are from this course). We, as a class, reached this text fairly early in the semester, as it was one of (actually may have been) the first texts we encountered. The Brightspace course for this class is inaccessible for some odd reason, so I can’t remember the specifics of the class assignment based on this story. I do know, however, that it wasn’t an essay. I believe that the assignment for this work was a series of questions that drove the individual to think about the text in a deeper setting. I can’t see what I wrote on this so it’s hard for me to say what I’ve noticed currently that’s specific, but one thing I can say is that I don’t remember discussing the concept of dreams within the story (which is actually fairly important). If I revised, I’d want to explore this idea further as I remember being focused more primarily on the concept of legacy when reading the story. 

In Wisdom Literatures, a final question closed off the contents of the class, and this was seen in our final writing assignment. The final writing assignment was a reflective writing piece for a part of it, but another section asks the individual to define what wisdom is. Looking back at my answer to this question, I can see that I’ve defined my answer in the form of paths. My first path to wisdom was defined as the ability to overcome and adapt past a certain blocking point in life. My second path was the awareness capability to recognize one’s role in the environment that they’re in. My last path directly relates to one’s ability to understand perspective. Back from this paper, I never truly went in depth on these different paths. Also, when discussing a letter of recommendation, I brought this question up with Professor Anderson and he mentioned the concept of love being defined as wisdom. I’m not sure if adding that extra variable would count as revision, but I could definitely work on progressing an answer to this question with what I’ve already established and with new information I’ve been given. 

A writing assignment I’m proud of from Wisdom Literatures would be my second writing assignment titled “A Conversation with The Unknown”. This was a writing assignment based on the “Book of Job”. Looking back at this assignment, I see that I summarized the story while providing my own insight along the way within each body paragraph. But this writing assignment focused on Job’s story and whether what he did throughout his experience was considered wise. I’m not sure if this would address the original prompt as I don’t have access to it, but I’d like to tackle this whole situation towards another question. Why does the innocent suffer? This writing assignment focused on Job’s response to the horror that was happening to him, and we know that this was because of a wager placed between God and the Adversary, but on a general note, why do the innocent suffer? I could definitely explore this part of the story more.

Alfred Romero

1/25/2023

Professor Frank 

Liberal Learning 420 

Journal #2 

Part 1: 

What is the significance of the humanities? Why do the humanities matter? Not only am I a witness to this question within this class, I’ve also heard this question rise up in my personal life. Though I am a pre-medicine student, I’ve heard this question indirectly asked towards other people. “You’re an English major (or any other discipline that could be considered within the humanities)? Why would you do that? What do you hope to gain from that?”. So, as a student who lives the majority of his academic career within the world of the sciences, this is what I have to say about the humanities. To start, I’ll mention the fact that I’m an English minor. What would I possibly have to gain in a personal sense by working with the humanities? My simple answer to that is that I gain perspective. I started my English minor journey my sophomore year when I took the course “Wisdom Literatures”, taught by Professor Anderson. That course alone showed me how to process the world around me in intriguing ways I’ve never imagined before. I grew up as a Christian, but that course taught me the fascinating principles of different religions and how they view the meaning of life. My “Introduction To Literary Theory & Criticism” course showed me how almost any sort of text can be analyzed and processed from a specific point of view regarding social status. And the key part, at least for me anyway, is the intellectual concept behind how nothing is ever really right or wrong and that the world rotates around perspective. I thought this before, but these classes have amplified that way of thinking. Even in “English 110”, I was taught that CRISPR is a tool of both good and evil depending on the level of perspective it’s viewed upon. Personally, I get a sense of life by working with the humanities. I’m used to dealing with fact-based science and the curriculum is very straight-forward, so straight-forward that it even seems robotic at times. Courses within the humanities change that way of thinking for me and reminds me of what it means to think like a human being, with perspective and open-mindedness. It teaches me the value of culture, how I can be able “to understand better what happiness is”, you don’t get this type of intellectual content in normal science classes (Small 5). 

