Proposal

Hey everyone.
So I was planning on waking up early this morning to finish editing my proposal, but an emergency came up a few hours ago and I have to go home right now to take care of it, so this is a very rough draft of my basic proposal that I did not have the chance to look over. I tried to convey a lot of material and I had some trouble channeling my thoughts. I'll come back later tonight and work out all the kinks.

I have always been very fascinated by Carl Jung’s development of archetypes and how they apply to literature. Basically the theory states that archetypes can be used as a literary device to emphasize personality or further traditional narratives. Jung applies this theory to myths and manifestations of the subconscious but several scholars have argued that the archetypal theory can be applied to modern literature.
One thing I noticed when I first started learning about archetypes is that they are largely divided by gender. Granted, in some cases the gender roles are reversed as in the case of the anima/animus, but for the most part the roles are typified into the two sects of gender. I am curious to see how the archetypal theory of self-actualization manifests in the role of a trans-gender individual.
My theory regarding trans-gender archetypes in the novel of Trans-Sister Radio is that the transgendered character, Dana, embodies a double archetype, e.g. the twin double or . Dana represents both sides of the double/counterpart archetype. This archetype represents a physical manifestation of what Jung calls “dissociation,” and the surgical change that Dana goes through within the novel is a physical manifestation of her psychological development. At the end of the novel Dana attains self-actualization by settling all the gender and sexual issues that she struggles with throughout.
My thesis is roughly this: The character Dana within the novel Trans-Sister Radio is an archetypal symbol of a double/counterpart whose dissociation is manifested in her gender issues.

Annotated Bibliography:

Brunel, Pierre. Companion to Literary Myths: Heroes and Archetypes. London: Routledge, 1992. Print.
This is book is roughly a dictionary-format of various archetypes and their role in myths. I’ve transposed the mythical function onto contemporary literature because I feel that it is relevant. I mainly focused on the books descriptions of archetypes in general and how they apply to literature, either through symbols or narrative. This is also where I discovered a description of the double/counterpart archetype for the first time and realized that it applied to our novel.

Jung, C. G., and Marie-Luise Von Franz. Man and His Symbols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964. Print.
Basic understand of all the archetypal symbols, their roles, their meanings and their psychological impact. This book is written to explain archetypal symbols in dreams, but the symbols carry over into literature. It also offers some historical examples of the archetypes, e.g. Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde as an archetypal symbol of the double/counterpart. The archetypes depicted in this text are largely gender specific.


Lauter, Estella, and Carol Schreier Rupprecht. Feminist Archetypal Theory: Interdisciplinary Re-visions of Jungian Thought. Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 1985. Print.
This book covers a lot of the same material covered in the other book I found about feminist archetypal theory. But I chose this book because it depicts the historical development of the archetypal theory and its application to literature. The book depicts the historical development from starting with Jung then moving to Frye and finally to Levi-Strauss. This book is more useful in describing how and why subconscious archetypes have become applicable to all types of literature.

Wehr, Demaris S. Jung & Feminism: Liberating Archetypes. Boston: Beacon, 1989. Print.Anima/animus.
This book explores the role of Jungian archetypes and how they fit in with the modern development of the feminist theory. The exploration of feminist archetypes is incredibly significant within Trans-Sister Radio because of the fact that Dana’s transition is applicable to both sides of the gender spectrum but ultimately Dana is inherently female throughout the text. This book has a very interesting section regarding the anima/animus distinction in literary archetypes and suggests that the role of gender in literature is based more on behavior than on anatomy.

Whitmont, Edward C. The Symbolic Quest: Basic Concepts of Analytical Psychology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1991. Print.
This book focuses on the archetypal narrative in which a journey takes place in order for the characters to attain self-actualization. Whitmont describes the process of transformation and healing in relation to the archetypal quest, emphasizing the significance of dramatic shifts and experiences. He also illuminates the role of the community and a character’s role in relation to societal opinion and the effect it has on the development of the psyche.

The subject of this blog entry continues to be the cantaloupe.

