Author Archives: Blake Hoffmeyer

About Blake Hoffmeyer

Blake Hoffmeyer is a self-proclaimed pretentious asshole of no acclaim in the academic community. His hobbies consist of drunkenly doing stupid stuff which gets him into trouble and leaves him in a perpetual state of disciplinary perdition. He is nowhere NEAR as smart as he thinks he is (random internet IQ tests place his score somewhere around a 67). In general it is best to ignore this individual and pay no heed whatsoever to his incoherent babbling about nothing.

Final Blog Post

Posted on by
1

Once more into the breach, dear friends…

So we come now to the end of the semester. The reflections from today were unique. I see the aesthetic school coming into being with me personally. I think I’ve been arguing for it for a few weeks without realizing it. But I really appreciated what Shaina said in terms of the coming together of the more intellectual and the more aesthetic being where the true intrigue comes from art. I fully agree.

That was what I really failed to articulate. I have come to see the discipline of English Studies as somewhat inhuman, not in a bad way, but more so like Dr. Seaman spoke of today, something seeking to remove the emotional connections and such, although as she pointed out, this is not the case for our discipline. I have come to view it as something of a multi-directional pendulum. Through time, the discipline will shift in all sorts of directions. The longer it shifts from one direction to another to another, the more its movements will settle in the middle ground, where I think we can all agree is the best and most well-rounded place. Continue reading →

Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

Orwell, Marx, and Application
George Orwell’s Animal Farm is a novel in which the livestock on a farm come together and revolt, taking power from the tyrannous human owners. The novel implies satire of events which had transpired in and after the Bolshevik revolution of Russia in which Marxist Communists took control of the nation. The civil war ended in the creation of the Soviet Union, the world’s first experiment with Communism as a national and economic entity. The actions which then take place in the novel correlate to various specific situations of the developing Communist country. Throughout the novel, the pigs take limited initial control of the farm as the governmental body and slowly take more and more control of the farm, living off the work of the other animals, and quelling resistance to their wishes with a pack of dogs they take and raise from birth.

In my paper, I intend to make the case that Orwell’s writing represents a negative theory of Communism common to westerners in the era immediately following World War II. This is especially in respect to various abuses of power that the Soviet and Chinese governments committed after their revolutions, but also to qualify these actions by polarizing the Soviet Union and China’s development against fundamental precepts of Communism. In this, I intend to draw from foundational pieces like the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. In the Manifesto, Marx makes his case for the existence of Communism, its objectives, its aims, and the means by which it should come about. This is to support the claim that Orwell (and many of his contemporaries in the West) did not really fear the rise of Communism itself, but instead the rise of something more sinister, such as totalitarianism which evolved in both the Soviet Union and China. This presents one of the most stark contrasts with the governance of the farm by the pigs in Animal Farm and the objectives Marx envisioned. Continue reading →

semper ubi sub ubi…

Posted on by
2

It comes down now to the end of the semester and these blog posts. It’s an interesting idea for a course, and I think that it is set up with the best of intentions. When Dr. Seaman was posing a hypothetical comment on my last post, I didn’t realize it was an option to have fewer annotations, but in the end, I think that line might be one of the things that I do kindof wish was different. Not by many, but I do think that six get across the same as ten.

I think also that the order of assignments might be changed a little. I think that the sample body paragraph would be better placed after the annotated bibliography. I say this because it would make it easier to have a cogent idea together, which might have helped a little more due to having done a lot more research than just two or three.

As to the class tinge, it was great. It was a load off knowing that I wouldn’t be quizzed, was allowed to be wrong. We would discuss it, I would learn a new perspective, awesome. The world moved on. I think in the end that this course its exactly what it should be. I rolled my eyes about it when I found out I needed it last semester, but ultimately, yeah. It helps. And to maintain something from my “stream of consciousness” blog posts, that isn’t just me trying to kiss ass. Even as final grades approach.

Annotation for a solution

Posted on by
1

I don’t believe that I have really reflected on the more meta aspects of the course in a long time. This seems like a more positive time to do so in terms of the annotations just turned in. Quite frankly, although I had completed 6 annotations by the Monday before, Tuesday was an excellent lesson in giving adequate time for these annotations to be completed.

