Anti-Catholic poetry in Cnd Lit class

[NPS]

Art provokes. You’re doing well.

If you are being serious, that is a very large and very predictable copout. “Art provokes”. Indeed!

That is freshman year cr*p buddy.

“Art provokes”!!!

(thanks for the laugh.)

You sure you don’t want to break down the existential meaning of this for us?:

I want you to feel as if I had slammed
your child’s head against a spike;
And cut off your member and stuck it in your
wife’s mouth to smoke like a cigar.

Hilarious.

 

[cpayne]

Actually, as long as we’re sort of veering into singer / songwriters (very briefly! and then straight back to the OP!), I really liked Gordon Lightfoot’s earlier stuff. “Canadian Railroad Trilogy” is a haunting song.

 

[cpayne]

Well, I find myself agreeing both with NPS and with Ani Ibi. Okay, NPS, how about this: ONE of the many things that art CAN do legitimately is provoke.

 

[NPS]

What was your point?

Not a point, really. Just making a joke about the dearth of quality writing in our 51st state.

And you come back at me with…Joni Mitchell and Michael Ondaatje.

haha----I couldn’t have paid you for a better response!

 

[NPS]

Well, I find myself agreeing both with NPS and with Ani Ibi. Okay, NPS, how about this: ONE of the many things that art CAN do legitimately is provoke.

pro·voke /prəˈvoʊk/ Pronunciation[pruh-vohk]
–verb (used with object), -voked, -vok·ing. 1. to anger, enrage, exasperate, or vex.
2. to stir up, arouse, or call forth (feelings, desires, or activity): The mishap provoked a hearty laugh.
3. to incite or stimulate (a person, animal, etc.) to action.
4. to give rise to, induce, or bring about: What could have provoked such an incident?
5. Obsolete. to summon.

Agreed. But using the term “art provokes” as a way to cut off others at the pass is a sure sign of not being able to explain the supposed merit of any given piece of art, be it that terrible slice of poetry or the junk of “crucifx in a toilet” etc etc.

It’s childishness and posturing of a sort for which I have little patience.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

NPS:

Agreed. But using the term “art provokes” as a way to cut off others at the pass

So you’ve become a mindreader now? btw I did not use the term ‘art provokes’ to cut you off at the pass. I used it because I always use it when my students can’t see anything but their own feelings and preferences. When they don’t even bother looking at what is there.

Art does many things which sets it apart from craft or from decoration. One of those things is that it provokes.

NPS:

is a sure sign of not being able to explain the supposed merit of any given piece of art

It most certainly is not. You have no notion of my ability or lack of ability. You are just angry that your point of view has been questioned. Not a terribly useful point of view to be modelling for the student who started this thread.

NPS:

be it that terrible slice of poetry or the junk of “crucifx in a toilet” etc etc.

Ah, “terrible.” The judgment. Art criticism is all judgment is it? That must be why we have so very few art threads on this forum. Judgment is the very lowest form of critique. I actually do not allow my students to go there.

NPS:

It’s childishness and posturing of a sort for which I have little patience.

I take it you don’t respond very kindly to disagreement or challenge. And also have a very low patience threshold. Noted. The discussion is over.

 

[NPS]

Actually, as long as we’re sort of veering into singer / songwriters (very briefly! and then straight back to the OP!), I really liked Gordon Lightfoot’s earlier stuff. “Canadian Railroad Trilogy” is a haunting song.

Canada makes some great singer-songwriters, and challenges the U.S. in that deptartment (at least per capita).

[NOW you can insert Joni Mitchell into the mix]

Then again, you are justifiably penalized for unleashing the Crash Test Dummies onto the world.

 

[LilyM]

Gwendolyn MacEwan. Joni Mitchell. Michael Ondaatje.

:tsktsk: Buffy Ste Marie. And a whole buncha younguns I know nothing about.

LM Montgomery - everyone who’s grown up with Anne of Green Gables should know that

 

[Ani_Ibi]

cpayne:

Well, I find myself agreeing both with NPS and with Ani Ibi. Okay, NPS, how about this: ONE of the many things that art CAN do legitimately is provoke.

cpayne, Christianity was taught for centuries by means of Sacred Art. Much of that Art was provocative.

