Relative Relevance

As this class began, I was not very well versed in literary theory. I admit, along the way, there were points where I sat there thinking things like “what the hell does that matter?” and “that’s just plain wrong.” However, as we wind down, I have begun to grasp the impact of the many theories we studied. There are still some aspects I may not agree with, but I can see the value of them and why it is we study these theories.

Good Will Hunting is far and away my favorite movie of all time. It is entertaining, well-scripted, and makes me think about many elements of my life that would otherwise go unevaluated. Thus, I chose to evaluate it in a Marxist form as my essay topic. Doing so helped me comprehend not only Marxist theory, but also many of the other theories we studied that I had yet to grasp. I was amazed at how the movie fit into so many types of theory, and even more amazed that I had not previously recognized these theories seeing as I have watched it 9 billion times.

The lack of the self was by far the most difficult concept for me this year. I didn’t understand how people could sit there and say that a work was a product of society and not of the individual author’s originality. However, as I studied Good Will Hunting, I found this to be exactly the case. While Matt Damon and Ben Affleck (who wrote the screenplay) are both from the Boston area, their background in no way resembles that of Will Hunting. In fact, they could be described as being more closely linked to Professor Gerald Lambeau, who is seen as the “semi-antagonist” of the movie. Brought up in wealthy families, it does not seem like they would ever be able to relate to their characters in the movie.

So the question was, where did they come up with this brilliant story that would eventually win them Oscars for best original screenplay? After analyzing the story further, the answer was clear. It was a direct representation of our society. The views expressed in the film were not the views of two upper-class white kids (Damon and Affleck), but they were a direct result of the hegemonic forces in American society. While I may have lost a little appreciation for the innovative genius of Damon and Affleck, I definitely gained an understanding of literary theory.

As I started to write this post, I looked back through my notes. I turned to a list of the tenets of liberal humanism. If I had to pick a theory that I most agree with, it would be liberal humanism. This may be because it was the easiest for me to understand. Yet, one of the tenets seems particularly accurate to me. “Good literature is timeless and speaks to what is true of human nature.” As I read this sentence a few times, it reminded me of a passage that I read in one of the critical articles I used for my essay:

“Good Will Hunting presents a young man on an Odyssey. He is not Odysseus exactly, but he moves and talks like him and is lost like him. He fights battles and loses them, and then hoists himself up again, scarred and bruised. More importantly, he is here and now, and speaks to some of us in a way that Odysseus no longer can. We identify with Good Will. We feel his fears and desire his triumphs. If we are not able to do this - and give a rhetorical expression to how we do this - then we will have a hard time convincing our audiences that there is merit to our work, and that they should follow us.”
-The Good Will Hunting Technique by Todd Cesaratto

All at once, it made perfect sense to me. Good Will Hunting is a present day version of The Odyssey. I may enjoy watching it more than I enjoy reading The Odyssey, but this is merely because Damon and Affleck adapted their story to appeal to modern day hegemonic forces. It speaks to me because I share the same ISAs and everyday life. And so, for the first time, and possibly the last time, I begrudgingly admit that literary theory is indeed pertinent to my everyday life.

All Charges Dropped Against Duke Lacrosse Players

After a year of controversy and media frenzy, the Duke Lacrosse rape case finally screeched to a halt today. There were many issues and twists surrounding this case, including racism, sexism, and unethical behavior by the prosecution. Yet, when all was said and done, the case ended as expected.

People all over were outraged…not because three white upper-class males had raped a lower-class black female. They were outraged because this black woman had the tenacity to accuse them of rape, thus snatching the silver spoon that had been implanted in these lacrosse players’ mouths at birth. How dare this black stripper accuse wealthy white men of misconduct. The alleged victim had originally accused Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans of rape. However, these charges were dropped in December “after she told prosecutors she could no longer testify that she had been penetrated with a penis, one of the defining factors of rape under North Carolina law” (CNN.com). Today, the remaining charges were dropped. The only case left to be tried is the one against Durham County district attorney Michael Nifong, who faces a number of ethics complaints.

After the dust settles, this case will be remembered as that of a poor, money grubbing stripper trying to rob three exemplary young men. These men were kicked off the lacrosse team. Two were asked to leave school, and the other surrendered himself the day after his graduation. How could someone be so horrible as to tarnish the lives of these three outstanding students? As the case was officially dismissed today, many expressed opinions of sympathy for these young men.

But wait…as it turned out, the evidence was inconsistent, leading to the dismissal of the case. Yet somehow, a case with insufficient evidence took over a year to dismiss. Even if this young woman made up everything she said, why do we feel so bad for these young men? They were on the brink of being kicked out of their housing already because of multiple misconduct complaints. Under these circumstances, they decided to have a stripper party. Maybe they didn’t rape the young woman. Maybe they didn’t touch her. But let’s not feel sorry for them because their perfect lives have been tarnished. Even if these men did nothing illegal, they certainly weren’t displaying good character or judgment

What's Your Use-Value?

I found Ken’s example of money to be extremely helpful when contemplating Baudrillard. The fact that we can purchase items imperative to our lives such as food and clothing simply by swiping a piece of plastic seems ludicrous when he breaks it down in such a way. Especially since this card is representing money, which essentially has absolutely no value except that which we assign to it. It seems ridiculous to assign value to something which has absolutely no use-value. So when we then use credit cards to represent this exchange-value, we are representing something with no use-value. This concept does however enforce Derrida’s point that language is nothing but signifiers and the signified. Just as how money would have absolutely no value unless we assign value to it, words have no value unless we assign meanings to them.

I like the concept of the simulacra. Since we are merely using a piece of plastic representing something with no use-value to buy important items, it seems as if they are almost free. I play online poker a lot, and when I make money it never seems to occur to me. I’ll just play for the enjoyment and to win. After I win and decide to cash out some of the money, they send me a check. Even when I knew I won the money, it does not seem real until I actually cash the check. I guess the concept that I can make money while playing a game on the computer just isn’t in my realm of reality. Therefore I can assign value to money and the check but not to my online account. I don’t think I am alone in this thinking, which is why our debt is at 4.7 trillion. We spend more money than we have because we do not assign the proper value to it.