Marxism and Literary Criticism

In Marxist Criticism Raymond Williams is described as having,

brought to his readings of literature a proletarian background highly unusual in a Marxist critic, few of whom have had any close acquaintance with hard manual labor. [That his thought about the industrial revolution is filtered through his personal sense of what alienation from the countryside might have meant to the poets of the generationWilliams found poetry exhibit homologies with elements in the nonasthetic segments of the superstructure or the relations of production in Base. (Richter, 560)

Williams ability to look at Marxist Theory from the perspective of the working class shapes much of his interpretation of the value of literature and how literary theory is interpreted in Capitalist and Communist societies. In Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory Williams compares the value of literature in contemporary USSR and a capitalist state, the Soviet state is much very much sharper in investigating areas where different versions of practice, different meanings and values, are being attempted and expressed. In capitalist practice, if the thing is not making a profit, or if it is not being widely circulated then it can for some time overlooked (Williams 462)

Here, Williams romanticizes the Soviet Unions ability to evaluate and appreciate a work for the value it may have to society as opposed to how much money it can make which is the way he describes the value of literature in a capitalist society.

I can understand why the Soviet way of evaluating literature may seem superior to someone from a working class backgr ound: if youre poor and lack the clout and or education of your wealthier writers than you may not get the backing needed to make your book a financial success but if the monetary value of the book is taken off the table then the book can be evaluated equally with anyone else who may have written a book regardless of class or status.

The problem with this way of thinking however is Williams doesnt take into consideration the USSR or other communists societies penchant for censorship. Books that are deemed dangerous or not fitting communist ideology never have the opportunity to reach the public or be fairly evaluated for its merit or social value. So whether if it is by censorship or lack of profitability literature can find it never reaches its intended audience in either society.

Later in the essay Williams tackles the different ways literary criticism is viewed. Williams is struck at how, nearly all forms of contemporary critical theory are theories of con sumption (Williams, 463) or in other words the theories are concerned with how the reader reacts to a particular work, or what effect does this work have on me? (Williams, 464) instead of focusing on how the work was produced.

Williams suggests that how a work was produced or the components that go into the production of that work, the relationship between the components and the objects itself, is more important than the affect the object has on a reader.

The components/production view works well with Marxists theory because the production aspect of creating a work would be considered the Base and then one could look at how the production of the work plays in the larger society or the superstructure.

Williams ability to look at the work that goes into producing an object is important because i t keeps that work in context with where, how and why it was made. Many times when you take a piece of art out of the context of how it was made its value can be lost or not fully appreciated. Marxist Theory, at least Williams interpretation of that theory, allows one to look at the artistic value of a piece of literature or art in general in a way that consumption theory overlooks.

T.S. Johnson is a freelance writer and owner of PrologueReviews.com. Visit http://www.prologuezine.com for all of your writing needs or http://www.prologuereviews.com to have your music, movie or book reviewed.

Author:: Tamika Johnson
Keywords:: Raymond Williams, Marxism, Superculture, Hegemony, Literary Criticism, Base
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tip s

Purpose To Life

There is no God.

Belief is a stray sentiment; it functions furiously around its determination to survive. If it is healthy, it is impenetrable, if it is not, it is unknowingly so. Sadly, it also doesnt end with man; it ends with conflict and qualms. Men know perfectly to be courageous, they do not know but what to be courageous of, for or against. A belief is a second conscience overruling the normal one, it provides for all expectations of courage. It is difficult to confront a firm belief with the firmest of qualms, it is easier instead to assault it with them. One must never impress a doubt, one must induce it. Frustration is the first offspring of a belief losing its grounds. The firmer the latter, the superior the former.

No belief is entire, hence, no belief can be ended entirely; ridden by disparate proportions of an unapparent guilt, man, of what he believes wholly, holds desires against it. Belief is a personal satisfaction that justifies mans actions; it also appropriates it. We do what we believe in - to the extent of we must do what we believe in. People aspire towards their beliefs. Like they commit to their satisfactions, they also prefer to commit to the place where they find it. That is in itself the greatest injustice a man can perpetrate to rely on something uncertain and forge in oneself the assurance that it is not; and then expect it to yield.

