Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Summary on Mikhail Bakhtin’s “Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics”
FR 511 Bakhtin (Day sensation) Summary The subject area of our October 29th lecture was Mikhail Bakhtin and his text Problems of Dostoevskys Poetics. To start the class, Dr. W altogether reminded us that Laura talked almost concerted music in her presentation the week before, and that that was where we would start the lecture on Bakhtin. To athletic supporter the class better apprehend the thought of polyphony, we were shown a piece of music indite by Bach No. 4 of 6 little preludes. In the piece, the counterbalance hand was singing some amour completely various than the left hand. There were in position two completely different melodies possibility at the uniform time.We were told that, in wild-eyed music, in that respect is nonpareil central argumentation, and the a nonher(prenominal) instruments are there solely to construe with it. Their job is to reinforce the melody. But with integrity-time(a) music, we see that it is attainable to apply to a greater e xtent than unitary melody at a time, sometimes veritable(a) four or five. You can take heed to one and whole(a) melody at time or both at once, etc. This example of polyphony in music is basic solelyy a metaphor for the way that Bakhtin unders withald Dostoevsky. In classical writings, the text is dominated in the first place by the voice of the vote counter, and everything else simply reinforces what the fibber has to say.With Dostoevsky, this is non the case. That is the first important flush to remember in understanding Dostoevskys poetics. According to Bakhtin ( non Amy), Dostoevsky is the author of the first contrapuntal impudent. At this crest Dr. Wall state that Dostoevsky is really near a itch and that separate authors could be substituted (Diderot for example). Again, coming coer to the first main point in understanding Dostoevskys poetics (or Diderot, etc. ), one has to imagine a type of literature where the narrators voice is no longer all powerful and no longer dominates the full text.Furthermore, Russian orthodox theology as well had an influence on Bakhtin. In the same way that perfection created man to have liberal get issue, the author creates the literary theatrical role to have his own free will. In point, one of the great splits in Christianity is over the ism of free will. Some recollect that whether or non you will acquaint heaven after you die is non determined by you, that earlier by fate or God, etc. On the former(a) hand, there is the doctrine of free will which basically states that when God created man, he gave him the ability to be big(a) and to have his own free will, crimson if it destroys him.This is the same thought as the literary character being free to decline the author. The underground man is an example of the free will of the literary character. He contradicts everything, he says one and one makes three. From there, we talked ab come forward the sizeableness of fivefold voices in a novel. These some separate voices in are just as significant as the narrator, and can even at times contradict what the narrator says. This is what Bakhtin calls the Copernican revolution. Evidently, Copernicus knew that the earth revolves around the sun.So what Bakhtin is construction is that the narrator is no longer the concentrate on of the novel, but that there can be eightfold centres. The second important point to know in order to understand Dostoevskys poetics is the concept of dialogism. Dialogism refers to the idea that in every utterance, there are other utterances that you may or may non go steady, but that you have to gain vigor to listen to. To illustrate this point, Dr. Wall started with the example of European expressions such as German where you lots use the second person to comport to yourself. An example is when Dr.Wall says, Great move Anthony. Bakhtin says that when we speak, theres constantly a tu out there. Whether it is explicit or not, voi ce communication is always a dialog. From there, we talked about how, for Bakhtin, language does not belong to anyone. The dustup we use to expect ourselves are not our own, we are just one voice amongst the millions that language is. When we learn a language, we learn it from other people. When you express yourself, you are expressing yourself in a language that you borrowed from someone else. Naturally there will be traces of that someone else in what you say.It is pivotal to remember that in your own rely to express yourself, there are other voices inhabiting your own voice. Not just the rowing, but the whole idea of discourse. It is in the carry and use of language. When you list a iodine utterance, you can sometimes here the other utterances that are hidden, or the traces that were there before. And when you speak, all of these voices are going on at the same time, like an orchestra. So in a polyphonous novel, underneath the words you read, you have to learn to listen t o the other voices that are hidden.So concerning this idea of dialogism, Bakhtin is interested in the interaction between voices, but not in dialog itself. For this reason, he hates family and lyrical poetry. He believes that they cover up what is really accident underneath. Theatre for him is too explicit because the actor is given one specific role or one ace voice to play. This takes away the resonance that you have in a contrapuntal novel. Another important point is that, for Bakhtin, the coexistence of multiple languages is crucial for the bloodline of the modern novel.He grew up in Russia where about four languages were talk in the same community, so he was very much interested in the phenomenon of periods of time where more than one language were spoken in the same community. by and by the break, we looked at specific examples from Bakhtins text. On scallywag 197, he writes about the idea of hidden dialogicality. In other books he gives the example of a telephone par ley where you can only hear one half of what is being express. Even though you can only hear one soul speaking, you have a reasonably good chance of reconstructing what the other person is saying.There are an incredible amount of words out there, and the actual sound prevents you from hear the invisible sounds. The second necessity for the birth of the modern novel according to Bakhtin is profound reading. The most important characteristic of polyphonic prose is that it is meant to be read silently. For Bakhtin, when you read out loud, you are obliged to choose only one voice. Therefore, the other voices get lost. He encourages you to read a passage multiple times in order to hear all of the voices that are present. Parody is also a prime example for Bakhtin.You recall you are hearing a single voice, but there are genuinely at least two the cowcatcher and the parody. He says that that is what a great novel does all of the time, as opposed to discipline that he believes is m ore of a dialog. Of course, he was not familiar with modern field of honor where actors play multiple roles. On page 187, Bakhtin writes about direct referentially oriented discourse. He explains that meaning for him (and Saussure as well) does not come from the referential relationships of what we say, but kind of because other people have said it. In other words, everything we try to hark back about has already been said 15 times before.Then on page 195, we discussed the point that when you hear a sound, it is physically not the same when you hear it alone as when you hear it with other sounds. It is the same thing with coulour. When you take it out of its context, it becomes artificial. Dr. Wall therefore gave the example of Obama versus Romney, and how they would twist the other persons words to have a different perspective. The same thing is happening in the literary text and in regular discourse as well. For example, when someone says the wall is such a pretty-pretty sha de of cat valium someone else powerfulness respond beautiful shade of green? The meaning of the utterance changes because of the question, but you hear the first statement at the same time. We concluded the lecture with this idea of the splendour of the notion of the utterance. This helps us to understand that iterate utterances either adds or takes away from them. It is possible to repeat a word, but not an utterance. The repetition of madness for example, changes when you repeat it as an utterance (with the time period for example). The finish thing mentioned was that, even with a auto meaning changes due to the simple fact that the utterance has been repeated. Joey Pihrag
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.