Some people as you know like to say that they ‘know what they like’ or that they are ‘amateur philosophers.’ You know how far those positions can be stretched.

The truth is that neither Art nor Philosophy is comfortable or ‘nice.’ But comfortable and nice is what a lot of folks want.

It is interesting to me the disproportionality of the rage directed to my suggestion that Art provokes. One could say that my own observation is provocative. And why should an observation of Art-as-provocation not itself be provocative? Where is it written in stone that it cannot be?

Ah! But we are in the realm of Philosophy now and we both know where that ends up: socks and sandals!



What angers me about this whole exchange is that I have spent considerable time and energy talking to bishops and others about Ex Corde Ecclesiae. The trouble is only partly that stuff is making its way into the curricula of Catholic students – stuff that has no merit of its own.

But by far the biggest problem is that students are not prepared to create opportunities for dialogue with secular humanism in the universities and so those students just get run right over. They are not prepared because they are not taught to create dialogue with secular humanism in Catholic grade schools and in Catholic high schools.

If we had Encounter Education, we would not have this weakness among our Catholic students at the university level. But I suspect I am preaching to the choir.

 

[estesbob]

Art does many things which sets it apart from craft or from decoration. One of those things is that it provokes.

.

It sure did here!

 

[NPS]

So you’ve become a mindreader now? btw I did not use the term ‘art provokes’ to cut you off at the pass. I used it because I always use it when my students can’t see anything but their own feelings and preferences. When they don’t even bother looking at what is there.

Art does many things which sets it apart from craft or from decoration. One of those things is that it provokes

.

I’m no mindreader. Just experienced at the “art” of deception in lieu of explanation of said piece of supposed “art”. No one has argued that art shouldn’t be allowed to “provoke”. Stick to the facts, please.

You are just angry that your point of view has been questioned. Not a terribly useful point of view to be modelling for the student who started this thread.

Am I angry? Who is mindreading now, friend?

Ah, “terrible.” The judgment. Art criticism is all judgment is it? That must be why we have so very few art threads on this forum. Judgment is the very lowest form of critique. I actually do not allow my students to go there.

Please explain to me why my “judgement” is any less relevant than your judgment:

“Layton had a gift with language. He truly was beautiful. Volatile. Emotionally raw. Relevant.”

I take it you don’t respond very kindly to disagreement or challenge. And also have a very low patience threshold. Noted. The discussion is over.

Which of us has lost his patience. friend? Anytime you want to prove your point, feel free to lead us through the magic of these poetic words:

I want you to feel as if I had slammed
your child’s head against a spike;
And cut off your member and stuck it in your
wife’s mouth to smoke like a cigar.

(I’ll wait )

 

[Cradle]

Sorry I took so long in replying, I was out. Here is the poem, since it seems you haven’t been able to find it online. And it is called “For Jesus Christ”; however, the collection it is from (I suppose) is called “For my Brother Jesus”.

For Jesus Christ

It began with delicate religious frissons
at the blinding of a young Jewess
who incautiously turned away her gaze
from your paraded likeness at Easter

One pontiff invented the ghetto;
more tender and loving, another commanded
shivering ghosts to wear out its cobblestones
warmed by the yellow Star of David.

Having mutilated under your mild forgiving eyes
your idol-hating brothers and sisters,
both peasant and duke knew the joys of penitence,
the ecstatic remorse in sinning flesh.

Your stoutest, most selfless partisans in Europe
laboured nearly two thousand years
to twist your Cross into the Swastika
that tore into our flesh like a fish-hook.

I think you can see where my problem lies. And, of course the study of literature is supposed to be about methodologies, etc. as a previous poster said, but we all know what these things turn into, especially with material like that above…

As for going to the class, fortunately/unfortunately (depending on how you think about it), I really can’t go since my sister has a school function that I have to attend.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut… sigh How do things always end up like this?

 

[NPS]

cpayne, Christianity was taught for centuries by means of Sacred Art. Much of that Art was provocative.