Man is never totally satisfied.

Going back to the notion that there is a God helps us with another notion, that we arent it. The first notion is an indefatigably powerful alibi, or rather, an apology for the limitations we abide by. Outside these limitations we gain our satisfactions. Hence, we are never totally satisfied. Only in little whiles, the elusive points of Time when were Gods.

A conclusion such as that there is no god helps us to declare another that within his limitations, a man may rise so, that that satisfaction he aims for must be more than final. They must find a medium to breathe and exist in an inert independence where they can choose to surrender without the reluctance and indifference, typical of their import. When we talk of another kind of survival other than the primary one, with a greater nature of independence, a de facto downright unconditional and total submission, and where the transient satisfaction he aims for is more than the final ability in man or is a somewhat credible challenge to it, when we appropriately stop believing in God to succumb to believing in something god-like in us we talk of Purpose.

Between man and the obtainable, lies a cheap form of development motive; between a man and the unobtainable, lies the pursuit that searches beyond the compatible in him Purpose. Motive constricts man to his self; Purpose is all and any involvement beside and outside this. Motive and Purpose are close counterparts of the range of mans ability, almost like alibi and reason. Motive is a funnel for it, and Purpose, a gauge. Both are concrete definitions: motive, of a virtue in man and Purpose, of the peak of all his virtues. Both are also stalwart contradictions to that same range of the ability of man for motive becomes the exhaustion of one or more attributes, and Purpose, their last gesture.

Purpose is never real. It is so because it is higher than the obsessive human prioritization of reality. A man with Purpose is alive only to morality when morality is not a sense of right and wrong but merely a sense of direction.

To know how much we can expand is to understand a persisting relation with ourselves, but to know how much we can expand immediately after that obvious relation is to infringe an unfounded realm, much beyond the scope in us, and find, outside ones personal capacity and in an unnatural uniqueness, a paramount artificial strength (for the source is external) and a tantamount egoistical desire.

A man who finds Purpose discov ers a satisfaction more pure than any happiness and superior to all joy; this satisfaction rears further the implementation of the Purpose, and the pursuit of its result. A satisfied result engenders a threat to the world, to alter it by the means of a single man, by a change personal in one's individuality to a change impersonal in the collectivism of an entire breed.

Queries may be reverted to - mosaics12@rediffmail.com

Author:: Tushar Jain
Keywords:: Purpose, Philosophy
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Humans And Animals Are Much Closer Than We Think

What sets Humans and Animals apart? Not much really? Although many a religious scholar will claim the opposite and cite all sorts of BS and hokum to prove their point; none of which will make a lick of sense from a reality based observational standpoint. And really to tell you the truth; I truly believe Humans are Animals, just better evolved ones for their particular habitat.

In fact I have seen and heard no viable evidence to contradict my observations and findings. I have considered all the arguments of science such as;

(1) Animals do not have empathy. This is incorrect by observation.

(2) I have heard of the concept that Humans can choose not to procreate. We cannot prove that Animals cannot do this and I think it is false, as when there is not enough food, Animals will skip procreation that year often, overcoming their instinctual needs. Not all Animals but many can and do.

(3) Animals cannot lie very well. Fair enough comment, but we know they can deceive and do and Chimpanzees under potential threat of torture have been known to tell lies and also in order to get free ice cream and bananas too. Humans can concoct complex lies or even live entire lives, which are a lie. We do not know if Animals can do this, although we do not know. Animals do understand when we deceive them often for instance pretending to throw a stick, when we dont the dog will look at us like; You jerk, I am not falling for your BS, now throw that stick, come on!

(4) Animals cannot throw things very well. Indeed dexterity in throwing things sets Humans apart a little, but since they can throw some of things, although not very well I hesitate to call this a deciding factor.

