COVER LETTER:
Through both Stephen Greenblatt's, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, and A. O. Scott's Better Living Through Criticism, I found the notion of self and human autonomy to be a constant theme. I found it hard to not talk about what we have been discussing in class recently, the stories of creation and the part that man played in it. But, because the theme of autonomy and human control over our lives is a theme in all the text that we’ve been reading, it was interesting being able to see those connections. When writing this piece, it was very useful to me to use my commonplace book to reference the musings I made. Most of the content I discussed was not written literally within the text but between the lines.
7 AP - DRAFT Scott + Greenblatt 2.0 + Mandatory Peer Review
In both Stephen Greenblatt’s, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, and A. O. Scott's Better Living Through Criticism, autonomy is the connective thread between Scott and A.O.S. Especially when it comes to taste and preference, and how those manifest in our own lives. While Scott focuses on the more personal, humanistic qualities of our inclinations, Greenblatt looks at what is behind those partialities and what and who made us that way. Both generally concluded, in the end, that we do not truly control our likes and dislikes, but do have handle over how those biases manifest within our lives and relationships.
Scott, especially in the first few pages we read, really makes the reader stop and think about the answers to the questions he is posing. Questions like "Do you like what you like because of who you are? Or is it the sum of your likes and dislikes that makes you who you are". Frankly, it initially made me feel almost defensive, even though I knew I had nothing to prove to this man and he would never hear my musings or read the notes I was scribbling in the margins of his writing. Still, the feeling of having your entire identity and character questioned is a cause for pause.
Not only does Scott use this method of setting up prompting questions for the reader to answer themselves, he asks himself questions in the unusual form of an auto-interview. He asks himself these doubting, critical questions that may appear to be invalidating his side, but in this instance, all he is doing is trying to uphold his argument that his entire paper is trying to convey the whole time. If you do not look at yourself, your opinions, your thoughts, and those of the world around you, you can not get the true value out of those things. The redefinition of criticism may be necessary as well, as it tends to have a rather negative connotation. Stepping outside of this fear and very human desire to draw away from criticism, it will be realized that it can be positive too. By literally asking himself those questions, it forces him to see his piece from a new perspective, one he may have never considered before. When reading, it made me feel more connected to him as a writer, as I felt like (even though he couldn't) he was listening to my questions and what I wanted to know from him when reading.
Greenblatt chose a far more convoluted, slippery path to get to his conclusion. On many occasions, he uses signposting to guide the reader to the conclusions he is making, while not being too obvious. The epilogue was the most meaningful part of the sections we read. Even after him establishing himself time and time again (not in the way we thought he was, with logos), he still shows how unconditionally human he is in the way he responds to the man he met on the plane. He still wants to believe, even after years of research and searching for truths, that he has some profound, intimate control over his life. He still is trapped in the thought process of thinking that tells him that he has control over the words he says, and then what impact his words have on the world. Greenblatt knows that people are not self-autonomous creatures and that our aliens, gods, absolute powers, authorities, and chaotic parts deep within us (and outside of us) are what stay in control.
Both Greenblatt's and Scott's pieces display the absolute humanness that we all feel sometimes; the helplessness of wanting to be in control of our destinies and thought processes, while still coming to the same conclusion every time that we can not. Even though we will continue to strive for the most autonomy we can achieve, it will never truly reach the level that we believe we exist within.
Through both Stephen Greenblatt's, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, and A. O. Scott's Better Living Through Criticism, I found the notion of self and human autonomy to be a constant theme. I found it hard to not talk about what we have been discussing in class recently, the stories of creation and the part that man played in it. But, because the theme of autonomy and human control over our lives is a theme in all the text that we’ve been reading, it was interesting being able to see those connections. When writing this piece, it was very useful to me to use my commonplace book to reference the musings I made. Most of the content I discussed was not written literally within the text but between the lines.
7 AP - DRAFT Scott + Greenblatt 2.0 + Mandatory Peer Review
In both Stephen Greenblatt’s, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, and A. O. Scott's Better Living Through Criticism, autonomy is the connective thread between Scott and A.O.S. Especially when it comes to taste and preference, and how those manifest in our own lives. While Scott focuses on the more personal, humanistic qualities of our inclinations, Greenblatt looks at what is behind those partialities and what and who made us that way. Both generally concluded, in the end, that we do not truly control our likes and dislikes, but do have handle over how those biases manifest within our lives and relationships.
Scott, especially in the first few pages we read, really makes the reader stop and think about the answers to the questions he is posing. Questions like "Do you like what you like because of who you are? Or is it the sum of your likes and dislikes that makes you who you are". Frankly, it initially made me feel almost defensive, even though I knew I had nothing to prove to this man and he would never hear my musings or read the notes I was scribbling in the margins of his writing. Still, the feeling of having your entire identity and character questioned is a cause for pause.
Not only does Scott use this method of setting up prompting questions for the reader to answer themselves, he asks himself questions in the unusual form of an auto-interview. He asks himself these doubting, critical questions that may appear to be invalidating his side, but in this instance, all he is doing is trying to uphold his argument that his entire paper is trying to convey the whole time. If you do not look at yourself, your opinions, your thoughts, and those of the world around you, you can not get the true value out of those things. The redefinition of criticism may be necessary as well, as it tends to have a rather negative connotation. Stepping outside of this fear and very human desire to draw away from criticism, it will be realized that it can be positive too. By literally asking himself those questions, it forces him to see his piece from a new perspective, one he may have never considered before. When reading, it made me feel more connected to him as a writer, as I felt like (even though he couldn't) he was listening to my questions and what I wanted to know from him when reading.
Greenblatt chose a far more convoluted, slippery path to get to his conclusion. On many occasions, he uses signposting to guide the reader to the conclusions he is making, while not being too obvious. The epilogue was the most meaningful part of the sections we read. Even after him establishing himself time and time again (not in the way we thought he was, with logos), he still shows how unconditionally human he is in the way he responds to the man he met on the plane. He still wants to believe, even after years of research and searching for truths, that he has some profound, intimate control over his life. He still is trapped in the thought process of thinking that tells him that he has control over the words he says, and then what impact his words have on the world. Greenblatt knows that people are not self-autonomous creatures and that our aliens, gods, absolute powers, authorities, and chaotic parts deep within us (and outside of us) are what stay in control.
Both Greenblatt's and Scott's pieces display the absolute humanness that we all feel sometimes; the helplessness of wanting to be in control of our destinies and thought processes, while still coming to the same conclusion every time that we can not. Even though we will continue to strive for the most autonomy we can achieve, it will never truly reach the level that we believe we exist within.