Well, here we are with the first official "reading blog" for this class and what a challenge!! I'm not sure how the reading of the Lloyd piece went for anyone else, but it was very difficult for me. I got through it, but it took me quite a while and I had to have dictionary.com open while reading it because I felt like I needed to look up every 10th word. Maybe I need to work on my vocabulary skills some more.
Despite this essay being difficult to read, I did find it quite interesting and it brought up some really unique points that I hadn't ever thought about before. For me, when I think about Ireland, violence isn't one of the first things that come to my mind. However, as Lloyd pointed out in his first sentence, "With the possible exception of greenness, no quality has more frequently or repetitiously been attributed to Ireland than violence" (125); violence is a definite part of Ireland's history. One of the concepts that I found interesting when Lloyd was talking about violence is essentially how it's defined. What the British and others may have considered violence of the Irish people seemed to almost hold a double standard for the violence that was inflicted upon the Irish by the British. My take on what Lloyd was saying is that the term violence and the amount of violence really depend on your perspective. The British didn't seem to see their violence as violence and instead because they claimed that they were upholding the law felt that their use of "force" was sanctioned and therefore not considered violence. However, when they looked at the rural culture and people of Ireland, when the Irish would "cause a disturbance" typically related to land and land rights, the British saw this as archaic and violent.
Ok, well that may have been kind of twisted in what I was trying to say, but I think that is what Lloyd was saying. Anyone else agree?
I think I found this topic interesting because it's like a stereotype, like that of the "Irish temper" (which I was told I had a lot while growing up ;D). I never really thought that much about it or the implications of the violence stereotype that this would have on a culture. As I was reading this essay it seemed to me that some of what Lloyd was saying was when critics are reading Irish novels from the 19th century; they are judging them against a standard novel format used in other cultures at that time such as England and other areas of Europe. However, according to Lloyd this is inadequate because Ireland was in a "different place" culturally, socially, and politically during this time so the usual standards can't apply. Specifically with regards to having a distinct middle class that was somewhat uniform in its wants. Ireland had a so called middle class, but probably not of the same definitions used by English society. Again, did anyone else get this out of the reading or am I completely off base?
(Blogger just deleted the remainder of my blog, so now I’m starting over…not happy!!)
Lloyd also talked about how the different forms of representation may have impacted the Irish novel at this time. I interpreted this as meaning that because Irish culture is rich with oral traditions of storytelling and singing as well as dancing, these forms may have lessened the importance and development of the novel at that time.
One of the areas I found particularly interesting was the discussion regarding the political/religious issues between Ireland and England especially in the area of Ulster. I found it interesting that this area was predominately Protestant and was quite unstable at times. This is so interesting to me because this is the area that my family emigrated from when they came to the US in 1870. What is interesting to me is that my family is Catholic and has primarily been farmers which seem to fit with the description of that area at that time and why they likely wanted/needed to leave.
Another area that I was a little unsure of was the discussion of the Irish novel authors like Edgeworth and Morgan. I thought that what Lloyd was trying to say was that these authors at the time knew that Irish culture/history did not fit the standard mold of a traditional novel that ended with a concise resolution; however, they wrote novels that way because they felt that the truth of the violence and instability of Ireland at that time was too real and no one would want to read about it. Again, does anyone agree or am I completely off base?
Overall, I think this was a very challenging essay to understand, but I enjoyed reading it and it definitely made me think of things I hadn’t thought about before.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Marie,
ReplyDeleteI like that we both agree that the important question of this writing is that the amount of violence really depends on the perspective. Throughout the entire reading, I had this general feeling the whole time through. I felt that a lot of representations of various perspectives were lacking.
When you said that the British didn’t seem to see their violence as violence because they claimed that they were just upholding what was “theirs” by using force. As if to say that “their” violence is justified as necessary and that the Irish violence is not justified? If anything I think the Irish violence can be justified as self defense. However, it is mentioned that the British saw the Irish violence as archaic and violent.
You mentioned that you felt that the Irish are often stereotyped as having a temper. I agree, this is a stereotype indeed. And going back to what I said before, I believe that any county that is getting “taken over” by another county has a right to be “upset.” This reminds me of the Israeli /Palestinian conflict. Many Palestinians feel that their sovereignty has been breached. This has caused a lot of people to feel that a portion of identity has also been lost. I feel like other critics are giving the Irish an identity that the Irish did not define for themselves.
You had said that as you were reading this essay it seemed that some of what Lloyd was saying was when critics are reading Irish novels from the 19th century; they are judging them against a standard novel format used in other cultures at that time such as England and other areas of Europe. I agree with what you are saying. I feel that much of the nineteenth century Irish novel is told from the British point of view.
I was also confused about the discussion of the authors like Edgeworth and Morgan. If I had background information about these authors than perhaps some of my confusion would be eliminated.
Hey Celtic Dreamer,
ReplyDeleteI am happy to see that we had a lot of the same views in regards to the issue of violence in Ireland that the author brought up. And I have to say, I was right there with you in looking up half the words in the essay and still having trouble understanding it. I think that it is safe to say that “Violence and the Constitution of the Novel” was not exactly reader friendly.