Another literary device that Kevin Stein uses in his poem "Tract" is imagery. Tract uses sensory language in order to emphasize the significance of the cantaloupe. Stein doesn't remain in the realm of visual imagery. Instead he employs all five senses in order to draw attention to the cantaloupe and other fruit, including: watermelon, tomatoes and cortland apples. This strategy improves the aesthetics of the poem, introducing linguistic art with the sarcastic tone.
In fact, the incredible sensory language that Stein uses is one of the major reasons I love this poem so much. Stein sets a tone using beautiful visual language, then strays away from the tone and then reigns it back in. He strays off topic, uses the imagery to describe another type of produce, then goes back to the cantaloupe. Example:
This poem's subject is the cantaloupe tilting
its burnished head in the garden's black dirt.
Its sensuous tumescence. Its musky scent.
This poem does not give a gnat's whit about
tomatoes the learned once called "love apples."
So Stein starts the poem introducing the alleged subject cantaloupe, goes on to describe the physical setting and then the scent of the aforementioned cantaloupe, and then moves on to use sensory language on tomatoes.
The imagery is what makes this poem great. Without using the sensory language to tantalize the reader before straying off topic, this poem would be largely intolerable. If Stein hadn't described the cantaloupe's "burnished head" or its "musky scent" we, the readers, wouldn't give "a gnat's whit" about any of the produce mentioned, cantaloupe or otherwise. But, because Stein DID choose to seduce the reader with beautiful descriptions of the sensory elements the reader has become intrigued and wants to know more about the cantaloupe and continues reading.
Stein's language is aesthetically appealing specifically because it does appeal to the senses. When writing about a poem fruit it would be silly not to make the fruit sound delicious or appealing. In the poem Stein uses descriptions of taste, sound, smell, texture and of course sight. By awakening these senses in the reader Stein is awakening interest. By then immediately straying off topic from the fruit, which he has just made so appealing, he then heightens the readers intrigue. They want to know more about the cantaloupe, which he has so richly described, but instead Stein has moved on to talking about simile.
I think the use of imagery and irony is what appeals to me so much about this poem. It also appeals to me as a lover of poetry and of produce. It also makes me really want to eat cantaloupe.

The subject of this blog entry is the cantaloupe.

"Tract" by Kevin Stein was probably my favorite poem in the book so far, but what struck me the most was the use of irony to convey the message.
Stein begins the poem with the "This poem's subject is the cantaloupe" and follows with a physical description of the cantaloupe in the ground. The description is lovely and poetic, but it is also one of the few moments in the poem in which the subject, i.e. the cantaloupe is ever explicitly described. Ironic, because cantaloupe is supposedly the subject of the poem.
For the majority of the poem Stein talks about how he is only going to talk about the cantaloupe and how he will not stray off topic from the cantaloupe. However, whenever he mentions an example of something that he is not going to do, he then goes on and does it.
Example:
"This poem won't employ simile to imply the process is like
a woman's ripening, when mind rushes its juices
through her body's flushed fruit..."
Stein's strategy of reiterating the subjectivity of the poem as the cantaloupe when he is clearly not talking about cantaloupe is ironic. I believe what Stein is really trying to say is that poetry is never subjective and to prove that he is showing us various poetic strategies. The subject of this poem, therefore, is not cantaloupe. What Stein is really trying to address is poetry in general, and by employing various devices Stein is saying that subjective poems are hardly ever really subjective.
So, by stating that his poem is about cantaloupe when it is clearly not about cantaloupe is ironic because the poem is about poetry and not about cantaloupe. And by dismissing the idea that the poem is about anything besides the cantaloupe and then going on to talk about subjects besides cantaloupe further emphasizes the irony, because the subject of the poem is not cantaloupe but by repeatedly stating that it is about cantaloupe just keeps proving that it's not about cantaloupe, it's about other things. Things that are not cantaloupe.

In case anyone was wondering, I used the word "cantaloupe" 20 times in this post.

Cantaloupe.
21.