Professionally, the humanities also aid in expanding one’s perspective, but more so in the sense of questioning systems around the individual. Having the “power to employ one’s intelligence freely, or non-mechanically” is a vital skill to have as a human being (Small 12). This would ensure one’s humanity, making sure they don’t become a robotic being who submits to anything anyone tells them. Many people identify themselves as being an employee, but people should know that being a human comes first before all. It’s a good skill to have when you’re aware of your surroundings rather than just blindly following the rest of the herd because it’s the majority decision. I feel that the humanities, because they teach perspective, would also teach one the power of awareness in terms of an individual’s place within a specific setting. 

In terms of a broader social value of the humanities, I would connect that concept with what Small has to say in her last paragraph. By attracting “anyone curious about intellectual history, rhetorical persuasion, philosophy of value, deliberative reasoning”, I feel as if this would group people up with connections about deeper meanings involving education, culture, and the difference between private and public life (Small 22). When people group up involving these concepts, the way of thinking can change drastically, pushing society forward as a whole with this shift. 

Part 2: 

This is an extremely hard question as I’ve never actually thought about this before. In some kind of fashion, if it were even possible, I’d love a job that would tie the art of medicine and patient care with the arts of music. This job would categorize within the healthcare field, but also incorporate elements of the musical arts as well. The tasks themselves would always be centered around patient needs, specifically involving how music could be a possibility of helping them overcome any sort of barrier they might have within themselves. With this job, it becomes pretty clear that skills revolving around the science and music fields are necessary in order to get the job done well. My undergraduate degree in medical biology would help in terms of the science aspect of things, but my humanities related minor would support the idea of perspective regarding a patient. This job would fit in with more of a generalist physician type specialty rather than being related to something completely different, like surgery. All responsibilities would directly address the better care for a patient, and this would be done through a clinical type setting, involving the work of other clinical roles. Qualifications would have a baseline of a bachelor’s degree and the environment of the job would fit most with an outpatient clinic setting, where a lot of work gets done, but the pace and tone of the job isn’t too intense.

Alfred Romero

1/20/2023

Professor Frank 

Liberal Learning 420 

Journal #1

Part 1: 

To start off with this post, I’d like to first mention that I’m not a student who’s major lies within the arts and humanities. I’m rather a student who majors in medical biology, specifically on the pre-medicine track. So, how would someone like me, who’s specialty lies outside of the contents of this class, come to define what the humanities are? To anybody similar to me, in the sense of being an outsider to this area, I’d first describe a technical definition of the humanities. A simplified version of how I see the humanities can relate to the literal area description of itself. The humanities, in a simplified version, can be described as an area of study that focuses on subjects like the fine arts, English (which also happens to be my minor), history, philosophy, and many other disciplines. But in a deeper sense, I like to differentiate between the humanities and other disciplines through this sort of relationship that I can’t define. The best way that I could describe it, is that the humanities give other subjects life. As a medical biology student, I live in a world of facts. While there may be theories here and there, everything I learn from my classes follows a very mechanistic way of thinking. What the humanities offers outside of that thought process is perspective. Science focuses on what’s there, why things happen, how they happen, but the humanities can take that knowledge and apply it to who’s being affected, concepts like culture, and ultimately just what it really means to be human. During describes this idea of perspective well by mentioning that “inside the humanities world one doesn’t see clear boundaries” (During 1). I also like his idea of how “the humanities also produce not truths but interpretations” (During 5). While humanities can give life to other subjects, that life given to it can come from a multitude of different perspectives with each one thinking their own to be the truth. Bod in his article also supports this “giving of life” concept in a way, where he mentions that the humanities “can refer both to the study of the products of the human mind and to those products themselves” (Bod et al. 4). However, the next sentence appears a bit muddy to me. I guess I just might be confused on how it’s worded out. How could one not include historical studies of a discipline when the aim is at the history of those studies? I feel like discussing this and what the humanities could or couldn’t be would be beneficial for class discussion. 