It looks like both of our histories of Ireland are a little rusty since I, like you, did not link Ireland to violence. And do not worry, your interpretation of the essay was not “twisted”, or at least to me it did not seem to be. I completely agree with what you said about there being a double standard when it came to violence. It seemed that whenever violence was enforced by the British in the name of the church or national security it was seen as upholding the peace, while any form of violence executed by what Lloyd called the “subaltern,” or lower class, was seem as savage. After reading this essay I have to say I was a little ashamed to be British, and even though I am only half I still hang my head.
I found what you said about the different forms of representation in Ireland having an effect on the Irish novel to be very interesting. Unfortunately, this subject falls into the category of the part of the essay that I did not quite understanding, and add to that my little knowledge of Ireland, I will just have to settle on agreeing with you.
I’m sorry to hear what happened to your blog☹ I feel for you, I cannot imagine having to write in all over again!
Marie! I gasped when I saw that blogger had deleted some of your post, that really sucks! Despite your troubles I found your analysis very interesting and agreed with most of your points for example Lloyds impressive vocabulary, I guess it’s a good thing though I defiantly learned some new words.
ReplyDeleteReally though, I found it interesting that you pointed out Lloyd’s definition of violence in particular. I agree with you saying that violence seems to be an arbitrary concept in this essay, more like an in the eye of the beholder type of deal. To me it was reminiscent of the idea of terrorism and how it can be seen as an act of terror by one side but an act of holiness by the other. To Ireland in this context it seemed like the violence was a necessity for the good of becoming a free nation, while for England it seemed like an unnecessary part of their culture that didn’t hold much meaning. I’m totally with you!
Also I’m with you on the fact that Ireland’s situation with its writing. It’s hard to categorize novels against each other when the nations of their origin are not in similar situations. Writing mirrors the environment surrounding a writer and it didn’t seem to be a consideration for the British critics. I think that his mentioning Edgeworth, Morgan etc. was his way of showing that the Irish literary world was still writing with purpose even though it didn’t fit the mold of “major” writing.
I think you were pretty on point here lady. Well done!
Hi Marie!
ReplyDeleteI found your blog to be very interesting and helpful in developing my own thoughts on such a difficult article. First of I like what you said:
What the British and others may have considered violence of the Irish people seemed to almost hold a double standard for the violence that was inflicted upon the Irish by the British. My take on what Lloyd was saying is that the term violence and the amount of violence really depend on your perspective. The British didn't seem to see their violence as violence and instead because they claimed that they were upholding the law felt that their use of "force" was sanctioned and therefore not considered violence"
It definitely was a double standard. If the british used violence and military enforcement to subdue and try to force and indigenous people to accept that their culture (way of life) was superior, then how are those people supposed to fight back against it?
Definitely the British stereotyped the Irish's violence self defense (or even resistance through retaining their own culture) as being immorally violent, thus reinforcing the idea that they were superior and justified their occupation and rule of the Irish.
I also think you were dead on by saying, " I interpreted this as meaning that because Irish culture is rich with oral traditions of storytelling and singing as well as dancing, these forms may have lessened the importance and development of the novel at that time."
British colonialism was based off of the idea that their culture (especially language and literature) was the "correct and superior form that the rest of the world should strive to emulate in order to be considered legitimate. This definitely views others cultures through a dualistic ("black and white" ) way of thinking. Any literature (or oral traditions for that matter) that did don't follow the traditional British model was considered inferior. This going for music too (which the Irish have their own rich and diverse history in as well).
Marie,
ReplyDeleteEven without an in-depth knowledge of Edgeworth and Morgan, you actually summed up the nature of their novels in comparison with their British contemporaries very well. In _Culture and Imperialism_, Edward Said points out the way in which imperialism is embedded in the very culture that perpetuates it, namely in the form of the novel. According to Said, it is culture that provides a "kind of moral power, which achieves a kind of 'ideological pacification'" (67). Said analyzes numerous British classics and reveals the way in which they're structured around a certain degree of imperialistic entitlement. I think his most effect analysis is his discussion of Jane Austen's _Mansfield Park_, a truly "classic" British novel of manners. At the margins of this cute, funny novel by Austen, is the serious reality of colonial conquest and slavery. Said is keen to show how overdetermined Austen and British novelists like her are to keep the brutal, violent reality of imperialism, upon which the empire and places like Mansfield Park were built, at bay. To put this discussion in a simple question, why is it that during a century of incredible colonial expansion, British novelists (with some exceptions; Conrad for instance) can barely bring themselves to talk about places such as India or Africa? What fascinates me so much about Edgeworth and Morgan (and why they're a big part of my dissertation) is that their novels have a startling amount of characters from across the empire. They deal with British imperialism directly, even in accusatory tones. While many of their novels do have the same "happy-ending" marriage plot as Austen's novels, their books are often times convoluted and have difficulties in representing Ireland. In these novels, Ireland as a "space" is shifting, unstable, difficult to explain and signify. As Lloyd suggests in his essay on page 135, this "crisis of representation" may have a lot to do with the problems of representing Irish history. Whereas British history is constructed as a history of "winners," Irish history is often constructed as a history of "losers"--lost rebellions, uprisings, and an endless series of disappointments. Lloyd writes, "Irish history is not easily sucsceptibel of such resolutions, given the difficulty of locating a *common story* in a chronicle of conquest and dispossession" (135). As we move through these novels, I want you to locate places where we see a "lack of resolution" and a lack of a "common story" in terms of narrative construction, and focus on the connection between the way in which nation's construct history (or, as was often the case for the Irish, have it constructed for them), and the shape and structure of novels.