Some people as you know like to say that they ‘know what they like’ or that they are ‘amateur philosophers.’ You know how far those positions can be stretched.

Ah…leave it to the professionals, huh? They have so much more flexibility of mind than people of other professions? Yet you have no idea what I do for a living.

The truth is that neither Art nor Philosophy is comfortable or ‘nice.’ But comfortable and nice is what a lot of folks want.

Sorry, professor, but art and philosophy are each quite often comfortable and nice. Randomnly assigning values to a piece of art and labelling cr*p as “challenging” is the realm of fakers and faux-intellectuals.

It is interesting to me the disproportionality of the rage directed to my suggestion that Art provokes.

Rage? Now you play the wounded aesthete for all it’s worth.

Let’s be clear:
Sometimes art “provokes”, sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes people use the phrase “art provokes” when faced with the difficult position of explaining away an obvious piece of [junk].

One could say that my own observation is provocative. And why should an observation of Art-as-provocation not itself be provocative? Where is it written in stone that it cannot be?

Ah! But we are in the realm of Philosophy now and we both know where that ends up: socks and sandals!

Where is it written in stone that art must “provoke”? You didn’t label his more “accessible” poem as something which “provokes”. What does the following piece of “art” mean to the enlightened?:

I want you to feel as if I had slammed
your child’s head against a spike;
And cut off your member and stuck it in your
wife’s mouth to smoke like a cigar.

 

[Eddy]

Cradle,

Speaking from my own experience of studying English Lit at Uni, I found being ‘offended’ will not get you anywhere. What will get you somewhere is the ability to make a masterful critique of the original poem. I had to study any number of texts which could be regarded as offensive (including one course that had warning letters sent out prior to its start!). I found that the best way to respond was by critiquing the text itself.

Perhaps your professors are different, but mine were generally willing to listen to someone who disagreed with them, if the argument was well framed rather than emotive. I remember attacking one particular Scottish text (‘Maribou Stork Nightmares’ from the author of Trainspotting - horrific book), by arguing that it was badly researched and badly written, and the tutor actually ending up agreeing with me.

So, does the poet recognise that Jesus and his followers were Jews? What’s he trying to say about the cross and the swastika? What is the original source of the swastika (hint, not Christian!). Is he attacking Christ, the presentation of Christ, or the church? To what extent is his critque justified and to what extent is it not (you need to be willing to acknowledge the Church’s sins here)?

And, if the purpose of his poetry is, at some level, political, what kind of politics is he advocating, and how constructive is it? What is the poem trying to do, and is it successful. Is responding to the brutalisation of one section of society, by attacking another section helpful? If he’s claiming to speak from a Jewish perspective, to what extent does he succeed (you’re at an advantage here - you know the Jewish religous texts, ie the Old Testament)? How might he be critiqued from within his own community?

My own personal response would be to want to respond with a poem from Bonhoeffer (Lutheran pastor, poet and theologian murdered by the Nazis), but that’s probably too emotive!

Hope that’s some help.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Eddy:

Speaking from my own experience of studying English Lit at Uni, I found being ‘offended’ will not get you anywhere. What will get you somewhere is the ability to make a masterful critique of the original poem. I had to study any number of texts which could be regarded as offensive (including one course that had warning letters sent out prior to its start!). I found that the best way to respond was by critiquing the text itself.

Thank you, Eddy. This approach is particularly useful because the student in the OP is supposed to be learning methodology with which to approach literature and to create and fully participate in dialogue within a community of scholars. Banning books is not a methodology which lends itself to these goals.

Also, as any student of literature knows, the reading in these courses is brutal. If he engages in anything else other than writing a solid paper, his marks will go down. If that is going to happen then I would recommend dropping a few courses until he can resolve the matter.

Eddy:

So, does the poet recognise that Jesus and his followers were Jews? What’s he trying to say about the cross and the swastika? What is the original source of the swastika (hint, not Christian!). Is he attacking Christ, the presentation of Christ, or the church? To what extent is his critque justified and to what extent is it not (you need to be willing to acknowledge the Church’s sins here)?