(5) Animals have no soul. I disagree, life energy of living species is universal, you can call that a soul if you wish, but still I cannot go for that religious based comment or answer.

(6) Animals do not have spiritual type beliefs. This has also been proven wrong. Studies with Guerillas and Chimpanzees have been known to go to waterfall areas where the light shines at a certain time in a certain way, which gives off a totally unique ambience. They have a concept of Wow, like a shrine, but they only go during a certain time.

Basically Humans can lie, cheat, steal and throw things better than Animals, but in the end Animals can do all those things, but perhaps have decided not to, as it may not be in their best interests or the interests of their social group; herd, troop, school, pac k or flock. You know maybe Animals are a lot smarter than we think. How does it feel to be a lying, cheating, temper tantrum throwing, ignorant human? Consider this in 2006.

Lance Winslow

Author:: Lance Winslow
Keywords:: Humans, Animals, much closer we Think
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Positive Aspects behind ProblemCrazing

Have you ever wondered why our existing world is too sophisticated! If not, now try to develop this philosophical initiative.

From the very primitive society when and where slaughtering was considered as an entertainment to todays world when and where animal is, by law and custom, equalized to us as the human person. So what are secrets behind this development?

One of the most concrete answers to why our world turned unbelievably complicated is the always-on-the move problem. To me, problem is the highest law for mental sophistication and civilization.

The reality of natural change: natural disaster and catastrophe (the problem) has inspired human to start fighting against this livelihood barrier. Though human person during the primitive time was not mentally and materialistically sophisticated like us, but as his or her day-to-day problem eventuated, he or she started to think of the ways to hand off or at lease ease the problem. Thinking of the ways to fight the obstacle, has brought great progress in term of mentality as well as the changing the status quo.

The same case applies to us in this twenty-first century. Mental and cultural clash, unique differences between human persons and individual states, politics of power and prosperity imbalance, gender imbalance, the evils of human mentality, clashed patriotism and other individual, individual-state, regional and global problems have brought us great challenges, in other word, sophistication and civilization.

Now, you see the positive aspect of always-existing problems. Everyone has problem, but not everyone can desirably solve his or her problem. Actually those who can solve the problem are the ones who is does not scare of the problem and always of the opinion that, my problem was already existed upon another person and he or she already solved it, so why I can not solve it, because I am also human person endowed with mental strength and dignity!

The purpose of this article is to make you not scare of the existing and past problem, because it is just the way of life that everyone; rich, poor, educated, illiterate, normal and disabled, have to face. Do you know that all of the truly intellectuals are, by experience, problematic?

And one of the reasons why the United States of America is materialistically and mentally sophisticated and civilized, because it has too many problems and, that is not enough, it is looking for more problems to be solved and will solve before we seen that they are the problems.

Lay Vicheka is a translator for the most celebrated translation agency in the Kingdom of Cambodia, Pyramid. He is working as freelance writer for Search Newspaper, focusing on social issues and students' issues. Lay Vicheka has great experience in law and politics, as he used to be legal and English-language assistant to a member of parliament, migration experience (home-based business) and experience in writin g. You are stronly advised to contact him for any doubts or wonder about Cambodian politics and even the world's phenomenon. Posting address: 221H Street 93, Tuol Sangke quarter, Russey Keo district, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Tel: 855 11 268 445, vichekalay@yahoo.com

Author:: Vicheka Lay
Keywords:: news and society,Philosophy
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Religion of Love is It Possible?

Is it possible to create a religion of love? A religion which would teach that humans are divinely endowed with love? A religion which teaches, preaches, and helps others find true love. Love of Life, love of humanity, and love of environment. Love of Earth, water, and the whole Universe for that matter; can we create a religion for the human race like that?

One man has and he has explained it to me, as he does not belong to any set organized religion, psychology or philosophy, as he says that is part of this very limited reality. A noble statement indeed, if not an absolute and universal truth; so how does such a man live without religion, as he subscribes to none?

Well neither do I really and I live very well. Is a world of love a better reality or state to enjoy ones Life experience? If one creates a new religion, the religion of love and has huge Masses following that Ideal; then surely the world would be better for it right?