I feel myself fortunate to be in a 300 level English course simultaneously with this introduction to the studies as it has really benefited me more in that I have been able to see the actual practical application of everything we’ve been doing. Also, this has been teaching me potential better ways in which I could have completed the coursework in my other class, lessons which I would not have learned quite as strongly had I had 299 separately from the other class.

The annotated bibliography has been far more difficult an undertaking than I thought they would. I think that it is good that this class is here and that I can learn from these mistakes now, as I realize that the standard set here really applies to my future studies in English Literature that I’ll have for the next few semesters. Attention to detail and taking the time to let articles sink in is really what I did not anticipate. In a lot of my other courses, it is sufficient to skim through material and draw conclusions that don’t always hit quite as closely as they should. In terms of this big project, I think I have finally begun to employ the degree of focus that I need, and have been intrigued by my own ability to draw conclusions from multiple sources into a new conclusion that is independent, which until this semester I was not used to. It is strange taking these uncertain steps into making claims that haven’t already been established. I think that the ability to make a confident claim is integral to the study of English, and have greatly appreciated the skills that I have honed here which beforehand I didn’t have.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

A Beautiful Mind…wait, was that a movie?…arg….

Posted on by
3

Concepts of the mind.  What we think, how we act, what influences our opinions, how we develop our prejudices, all unique aspects which affect our psyche.  The human mind seems the most complex organ in our bodies, one for which the next ten years still could not begin to unravel the extent of the mysteries held within.  Yet still, it proves the driving force behind everything in our day to day.

The thing which sticks out most to me for pretty much the entire semester was the conversation we had regarding psychoanalytic critique.  It intrigues me as if it’s something an authority figure instructed me not to touch.  I can’t help but go there.

The idea that one can determine something about an author from a text seemed to me fairly normal.  What was different was the concept of determining more about the people reading the text.  What things do they bring to the table with certain texts?  What prejudices do they look for without realizing that they are looking?  What masks do they put on to characters, or what assumptions do they make about their backgrounds?  These questions I find foremost on my mind, and very excitable.

The idea that these, the author and the reader, might all have a connection is a very intriguing notion as well.  This is the kind of concept which attracts me most to literature.  A writer imprints a piece of his or her mind on to a work of literature.  Then, that piece is met with a piece of the reader’s mind.  An outside observer can determine so much about different time periods, how they might interact (even with the author being deceased), what they both bring to the table.  These concepts and ideas of classic works will, as Tompkins(yeah Taylor, Tompkins) said continue to speak through time to various generations of educated readers.  But the concept with the psychoanalytic approach is more exciting in the sense that one can almost draw together conversations of sorts between the generational gaps by noticing what each brings to the table.  It takes the reader-response concept to a new level in my mind, as an approach that seems to hold the potential of connecting readers and writers which fall in far different time periods.

Historicism New and Old

Posted on by
1

I think I enjoy this criticism the most.  It is more comfortable as it is what I know from my upbringing in English, and thus I believe that it is what I know best.  It is intriguing to think about the roles we all play in history and in interaction with texts throughout our exposure as we as a reading audience still play a part in the criticism as a whole, how we respond, how we read into it, how we allow works of literature to affect us.

New Historicism is very much so exciting as well as interesting.  It offers the idea that there are an almost infinite amount of possibilities in the approach one has to the circumstances around a piece.  That there is no one set way or condition, that there are always multiple perspectives, and ultimately that our view of history does not really hold to anything more than our reconstructed vision of it.  Thus, those who have dug too deep into history for a foundation in anything, be it nationalism, religion, cultural identity, etc, there will be problems.

My favorite aspect in New Historicism is that it reinforces our need to accept that our foundations could be false and our assumptions could be proven wrong.  It is inherent that we accept this, as such we will not succumb to the fate of those who are ignorant by choice, yet lay their claims’ bases to falsehoods that are blindly accepted for blind reasons.  It is in challenging our assumptions that our positions arrive on more solid ground, and not blind acceptance.  I think that the truth behind most everything lies not as one solid thing, but a concept that becomes more solid as it is investigated.  It gives us a reason to continually pursue our curiosities and to continually challenge our beliefs.