Useful questions. And more useful questions would be what was the poet’s experience of anti-Semitism in Montreal and in Canada?

Eddy:

And, if the purpose of his poetry is, at some level, political, what kind of politics is he advocating, and how constructive is it? What is the poem trying to do, and is it successful. Is responding to the brutalisation of one section of society, by attacking another section helpful? If he’s claiming to speak from a Jewish perspective, to what extent does he succeed (you’re at an advantage here - you know the Jewish religous texts, ie the Old Testament)? How might he be critiqued from within his own community?

Thank you. Another angle would be to explore Christian imagery in Leonard Cohen who was Layton’s student. A compare/contrast, if you will.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Cradle:

I think you can see where my problem lies.

The problem of a very challenging poem by a very challenging poet.

What is the tone of the poem? What emotional attitude does the poet bring to the poem? (Layton’s work, as you know, is very emotive.)

Poetry is not greatly about what is being said, but about how it is being said.

Look at the end: “Your stoutest, most selfless partisans in Europe / laboured nearly two thousand years / to twist your Cross into the Swastika / that tore into our flesh like a fish-hook.”

Do you not think that some background in the Reformation might be useful here? Luther to Hitler?

Is this really primarily about Catholicism? Or some kind of struggle with perceived hypocricy?

Is Layton concerned with denominational distinctions? Why do you think he uses the term ‘idol-hating brothers and sisters’?

Think about how the Cross was twisted into a Swastika.

Look at this: " One pontiff invented the ghetto;
more tender and loving, another commanded
shivering ghosts to wear out its cobblestones
warmed by the yellow Star of David."

Is there not some use of irony here? Why would the other yellow-star commander be more “tender and loving” than the ghetto inventer? You see, he does make distinctions.

But the more important feature in this last quote is parallel structure. The first thing you should look for is parallel structure, because it tells you almost everything.

One invented…
Another commanded…

You are going to have to examine every single word for its polysemous nature. For example, look at the novel way Layton uses the term ‘fish hook.’

Also there is no way you can avoid either Layton’s Jewishness or his Canadianness. What happened to the Jews in Canada and in Montreal? What exactly is Layton’s problem? Unless you hit the books, question the rabbis and professors, you will not understand Laytons’ problem. And without understanding Layton’s problem, you will not solve your own.

Cradle:

And, of course the study of literature is supposed to be about methodologies, etc. as a previous poster said, but we all know what these things turn into, especially with material like that above…

But? Cradle, are you learning methodologies or not? If you are not, then drop the course and take something else. Granted at the undergrad in some universities studying poetry is mainly about explication. But it should be about learning critical theory.

Evidently you may have to learn critical theory earlier than you had bargained for.

It appears to me that you may be at a loss as to which method to use to approach the poem. Is that true? If that is true, then go to your prof and tell him the problem. Ask him to suggest a method which you can use.

I strongly suggest that you incorporate a historical method into whatever approach you choose.

However, if you are bound and determined to stay where you are, then you have the following options:

1. ask your prof to assign you a different poem.
2. turn in a bad paper.
3. turn in no paper.
4. ask that the poem be banned from class and thus run the risk of not having time either for this course or other courses that you are taking and therefore get bad marks which will stay with you for the rest of your life.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

You don’t have to agree with a poem to write a good paper about it. A poem does not have to be ‘nice’ to be important to a society or even to qualify as Art.

Cradle:

As for going to the class, fortunately/unfortunately (depending on how you think about it), I really can’t go since my sister has a school function that I have to attend.

When I was going to school, my school came first. Family came second. Family didn’t like that. But then again, My family had no use for school. I think it would be valuable for you to go to class.

Cradle:

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut… sigh How do things always end up like this?

It ends where you decide it ends. I’ll tell you a story of my school years.

I was in a class of four students with a world-renowned prof in a course on Classical and Biblical Influences on English Literature. I read La Vita Nuova by Dante. I was furious! I hated it! I went to class the next week and told the prof that Dante was an idiot and I didn’t understand why we had to study him.

Needless to say, he assigned me more Dante readings.