Indeed, it could be a very positive thing however such a created religion and point of view is in error of Observation of the Life experience in the current paradigm and present period. But is it bad; no, one could say it is good actually. Should such a man living a Life of love, abundance, caring and infinite limitlessness of all this and mor e bring forth this concept to better the world? It could be a new religion and one, which saves humanity from itself and keeps it from being doomed and repeating the past.

Such a philosophical question, one could say it is not a true picture of the world and should not be a religion, but you could argue that it would sure make the world a better place. Should such a man with such an Ideal break out of this one-sided argument to see the rest for what it is? Or would a new created reality be a breath of fresh air?

Would one with such a positive, but skewed interpretation of the world be able to live without limits thru love or would he and his followers limit their mind and Observations? Would such a Life or philosophy thus actually put them outside what one could call limitless, because they only saw love and not the other? Fore one has placed themselves into a Love Box which is their choice and I assume they would be happy there right? And if so well then good for them, however, asking others to join such a cause, is unfair and would probably only lead to another religion gone bad in the end as it would like all religions be used to control, brain wash and manipulate others. After all isnt that what all religions do?

So maybe one might wish to think this thru at a much higher level as it appears that anyone including this man who created such a religion has the cognitive ability to now go to the next step. Did most religions start with the presumption of all that is good, including love and eventually end up distorted, prostituted and end up in Hypocrisy? Yet if all religions eventually end up like this in the end, then why do we allow any of them? Is it okay to live a lie, as long as it was originally based on love? Think on this before you jump into any love Bo xes, cults or sign up for any Organized Religion; think it thru, all the way thru.

Lance Winslow

Author:: Lance Winslow
Keywords:: organized religion, religion of love, Ideal, Hypocrisy, current paradigm, Observation, Masses, Life
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Should I Be Politically Correct?

Many people ask themselves should I be politically correct? Often it seems that being politically correct is the safest policy for your career, family relations or when discussing issues with friends. But if one never says the truth for fear it might offend are they being honest? Which is more important to have personal integrity or to be PC? That is the question.

Many will complain about your Behavior if you say the truth but it could be offensive to someone? They pretend to take the highroad and tell you where you are wrong for saying something that is true, because it is not a nice thing to say. For instance if one says, you know all those International Terrorists who attack us during 911 were Muslim. Oh you cannot say such things because that is not fair to Muslims. And they say a true Muslim would never do such a thing.

Indeed and probably they wouldnt but those murderers truly believed in Muslim and even did their acts on behalf of Allah or so they claime d. But you cannot say that, even though it is fact that the 911 murderers were all Muslim. This is not to say that this particular is against any Religion, fore it is not, this is just one example of our PC world. If someone says your Behavior is inappropriate for saying the truth, then perhaps their PC is inappropriate for living a lie.

Perhaps they are right by the new standards in society of telling truth, your Behavior really is inappropriate but by whose standards. Should one call an ace an ace and a spade, a spade; why should you or me or them or anyone for that matter deny actual observation? To make everyone who is drown in Political Correctness feel warm and fuzzy; why if fore if one said otherwise and went along with the PC then they would be lying? Is the new paradigm in society to lie and see something that is not there? Are they now asking us to lie and live a lie in political correctness like the rest of humanity? How does that make you feel? Do you agree or disagree? Are you reality based or PC? Are you alive and alert or are you dead and deny your own observations? Think on it.

Lance Winslow

Author:: Lance Winslow
Keywords:: politically correct, Muslim, 911, Pc, living a lie, Behavior, Religion
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Nude Art

Nude, we all are in our bathrooms, occasionally in our bedrooms, and when a celebrity is, every one wants to shoot that precious moment by virtue of our hi-tech devices, we were not blessed with, in ancient period when the only way to incarcerate those luxurious moments, was either painting or sculpture. In the beginning, they were gods, goddesses and angles, shown naked in paintings as symbols of grace, beauty and innocence, but then those were pretty women and handsome men painted undress under the strong wave of freedom of expression simply called Nudes in art, the most popular as well as controversial they remained in all ages.