Certainly.

Posted on by
1

Thinking back on this past week, we have taken a deep look into the way that we see the world.  It is always refreshing to challenge one’s bases a little, as I find personally that shifting of the ground helps better seat the idea.  History as something soft takes my mind back to two separate things.

I remember one of my older brothers in his college days when we argued about “certainty.”  I, the high school freshman who thought himself a brilliant individual whose arguments were utterly impervious to any attack, was challenging his statement that absolutely nothing was certain.  And time after time, example after example, in one way or another, he always defeated them, pointing out how in one way or another, nothing was.  Not history, not our beliefs, as somewhere, somehow, these things (in the realm of an argument of course) could all be delegated to the world of the metaphysical and like the deity in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, could disappear in a puff of logic.  In retrospect, I should have insisted that the pain he felt was certain, and followed it with a lobbed book to the back of his head.  Brotherly love is the greatest!

In my view of history, especially in the area of our discussion today, I think that it is important to note that thinking shifts all the time, and I like to think about it like a pendulum, one extreme to the other, with each passing stroke it becoming more moderate, more centered, more focused, in most ways better, but never quite exact, never quite certain.  It is a nice thing to wrestle with issues at the end of the day.  That there are things big and important enough that they cannot simply be settled by day’s end.

I guess when it comes to my view of history and certainty, I compare it to an object completely invisible, but having mass and taking up space.  One could do many things to it, like splashing paint to see its shape, or weighing it to see how heavy it is.  You could determine its temperature, probably its chemical composition, all sorts of things, but never truly see it with your own eyes, and as such never be completely sure or certain of how it looks.  I think this analogy applies to history in the sense that every time we discuss it, research it, see a piece of it, contextualize it, compare it to other things, etc, we get a little closer to understanding the event better.  But there is always the understanding that its true existence will forever remain a mystery to us all.

My head to the chopping block….

Posted on by
3

I believe that I better appreciate now the extent and purpose of the 299 class.  We’ve been going through the necessities of the course, and how it will improve our work in other classes in the future 300 level courses.  I see this and acknowledge that this is how these classes go from now on, as in discussion on the viewpoints of literary works, lectures on the time periods and customs therein, analyzing aspects of form and style within works, and writing research papers based upon these factors(among others).  I find it most curious.  The following is probably going to seem critical, but I promise I do not intend for this to be directed so negatively, but more so to explore through writing different visions I have of English Studies.

From that aspect, it seems that the majority of English Studies classes are fairly “cookie cutter” in that approach, and I see the reason and purpose.  A place to have discourse, a place to see and react to different aspects of literature, different conventions, etc.  And, of course, to have the research paper which seems more or less the same no matter where you go in how it is written, its purpose, etc.  I have a question here of, “is this the case?”  I am currently engaged in such a course, and I cannot help but think that these courses engage the material, but almost in a way that screams, “try to find something original that no one has(or at least few people haven’t) already noticed about this work after 100+ years and try to put that out there.”  I understand, with the New Critical approach of appreciating the text for what what it is, and that there will always be a developing “cutting edge” which comes from the new approaches, but eventually, it seems that one could also define a work by what isn’t there…and I initially meant that as a joke out of absurdity until I really JUST thought about it.  Give it fifty years…

This is not a moment of disillusionment regarding this class, as this class is meant to teach us the basics of upper level English courses.  I understand that there are plenty of upper level English courses that are different.  However, the unfortunate thing about basic training in a discipline is that it does tell you about its core and what it wishes to accomplish.  I guess when it comes down to it, the research paper has me question a lot of things when I read my sources.  We just had a few articles presented in the 300 level course I’m in, and thankfully, several students debated the purpose of several articles.  At what point is the hair split too far?  At what point do things need to be left alone?