Eventually I realized that Art does not reside in one work but in what resides between works in a continuum of works. Dennis Cliff helped me with this. Although intention is the death of Art, Art must have goals. Those goals must be apparent between one work and a subsequent work.

To approach the Layton poem from this perspective, you will have to look at Layton’s other Christological poetry. Not all of it, but some of it, before and after this poem. What is the poet struggling with? But more importantly, how does his struggle reflect a general struggle within the time and place in which he lived?

By the way, I no longer think Dante is an idiot.

 

[Vaclav]

Studying literature is mostly about learning ways of understanding what was important to different cultures and to different eras. It isn’t about studying what you like. It isn’t about studying what you agree with.

I completely agree with Ani.

My advice (which is probably worth what you paid for it ) is to not internalize this poem as an attack on you. Yes, we should defend the Church, but we also need to realise that we live in a world where she is not well-liked by all and that is expressed in different ways.

I’ll offer my take (which is admittedly inferior to Ani’s).

For Jesus Christ

It began with delicate religious frissons
at the blinding of a young Jewess
who incautiously turned away her gaze
from your paraded likeness at Easter

One pontiff invented the ghetto;
more tender and loving, another commanded
shivering ghosts to wear out its cobblestones
warmed by the yellow Star of David.

Having mutilated under your mild forgiving eyes
your idol-hating brothers and sisters,
both peasant and duke knew the joys of penitence,
the ecstatic remorse in sinning flesh.

Your stoutest, most selfless partisans in Europe
laboured nearly two thousand years
to twist your Cross into the Swastika
that tore into our flesh like a fish-hook.

At first glance it should be quickly recognised that the author is relying heavily on tone and that his word use is extremely selective.

Look at the subtle play with the words “delicate” and “frissons” in the first line and then the stark and powerful self-explanatory second line.

The ghetto being discussed is a reference to the Roman ghetto approved by Paul IV, though Venice had a Jewish quarter (or ghetto) for much longer and kept it until Napoleon conquered it and thought that forcing the Jews to wear yellow jackets was ridiculous.

My honest opinion is that this poem is really very well-written, regardless of one’s view of its theme. Look at the last line:

that tore into our flesh like a fish-hook

The imagery is stark and the meaning can be quite literal. On the other hand, the symbolism is also present in the words “flesh” and “fish.”

It is a very powerful poem, seething with a bitter vengeance and almost asking Jesus and Christians - “why?”

 

[VociMike]

I have a couple of reactions to the poem.

First, the Church does suffer under every sinful act committed by her members in her name. It would be foolish to deny the reality of mistreatment of Jews by Christians in the past.

Second, he goes off the rails when he equates Christianity to Nazism. How then can he explain that the Church saved more Jews (800,000) than any allied nation? How can he explain the existence of the Priest Barracks (named for all the religious sent there) in Dachau? And the recently revealed plot by Hitler to kidnap the pope, which failed because the general in charge refused to carry it out?

So don’t defend the indefensible, but insist on the truth regarding the Nazis.

 

[Axion]

One pontiff invented the ghetto;
more tender and loving, another commanded
shivering ghosts to wear out its cobblestones
warmed by the yellow Star of David.

Not true. the first Christian ghetto was established by the City Council of Venice in 1516. In many cultures different groups have always occupied their own sections of cities.

As far as Marking Jews (and others) with special marks, this is a MUSLIM practice - which began in 717 with the PACT of UMAr which ordered Christians and Muslims to wear spefcial clothing or badges. Yellow for jews. blue for Christians. Sometimes these bore degrading images such as pigs or monkeys.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge

Your stoutest, most selfless partisans in Europe
laboured nearly two thousand years
to twist your Cross into the Swastika
that tore into our flesh like a fish-hook.

The swastika was not a Christian symbol. It has its origins in pagan Greece and India.

The implication that Christianity was behind Nazism is again false. the Nazis, in particular Hitler and Himmler despised Christianity as soft and Jewish. they prefered Nordic paganism

As for going to the class, fortunately/unfortunately (depending on how you think about it), I really can’t go since my sister has a school function that I have to attend.

Pity. You should point out the truth of this rubbish.