They were hard to accept openly in society but always had a strong appeal for viewers to give them a glance, when in public and a detailed look when alone. Texture and glow of skin, masterly crafted muscles, bones under the tender or strong flesh, giving the canvass a depth and atmosphere so close to our imagination.

Basically nudes are the concrete form of creators thoughts and emotions under a certain instinct of wearing nothing but skin. There was no dress in the beginning of human history and might be so towards the end of human history. But anatomical study has always been a challenge to be adept in, for painters and sculptors. Religiously nudes were subject to free from any sensuality, on the contrary, they were taken as an expression of purity and nothing to do with attitude towards mortal life. Saints, goddesses and other sacred figures were above all social and ethical parameters but as soon as normal human beings were painted naked just to show them so, it was outlawed by righteous society.

When Raphael (1483-1520) painted THE THREE GRACES and David (1460-1523) produced TRIPTYCH OF JEAN DES TROMPES, they promoted the religious thoughts and concepts or Delacroixs famous LIBERTY was a symbol for pride and honor one could feel for ones home land although the lady holding the flag was expose d from the top, Then comes Manets (1832-1883) LUNCHEON THE GRASS showing a naked women sitting with two gentlemen fully and formally dressed, looking directly into the eyes of viewers, this painting was really hard to digest for the French society at that time, despite the fact that French society was quite interactive with traditional Nudes, whereas OLYMPIA by the same artist was bold enough nude to get appreciation for the impressionist.

Goyas (1746-1828) NUDE MAJA and Degas (1834-1880) key hole nudes of bathing women got applause and popularity in their respective times that helped this art to get the status of serious art rather scramble to sensuous feelings alone especially Degas crafty figures well knit with softness of pastels, became a byword of technique and thought. In 20th century, cubism owing to its sharp and misty combination in shape and concept struck art by means of pinching edges and overlapped images. Nude painting got more space to articulate itse lf, as the obscure and hazy ambiance gave artists the opportunity to avoid meticulous anatomical details to enlarge the conceptual and subjective aspect regarding this very art. Pablo Picasso was one of those artists, who not only gave nudes a new touch, but also caused the whole expression an indirect approach in terms of technique for certain circumlocutory subjects.

There was another stream of nude paintings that was neither sacred nor arty, but only sensuous; this art was in demand for dance floors, casinos, brothel houses and strip clubs. etc. it could not get any place in serious art but these paintings have got different, innovative ideas and twitching figures, definitely required perfection in skill as far as anatomical problems are concerned. Everywhere on earth, where art exists, nudes exist too.

In Pakistan even the normal art has been a taboo for society, then what about nude art? it must not exist here! It does exist, as Pakistan has got some real go od adroit painters who could fashion human anatomy with their skill and imagination and furnish the canvass up to the level of a treat to watch. Talism-e-Hoshruba by Ustad Alla Bakhsh has got tinges of semi exposed human bodies in a mystical atmosphere. Sadqains paintings give you an idea about bodies of active, working human beings that do not come under nudes but do reflect painters skill.

Shakir Ali, we could say, was the first one to paint abstract nudes as real art in Pakistan. His strong contours, dark bold colors and conceptual attitude, truly distinguish him from his contemporaries. Shakir experimented in showing womens body in a hidden abstract approach. In new generation, Saeed Akhter, with his realistic style of work has contributed valiantly in this prohibited art form while Jami Naqsh sharpened the edges of his ideas along with nude figures in his paintings done in knife work. As art is, what a person thinks about and the way of thinking, so the expression has been close to nature where sometime, norms and values could not be considered.

Bernard Berenson (1897) said, Not what man knows but what man feels concerns art. All else is science.

A painter n' sculptor, Researcher, Critic and Poet.

Author:: Nadeem Alam
Keywords:: Nude Art, Need of Nudes, Nudes in Pakistan
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips