Professor Crawford's poetry comparison lecture was effective mainly owing to her incorporation of Eve Sedgwick's interpretation of homosocial desire. Crawford convinced me of the relevance of this theory to the blazon tradition almost as soon as she introduced the question of why the authors might have written the poems that they wrote—in this case, Robert Herrick's "Upon the Nipples of Julia's Breast" and "Contreblason du Tetin," by Clément Marot. By analyzing specific verses and identifying the vehicles and the tenor there within, it appeared to me that Crawford explained the impact of the poems in consideration, their divergences and their similarities, as they match up in the blazon style.
The weakest element of Crawford's argument was her decision to ignore the active role that women may play, or choose not to play, in the theory of homosocial desire. I agree that the main thrust of her analysis fell within the realm of masculine relations, yet I think it was a mistake not to acknowledge, with a short and subtle digression, the influence that a woman holds over these social relations. Also, she said the word "right" way too much. It became distracting. And on that (perhaps superficial) note, I would likewise advise Crawford to stop her attempts at a French accent when pronouncing words in that language. Her accent is awful.
No comments:
Post a Comment