English Scholarship Pathways

6th of August, Friday, wasn't the usual timetable. We [a group of students] were invited to participate in an English Scholarship Pathways workshop; different types of topics around English were brought upon and taught. The workshop contained many topics that revolved around English, such were: 'Narratology Theory', 'Rhetorical Theory', 'Philosophy' and 'Shakespeare'. The subjects given were taught to us by several of the teachers from the English department. Each of the workshop sessions took around an hour to complete and a reflection was to be completed during the day. To summarise what I have learned and acquired from the lessons that I had today I will be giving my thoughts on all the sessions that were presented--starting with the  'Narratology Theory'--following the order given previously. I have enjoyed the workshops greatly and I am hopeful that I could be able to participate once more. 

Tzvetan Todorov

'Narratology Theory'--During this session--the first session-- we look at the many factors of creating a "Narrative". Though even previous to that we look at the difference between 'Literary Criticism' and 'Literary Theory' --Quoted--"Literary criticism is the study, evaluation and interpretation of literature whereas literary theory is the different frameworks used to evaluate and interpret a particular work." After doing so we resume top the previous statement, factors of a "Narrative". Briefly, plot, characters, exposition and such were discussed-- as we move forward to the main subject of the topic, the theories. Tzvetan Todorov, "Equilibrium Theory" into which a most "Narrative" fall in this category; broken down, 1. A state of Equilibrium  2. Disruption of Equilibrium  3. Recognition of Disruption  4. Attempt to Repair the Disruption  5. Reinstatement of Equilibrium. Although simplistic in nature, it does pose truth; this pattern is recognised as normality from way back then and currently in the present--probable in the future as well. I have found this 'theory' to be not only interesting by accurate. Many of the 'Narratives' that I've read fall into this category of Todorov's theory. It is arduous to find a story that doesn't follow this at all, which is used primarily everywhere from movies, series, books and myths. Certainly, this helps tremendously with dissecting a story and makes me wonder why this pattern always seemingly appears.         

Following Todorov's Theory, I have found Barthes Enigma Code/Theory to be immensely interesting as well. In contrary to Todorov, Barthes argues that mystery is a key to creating a successful 'Narrative'. Surprisingly, the mystery doesn't need to come in a grand fashion, though it can do so. A costume, perhaps the music, uses certain aspects that help to create mystery and thus become immersive. Hermeneutic Codes. In addition to that other aspects may ask more than a singular question to the audience. These are called Semantic codes. For instance, take this scene from "Pirates of the Caribbean on Stranger Tides" Davy Jones has broken Jacksparrow's sword, though instead of throwing it away, Jacksparrow keeps it. This creates several questions, why does he need it? if he's going to use it, what for? Following "Pirates of the Caribbean" once more, we look at 'Proairetec Codes'--plot action not necessarily meant to ask particular questions, rather it's an action caused by a previous act. "Davy Jones gets a few of his tentacles cut off." Previously he was in a sword fight, hence he was hurt.

   

Kenneth Burke

In the second session, we come to look at Rhetorics, which is looking at finding symbols through "Human Symbol Use". Similar to the "Narratology Theory" we first look at what even is 'Rhetorical Theory'. It begins with two contrasting ideas in which revolves around views upon rhetorical situations. Their 'Theories' juxtaposed--the initial theory presented by Lloyd Bitzer argues around the idea of objectivism paired with realism, which then comes to rhetoric is defined by a situation. Whereas Richard E. Vatz suggests otherwise, a situation is defined by rhetoric as well as the rhetor enjoying more agency; simply a rhetor chooses which path the agenda takes. Furthermore, a rhetor is not "controlled" by a situation, thus enjoys more agency-- constructs a situation by making it overt in language. Subsequently, we look at the old definition of Rhetoric, in which we have learnt that rhetoric was used in persuasion, logical argument-- though today it a more usual use for 'Rhetoric' is Human Symbol. After doing so, contemporary was the next discussion.  The theorist we discussed first was Kenneth Burke, with his most popular theory 'Dramatism'. The theory poses that certain actions that are done by individuals are "motivated" to act in certain ways due to certain situations-- recognising guilt to be the basis of human actions and emotions. Burke created a pentad to show--analyse--a dramatic situation to show the "motivation".  The five points are as tagged, 'Agent', 'Agency', 'Scene', 'Purpose' and 'Act'; looking into a situation from one of these perspectives gives a different view.  It aims to give a motive to why the character did what they did, their motive. 

Burkes' Pentad

           

There were several theorists mentioned in the lesson, one in particular piqued my interest. Jean Baudrillard avows that meaning is meaning for what it is not. Take, for example, he avers that a book is a book not because it is, but rather because it's not a pen nor pencil. Further stating everything-- objects and such are intertwined through a web of meaning. Arguing that meaning [objects] is and can only be understood through its relation to other objects. This is followed by his thoughts upon seeking total knowledge is fruitless and the search for it creates delusion.

Jean Baudrillard

 I agree with seeking total knowledge as fruitless, even downright impossible. However, I perceive such empty statements as arrogant. Recently I have read an article [of which unfortunately I cannot remember where from] about Homosapien hundreds of years ago. It foretold our evolution and intellect compared to the other species at the time, specifically the Neanderthals. The Neanderthals were much superior to the Homosapien in all ways possible; physically stronger, smarter, communicate better, etc. But they did not survive. Why so? Neanderthals stopped when that have found resources that they were able to use, stopped where there was water and stayed.  We on the other by pure, stupidity--and luck-- risked countless lives to venture through bodies of water, seas and oceans. Many perished,  some reached land and were able to populate, Homosapien spread throughout the continents; Neanderthals did not, causing their downfall. Either by pure luck or of genius--probably pure luck-- we were able to survive and thrive at that. We sought what was impossible and did not stop, even today, we do not stop. All perhaps is fruitless but it's how we survive, how we thrive, we aim for the impossible.  

Besides Baudrillard's previous statements, hyperreality is another topic that he argues. Though, what is clarified is that the reality itself becomes unreal but rather when societies bring reality together the more unstable it becomes. In Baudrillards' perspective, we are living on a map rather than using a map to navigate where we live. Unsurprisingly, he's become a huge inspiration to "The Matrix" which ties into the next session that we entered. Philosophy, what does everything, what does anything mean? One of the specific topics that we encountered was the meaning of life. Are we living in a simulation? If I claim that we're living in a simulation can I ever truly be proven wrong?  This subject has reminded me of a statement that I've encountered several years ago, a book written by John Connolly, "The Gates". "Just because he hasn't been seen doesn't mean he isn't out there. This is known as an inductive argument."--quoted, chapter 4, page 31. Perfectly sums up the argument, just because it hasn't been proven doesn't mean that it's not there. The theory of a simulation can neither be proven nor unproven. Thorugh it may not be probable, it is possible. If there's a good chance that it exists, supposedly there's at least as good a chance that it doesn't exist. 

Trolley Problem

Moreover, ethics were also discussed.  I studied ethics a few months before and have created an essay about ethics and morality. It was interesting however as I was able to further prove a point that I have stated in my essay months before. In cases where such dilemmas are presented, many would freeze. Though when we were presented with the "Trolley Problem"  people did not necessarily freeze; they showed effects that many have done so when a "real" "Trolley Problem" was conducted. Many of the students gave excuses. Excuses in which they would question and alter the question in a way where they are able to manipulate the "tragedy" into no one getting hurt. Another aspect that I expected them to follow [which they did] was not doing anything; walking away seems to be common action. This takes away the responsibility of which the "safety" of another human being is concerned.

Social Morals and Human Behaviour - PDF of the essay.

Lastly, we look at Shakespeare, why was he so successful and his stories enduring. How his stories were received by his audience. For this session, beliefs of the Elizabethan era had a great impact. "The Chain of Being" was implanted in most if not all of Shakespeare's plays. The chain puts everything in accordance with its importance. At the time many believed in God, most were religious and although there may perhaps be non-religious individuals, they knew how it worked. It was a common system and a common belief of when something has been put out of place in "The Chain of Being" a disaster would occur. Such as in Hamlet where the king dies it brought about tragedy. Shakespeare made excellent use of his audience and his knowledge of social beliefs. This helped to make not only his play relatable but enjoyable as well. 

William Shakespeareare