Part 2: 

So, my basic understanding of these two articles is that they’re both focused on what exactly can be defined within the world of the humanities? What are the humanities? How can we define it? What aren’t humanities? These are the questions I feel that the authors of the two texts aim to answer. During answers the definition of the humanities by referring to thinking “about them historically – to tell their story” (During 7). I feel as if this quote can be related to the muddy sentence I found in the Bod article, where the study isn’t so much focused on the analysis of the actual disciplines themselves, but rather on the history of how such subjects were analyzed. 

I should start this by stating that I am a medical biology major on the pre-medicine track, hoping on the one day of finally obtaining my doctorate in medicine. I took this class as it’s a prerequisite for the English minor I also have in my undergraduate career. Now, pre-medicine and English seem to be two completely different tracks. So, how do I personally compare the two? Specifically, how would the elements of literary criticism influence the “wider intellectual and cultural context” of what I do in my major courses? My main answer to that is primarily based on just observing the syllabus of any one of my major courses. From my major courses, take AP&P for example, the syllabus focuses so much on the science aspect of things that it sort of forgets the outside real-world purpose of why the learning is being done in the first place. In a sense, this makes the course seem robotic and very “learn this to learn”. I feel like critical theory, in a way, reminds me of the fact that there are still human elements outside of what I just learn in science. Like in “The Venus Hottentot”, the first part sort of relates to the work that I do in my major in the sense that it glorifies the artistic merit of science. But, when the second part is revealed, it brings out an outer emotional side and wakes the viewer up in that inside every human body is a person. So, that’s how I’d compare the two. My major courses teach me the fundamental aspects of what keeps a human running, but this course reminds me that there is an identity behind every subject. A patient may have scleroderma. My AP&P course would teach me the mechanics behind this diagnosis, but this course would reinforce the fact that this person is human. This person has a sex, how would that affect the way they’re looked at? They have a race; how would that affect the way they’re looked at? Critical theory reminded me of the humanity behind the mechanistic characteristics of a human machine.

Alfred Romero

11/29/2022

Professor Frank

Introduction to Literary Theory & Criticism

Final Assignment / Theory into Practice

My definition of literature would be that of art through writing. Art is what defines humanity. When emotions that represent the raw humanity behind human inflicted acts are brought out to perfection, that’s when I perceive that action to be art. So, how does one critique art when it’s placed in such a broad spectrum? With literature, this can be answered through literary theory. Critical theory enhances the way I read literature and other aesthetic forms by diving into deeper insight about the work and broadening up to bigger picture concepts. The importance of how certain lines are structured and how words are delivered can be connected to open concepts about what makes us human. So, when tying back towards the course’s claim of being “able to explain how and why no reading or writing can ever be free of theory”, I am able to agree. The first step to approaching this claim would be to lay out some critical theories. The ones discussed in class were obtained from Robert Dale Parker, the Frank Hodgins Professor of English at the University of Illinois. These theories were collected in his book “How to Interpret Literature: Critical Theory for Literary and Cultural Studies”. 

From the six major critical theories we’ve discussed, race studies and feminism resonated with me the most. These two theories resonate with me the most because of their broad application. I’ve always had the two concepts in the back of my mind when analyzing any piece of literature, but I’d often forget about one when focusing on the other. Legal scholar Kimberle Crenshaw came to call this concept intersectionality, found in Parker’s feminism chapter. Intersectionality “argues that people working against antiblack racism tend to think of blacks as men and overlook black women” (Parker 183). This could be applied the other way around too, where “people working against sexism tend to think of women as white” (Parker 183). Despite one possibly being forgotten by any reader, it’s undeniable that both play a factor in creating the identity of a person. While feminist theory does resonate with me, it doesn’t appeal to me in the same way as race theory does. This may be due to the fact that I’ve struggled with racial issues while not struggling with those involved with feminism. What really stuck with me from race theory was the concept of racialization, where humans “often see racialized people through the lens of preconceptions and cultural patterns about race” (Parker 337). This is an inescapable fact. Humans will always have a race because it’s a fundamental aspect of what makes a human identity. Even if characters are of a different species outside of being humans, any preconceptions or cultural patterns involving that character can still be used against them through assumption. Because gender and race are so crucial to identity, it’s practically impossible for any piece of literary work to escape an analysis from either, even if it means tracing back to the author. If a text somehow avoided any ties with concepts that trace back to humanity, such as the two mentioned above or queer studies or marxism, then the text itself has structure so it wouldn’t be able to escape any theories of structuralism. While I do find structuralism useful, it doesn’t appeal to me in the same way. This is because it’s not centered around identifying factors of humanity. With literature being, for me, the art of words, it’s hard to appreciate any artistic merit coming from words without tracing it back to our race. Humanity is what gives literature its artistic beauty and this really shows when words can be traced back to parts of our identity. This is why theories, like feminism and race studies, resonate with me more than a theory like structuralism would. But in order to have a better understanding of how these theories could be applied, sources would need to be analyzed from their perspectives. 

One example of a primary work we discussed in class that both feminist and race theory could be applied for would be that of “The Venus Hottentot” by American Poet Elizabeth Alexander. From a perspective of feminist theory, it’s made clear how Sara Baartman becomes sexually objectified by not only the French men around her, but also by the French women. With French citizens asking if it’s “muscle? bone? or fat?”, Baartman’s body becomes a spectacle for French men to gaze at and for French women to judge while her humanity becomes discarded during the process (Alexander Part 2, stanza 4, line 5). These reactions can even further be visualized from illustrations of Baartman during her time in France, as seen in Les Curieux en extase; ou, Les Cordons des souliers by Louis Francois Charon and Aaron Martinet. In this, French men are depicted quoting lines such as “Damn! What a roast beef!” and “Ah! Isn’t nature amusing!” while one French woman even says “From something bad a good thing happens” when looking through Bartman’s legs to see one of the French men’s erections (Mitchell 72). Quotes like these can be traced back to a specific component of feminist theory “called the masculinization of spectators” (Parker 173). British filmmaker Laura Mulvey labels this lens that Baartman’s seen through as the male gaze, where Baartman’s portrayed as a standstill image while the characters around her are free to rotate around her while they spectate her physical features. But it’s not just the gender aspect of Baartman being objectified, her race is also a factor to consider when discussing the discrimination towards her. While Baartman shares the identity of being a woman with at least one other person in the illustration, she remains the only African in the scenery. This reinforces the idea of every spectator around her ignoring her individuality and grouping her identity of being an African American with being a spectacle. So with Baartman being objectified as a woman and being discriminated against as an African, her story can be analyzed from both a feminist and race theory perspective. Similar to this would come a story pulled from religious context, specifically “Adam and Eve” from “Genesis”. As the story refers to how Eve was made to be “a helper” for Adam and how she “was taken out of man”, this perspective can support the idea from feminist theory in how women seem to be portrayed as this standstill object whose purpose is to fit the needs of a man (Genesis 2 lines 18 and 23). As Adam and Eve were the same race and traditionally identified as white, the concept of whiteness and its racial domination could be traced back to the idea of them being the origin of humanity. From two different primary sources, comes a similarity that ties both of them together through critical theory. 

These two theories each contain fundamental aspects of identity, sex and race. As every human character, fiction or nonfiction, contains these two, it would be impossible to escape critical theory analysis. Whatever form of entertainment it may be, which is what the majority of people view outside of their work, the concept of sex and race will always remain. The same way the male gaze was applied to “The Hottentot Venus” can be found in the camera work of how certain movies are directed. The idea of racialization can be applied to any character as assumptions made about any character’s race become unavoidable. Additionally, queer studies can be applied to a variety of outside examples as sexuality is an inescapable factor of identity. While it’s not exactly tied to human identity, Marxism can be applied as economic status can always be applied to any character. And even when these elements described above aren’t directly mentioned in a piece of work, there always exists the possibility of them being imagined in the background. This is all simply due to these concepts being unavoidable and the human mind will naturally analyze these factors and how they apply to any content it’s viewing. 

Because of the universal application of these concepts, I would have to agree with the course’s claim of how and why no reading or writing can ever be free of criticism. Identity can always be analyzed and it’s natural for the human mind to point out identity connections with work. Every identity aspect of a person in a work can be analyzed because there will always be someone who can relate to that aspect in a certain way. Indirectly, a viewer can also relate to this concept if the work isn’t as direct about it via assumption. This defines the inescapability of critical theory. At first, I did have a reservation. Suppose a one-word work consisting of the word “what”. While there are no identifying aspects of the work itself, its place has intent and meaning. And from this intent and meaning, can a tie be made tracing back to any context around the word, such as the identifying aspects of that who wrote it.

Works Cited: 

Parker, Robert. How To Interpret Literature: Critical Theory for Literary and Cultural Studies. 

Oxford University Press, 2008. 

Alexander, Elizabeth. “The Venus Hottentot”. Graywolf Press. 2004. 

Mitchell, Robin. Venus Noire: Black Women and Colonial Fantasies in Nineteenth-Century 

France. University of Georgia Press. 2020. 

“Bible Gateway Passage: Genesis 2:4-3:24 – New International Version.” Bible Gateway,

NIV.

Alfred Romero

11/29/2022

Professor Frank

Introduction to Literary Theory & Criticism

Final Assignment / Theory into Practice

What is literature? How does one critique literature? To me, my definition of literature would be that of art through writing. Art is what defines humanity. Any human being can commit actions, but when emotions that represent the raw humanity behind the human inflicting their acts are brought out to perfection, that’s when I perceive that action to be art. Muhammed Ali makes boxing into an art, just as Micheal Jackson makes dancing into an art. So with this definition, how does one critique art when it’s placed in such a broad spectrum? There’s no real answer sheet, so how does one do it? With literature, this can be answered through the concept of literary theory. Criticism stemming from literary theory opens up literary work. It enhances the way I read literature and even other aesthetic forms, such as music videos or paintings, by simultaneously diving into deeper insight about the work and broadening up to bigger picture concepts. The importance of how certain lines are structured, what words are being used, and how these words are being delivered, can be connected to more open concepts about what makes us human, like race, gender, or economic status. That is why, when tying back towards the end of the syllabus where we are expected to “be able to explain how and why no reading or writing can ever be free of theory”, I am able to answer to that, for the most part anyway. The first step to approaching this claim would be to lay out some critical theories. The ones that were discussed in class were obtained from Robert Dale Parker, the Frank Hodgins Professor of English at the University of Illinois. Specifically, these theories were collected in his book titled “How to Interpret Literature: Critical Theory for Literary and Cultural Studies”. 

Throughout this course we’ve been introduced to a variety of different critical theories, with each one corresponding to an applications assignment I believe. From the six major critical theories we’ve discussed (structuralism, psychoanalysis, feminism, queer studies, Marxism, and postcolonial/race studies), I’d say race studies and feminism resonated with me the most. Race and gender are fundamental aspects of what makes a human being. No matter the writing behind any work, these concepts would always be applied to any character present in the mix as they’re inevitable from escape. These two theories resonate with me the most because of their broad application. I’ve always had the two concepts in the back of my mind when analyzing any piece of literature, but I’d often forget about one aspect when focusing on the other. Legal scholar Kimberle Crenshaw came to call this concept intersectionality, found in Parker’s section of feminism. The concept of intersectionality “argues that people working against antiblack racism tend to think of blacks as men and overlook black women” (Parker 183). This concept could be applied the other way around as well, where “people working against sexism tend to think of women as white” (Parker 183). Despite one of the two possibly being forgotten by any reader, there’s no denying that both play a factor in creating the identity of a person. While feminist theory does resonate with me, it doesn’t appeal to me in the same way as race theory does. This may be due to the fact that I’ve struggled with issues involving race while not struggling with those involved with feminism, as I’m not a woman. What really stuck out to me from race theory was the concept of racialization, meaning that humans “often see racialized people through the lens of preconceptions and cultural patterns about race” (Parker 337). Whether these be stereotypes or not, this is an inescapable fact. No matter the context, humans, fiction or nonfiction, will always have a race associated with them because it’s a fundamental aspect of what makes a human identity. Even if these characters are of a different species outside of being humans, any preconceptions or cultural patterns involving that character can still be used against them through any act of assumption. Because gender and race are so crucial to the concept of identity, as many historical conflicts were centered around either of the two, it’s practically impossible for any piece of literary work to escape an analysis from either, even if it means tracing back to the author of the piece. If a text somehow avoided any ties with concepts that trace back to humanity, such as the two mentioned above or queer studies or Marxism, then the text itself has structure so it wouldn’t be able to escape any theories of structuralism. While I do find structuralism useful just like any of the other theories discussed in the class, it doesn’t really appeal to me in the same way. This is because it’s not as centered around identifying factors of humanity as some of the other theories are. With literature being, at least for me, the art of words, it’s hard to appreciate any artistic merit coming from words without tracing it back to our race. Humanity is what gives literature its artistic beauty and to me, this really shows when words can be traced back to parts of our identity. This is why theories, like feminism and race studies, resonate with me more than a theory like structuralism would. But in order to have a better understanding of how these theories could be applied, sources would need to be analyzed from their perspectives.  One example of a primary work we discussed in class that both feminist and race theory could be applied for would be that of “The Venus Hottentot” by American Poet Elizabeth Alexander. From a perspective standing behind feminist theory, it’s made pretty clear how Sara Baartman becomes sexually objectified by not only the French men around her, but by the French women as well. With French citizens asking if it’s “muscle? bone? or fat?”, Baartman’s body becomes a main spectacle for French men to gaze at and for French women to judge while her humanity becomes discarded during the process (Alexander Part 2, stanza 4, line 5). These reactions can even further be visualized from illustrations of Baartman during her tragic time in France, as seen in the illustration Les Curieux en extase; ou, Les Cordons des souliers by Louis Francois Charon and Aaron Martinet. In this illustration, French men are depicted quoting objectifying lines such as “Damn! What a roast beef!” and “Ah! Isn’t nature amusing!” while one French woman even says “From something bad a good thing happens” when looking through Bartman’s legs to see one of the French men’s erections (Mitchell 72). Quotes such as these can be traced back to a specific component of feminist theory “called the masculinization of spectators” (Parker 173). British filmmaker Laura Mulvey labels this lens that Baartman’s seen through as the male gaze, where Baartman’s portrayed as a standstill image while the characters around her are free to rotate and revolve around her while they spectate her physical features. But it’s not just the gender aspect of Baartman being objectified; her race is also a factor to consider when discussing the discrimination towards. While Baartman shares the identity of being a woman with at least one other person in the illustration, she remains the only African in the scenery. This reinforces the idea of every spectator around her ignoring her individuality and grouping her identity of being an African American with being a spectacle. So, with Baartman being objectified as a woman and being discriminated against as an African, her tragic story can be analyzed from both a feminist and race theory perspective. Similar to this piece would come a story pulled from religious context, specifically “Adam and Eve” from “Genesis”. As the story refers to how Eve was made to be “a helper” for Adam and how she “was taken out of man”, this perspective can support the idea from feminist theory in how women seem to be portrayed as this standstill object whose purpose is to fit the needs of a man (Genesis 2 lines 18 and 23).

-Essay

-supports maybe challenges

-race and feminism

hotentot venus and adam and eve

–