I ask these questions not to insult, but more so simply to be honest with myself about the commitment that goes into English Studies.  It seems to turn us all into critics instead of focusing on the works themselves.  Sure, they have importance when it comes to history, culture, form, technique, etc.  Yes, you can tell great things about culture, time, customs, and writers by their work.  Yes, you can study a work for the work itself, cutting off all of these things.  But it seems to still be lacking.  I remember a friend remarking that each time she read an article of the sort, she questioned whether or not these pieces would have a platform for publication if it were not assigned for students like us to read–would that circulation continue to exist?  I think her point has some validity.  And I know it is extremely arrogant to say, but it doesn’t seem like anyone is saying it.  And it probably all goes over my head–my world, isn’t that a grand notion?  But ultimately, I just question a lot of it.  Like I remarked about Mark Twain’s note in Huckleberry Finn- “PERSONS attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.”  I think, in light of this, there have been too few lawyers, governmental bodies, and firing squads, respectively of course.

Getting good Marx (I know, not amusing…)

Posted on by
Reply

So we began this look at more established critics in the field, and I believe this is a nice place to start.  I begin by stating that I have no hangups what so ever in terms of Marxism or any strange feelings resulting of our parents’ cold war-era fears (they’ve gone the way of the boogey-man and Old Yeller) and I really appreciated the introduction given as a firm base for Marxist thought, and the wonderful line regarding why the study of it mattered.

I find it very surprising that a textual reading of Chaucer actually points out different aspects of temporal realities surrounding the era in which the text was written.  These insights, once noticed, open up a unique world to me personally in seeing what I can glean from a text in concerns of the time period and what it indirectly says about its own place in a time line, especially that of Marx’s economic time line.

I am also surprised that the purpose wasn’t to espouse Marxist ideology (as I thought it would at first- a kind of prejudice that still is in me I guess) within a literary piece, but more so to make that the lens through which we read the text.  A more cause and effect relationship in context to historical placement than pointing out how things reflect ideology.  Doubled with this is the intrigue that further pushes the multiple facets of potential critiques within a single critique, i.e. Dr. Seaman’s asking us if it were more a Marxist reading or more a Feminist reading.  This is a nice plug for the whole concept of interdisciplinary aspects in the criticisms that we make of various pieces, and how it not only affects the culture, but also the economics, the politics, the religious affiliations, etc. of the time and place as well.  It immediately opens the potential depth of a large amount of literature, and allows us to sift through it and pull out key ideas and concepts that otherwise would not be seen.

Money

Posted on by
Reply

Intellectual Property and Plagiarism.  These concepts go hand in hand, and it always seems amusing that they are reiterated over and over again.  Not because it shouldn’t be discussed, it absolutely should be.  But amusing more so because people STILL DO IT (hence, the need to still talk about it).

I really enjoyed how we discussed it in class yesterday.  It made this concept into something more than a monetary legal issue, and instead about what happens practically speaking when you plagiarize.  What you take from both the original creator of the idea, and to the person who is assimilating the material.  It actually took me to thinking about comedy.

Stand-up comedy seems to have a huge issue with this.  I seem to hear discussion all the time about some comedians who have gotten a name by attending other people’s performances, and completely taking the material.  It seems most angering at this point, as because something like a joke told on a stage that isn’t recorded cannot exactly be copyrighted (Otherwise, we’d get in trouble every time we decided to tell a tall tale about the chicken’s highway exploits) there is little protection there.  And I thought this example worked pretty well with the discussion.  What happens when person A has a joke, and person B steals the joke and performs it, and then an audience member hears person B and wants more of the same genre of comedy, person B cannot help this situation, as he is not the original author of the joke.  It reaches a dead end.

I think in the end that credit is something that we are all due for accomplishments we make.  The military is more strict even, with the case that people who wear medals and badges they have not earned can actually be imprisoned under the concept of stolen valor.  And I think that that term is very appropriate.  ”Stolen.”  This seems very obvious, but I think after a time, plagiarism becomes just another word to us, and we lose the flavor of what it really entails.  Stealing.  Robbing.  Taking something from someone else.  But like we discussed in class in the case of literature or research, it isn’t just something that is stolen from a single individual, but it is something stolen from the world as a whole.