Culler presents interesting ideas about cultural studies and literature. He states that they almost oppose or conflict with each other. I have always believed that literature and culture went hand in hand, and literature was the result of culture. Culler presents the problem of "literary excellence" and the problems it presents. We are only exposed to a minute, minuscule amount of works from certain time periods in our lives. It is not logistically feasible to read every "great" work of every period, so the few that we do read represent a certain culture, for the most part. The canon of literature is always changing, but I believe that our world has a complex, embedded pattern to it, reoccurring themes that will never die, no matter how much time changes things. From history, we can see that things repeat and human nature has relatively been untouched, not to say that context doesn't change things. We are so rooted in archetypes that even culture has to draw from it. Literature is a window into culture. It isn't necessarily traditional or conventional , so I don't see how it could conflict with culture.
Barry introduces the idea of a "decentralized universe." At first I thought he meant that there was no center to anything, but what I think he actually meant was that it is impossible to find because centers change, so there can't be a center. Relativity is the only way to know where we are I guess. I think it's not as uncontrolled as he makes it out to be. There is not center but there has to be an origin. It's not like both relative points were generated on their own. I think ideas and notions are linked to more than just their paradox, so it's a really complicated idea to grasp...
Nietzsche's quote "there are no facts, only interpretation," actually made me question the validity of the statement. Barry explains the anxiety of language and how it can be misinterpreted and how close reading attempts to erase that. "Facts" are also and interpretation, I understand. However, we call them facts because they are grounded. They are predictable. I think there are such things as facts because it has grown from being just an interpretation. Facts are higher forms of interpretation, I think.
I found Derrida's "Grammatology" to reinforce things that I've learned. "There is nothing outside the text," really resonated with me. We cannot possible reconstruct intentions because we can only build from what is given to us, which is the text. He mentions several times "the death of the author." I have learned that an emotional severance from the author really allows the text to speak in it's own way. "A Refusal to Mourn" is a great example of how the text can live on it's own, not to say that it spontaneously formed without an author. By deconstructing the poem, we see that there are contradictions in the language that are similar to real life. This part of the structure parallels the emotional state of human emotions, which are not clear. Like in times of death and like the poem, emotion and language are muddled. This partly connects with the post structuralist "reading against the grain." It's interesting to see that they look for disunity in a piece. I think it's hard to find unity simply because so many contradictions exist even within itself.
