Violence and the Constitution of the Novel...
Also known as how to fry your brain like an egg.
Normally I don't find that I have a lot of problems with wordy pieces but I think that this one takes me well beyond my normal 'wordy piece'. I'm not exactly certain who David Lloyd was writing this piece for, however I take the fact that it was so overly verbose as meaning it wasn't meant for your average student. Now that being said I will give Mr. Lloyd plenty of credit for addressing perhaps some of the most touchy and difficult topics of Irish literature, much less culture.
One of the major topics that I actually took a bit of an interest in was the analysis of the subaltern culture and how it was possible for the Irish to be considered a subaltern group if we were "overstepping the limits of Gramsci's largely class-oriented thinking" (126), and not just the Irish. Several other groups were allowed to be considered subaltern in this extension of understanding, including those on a gender basis.
Now if I understood some of what Lloyd was saying correctly, a good portion of why the Irish were and in fact still are portrayed as overly violent has a great deal to do with their revolutionary relationship with the British Kingdom. Lloyd pointed out that "Violence is always without the law. For, within nationalist history, what was violence becomes, in Walter Benjamin's terms, 'sanctioned' and thereby ceases to be violence insofar as bloodshed is subordinated to the founding of the state." (126) If we look at that quote, keeping in mind the history and the manner in which history is written, it's no wonder that the Irish to the blunt end of the publicity stick to the proverbial face and still are till this day. There is no love lost between the Irish and the British but to see it stretch beyond the standard politic floor and bar bashing is a point of view that I hadn't considered. This very idea draws us back toward the idea of a subaltern group. In this case it follows Lloyd and Gramsci's direct line of thought where the 'dominant history' over rides almost all of the subaltern group, to anyone besides that group. To me this is just an obnoxiously over complicated way to say history is written by the victors.
I can only think that this idea is strengthened by Lloyd's statements on pg 142, where he is analyzing Bartlett's article on death's in Irish Conflicts. When Lloyd points out that "what might be called the economy of Irish violence seems literally improbable or illegitimate to English observers," he highlights the fact that the English, and if you look at it closely for the time period, the majority of the rest of the world, don't understand the necessary level of violence as part of a struggling society. It simply seems to the outsider that the Irish are violent to be violent, when in truth they're fighting for the necessities of life, which, according to Bartlett's numbers, were not often lost in the more agrarian disturbances of the time. This still placed an impression on the world at large which, once made, was nearly possible to undue.
After reading Lloyd's piece, my opinion states that a good portion of the reason that the Irish novel is often so rife with violence is due to simple misunderstandings and socio-political blackballing on the behalf of the British. In all honesty without the British fanning the flames of how, and I'm stating stereotypes here, uncouth and barbaric the Irish were in comparison to 'civil societies', I doubt that the overt violence would have held on for this long. Then again those are just my opinions.
Hi Kayla,
ReplyDeleteI also had a lot of trouble with this “wordy” piece of writing. I’m not entirely sure as to why David Lloyd was writing this piece. Maybe just to point out the fact that much of the nineteenth century Irish novel is contradictory and misunderstood. Violence seems to play an encompassing role as to why so much of the novel is considered to be “inadequate.” I found it interesting when you said that a good portion of why the Irish were in fact and are still portrayed as overly violent has a great deal to do with their revolutionary relationship with the British Kingdom. This makes me want to research that many of the novelists that Lloyd references.
I like how you inferred that history is often written by the victors. I agree with what you are saying. Often many accounts of history are told from a single perspective. I think that you raised a lot of good points here. Like when you said a good portion of the Irish novel is inadequate due to misunderstandings and socio-political blackballing on behalf of the British. Now I don’t want to point any fingers here because I am definitely not “scholarly” enough to pass any sort of judgment, but it seems to me that Lloyd does point fingers at certain novelists for the inadequacy of the nineteenth century Irish novel. I enjoyed reading your reflection because it also made me ponder if the British did in fact “fan the flames” and make the violent nature of Irish an exaggeration…
Kayla,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I loved your title as well as your subtitle, “How to fry your brain like an egg”. Both made me laugh and were quite appropriate. I also really enjoy your writing style. It’s very easy to read and follow.
Initially I think I was completely on the same page as you regarding the violent nature or stereotype of the Irish people. You stated, “It simply seems to the outsider that the Irish are violent to be violent, when in truth they're fighting for the necessities of life, which, according to Bartlett's numbers, were not often lost in the more agrarian disturbances of the time. This still placed an impression on the world at large which, once made, was nearly possible [sic] to undue.” With respects to the timing of the 19th century novel, I would agree completely that the violence in Ireland was due to “fighting for the necessities of life”. However, I remembered hearing a lot about the IRA (Irish Republican Army) over the years and decided to do a little more digging on that topic. I think that initially this group was probably part of the fight for what the Irish needed to obtain their freedom. However, this group and a few others took a much more extreme approach later on in the Irish history; even going against what other nationalist wanted to do to obtain independence. These groups took on a guerilla warfare approach which often caused civilian fatalities due to their actions and the responsive actions of those against these groups, being other Irish nationalist or British forces.
Unfortunately these extremists still exist particularly in Northern Ireland and are considered terrorist groups at this point. In my opinion, it is more this violence that has likely lead the world to view Ireland as a more violent country. However, this once again is a stereotype that has been caused by a few groups of extremist, which is present just about everywhere.
Hey Kayla!
ReplyDeleteWell the first interesting point that you’ve brought up today is who in the world WAS Lloyd writing this article for?!? I wondered that myself when I was reading his article. Not being an English major I find it difficult to read literary critiscims and understand the jargin fully I mean I make due but this one really did take a toll on me!
I didn’t look into the meaning of subaltern culture like you did so it was nice to see some feed back on that topic. I definitely bared in mind that this culture is never the dominant culture (like you mentioned) and their history is over written by the dominant culture and they are categorized by this same dominant culture. I didn’t necessarily think of the dominant culture as being the “victors” like you said but it does seem true that the people writing history texts and like in Lloyds arguments judging literature are the ones who have at one point held rule over other nations.
But I do have to disagree with you that the reason for violence in nineteenth century Irish writings is British stereotyping. I believe that the message coming across in Lloyds article is that the British misunderstood this violence as unjustified. Given they did play a large role in establishing and continuing the stereotype of a violent nation but I believe that the reason for so much violence in the Irish novel was the fact that the novelists themselves were surrounded by the violence and writing to me seems to mirror the environment of the writer in most cases. That may just be me though.
Hi Kayla,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the compliments on my blog. First, I would like to commend you also for your writing style. I really find it interesting and think your ability to simplify over-worded statements, like you said, "This very idea draws us back toward the idea of a subaltern group. In this case it follows Lloyd and Gramsci's direct line of thought where the 'dominant history' over rides almost all of the subaltern group, to anyone besides that group. To me this is just an obnoxiously over complicated way to say history is written by the victors." is a very relatable to many readers.
I totally agree that history is written by the victors. If you think about it almost the entire world is still a product of British colonialism and modern practice of imperialistic methods. In reading your blog and the text it made me think how even what we consider to be the "western" or "eastern" side of the world has to do with the British "victors" Think about standardized way of time keeping the world considers is legitimate: GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). Where does time begin?....on a line that is drawn straight through Britain. So viewing Britain as a center center of the world, "east or "west" becomes a product of a time keeping system the British considered "superior".
You also helped me understand further by saying:
"Now if I understood some of what Lloyd was saying correctly, a good portion of why the Irish were and in fact still are portrayed as overly violent has a great deal to do with their revolutionary relationship with the British Kingdom. Lloyd pointed out that"...
"Violence is always without the law. For, within nationalist history, what was violence becomes, in Walter Benjamin's terms, 'sanctioned' and thereby ceases to be violence insofar as bloodshed is subordinated to the founding of the state." (126)
This is exactly right. If someone invades your land through violence and keeps the indigenous people suppressed through military force...how is oppression of that severity supposed to be dealt with? By even fighting back literally (or through methods of literature or retention of culture) Britain (the colonizer) will, by default, deem that violence as immoral and use it against its subjects (stereotyping) as further cause to impose violence back upon them...thus the long and complex history of animosity between the Irish and British.
Hey Kayla,
ReplyDeleteI love the first sentence of your blog, “How to fry your brain like an egg”. I feel like it really summarized the essay well, while captured the essence of the writing☺. As for whom the essay was intended for, I highly doubt it was intended for anyone with an I.Q. score under 150.
I completely agree with the comment that you made about how the victors are the ones that write history, and in the case of Irish history, unjustly. I feel like Britain almost dehumanized these so-called “subaltern” groups by making them appear to be these savage people who used violence as almost a sport in the quest for what they wanted. The stereotype about violence surrounding Ireland is definitely based on a double standard created by the British to justify their own “state-sanctioned” violence and the violence done by the Irish lower class.
I found it very interesting what you said about a certain level of violence being a necessary factor to a struggling society. Ireland being a country fighting for freedom against the British tyrants made their use of violence just the more justifiable. Though I do not condone violence, believing what Lloyd said, “Violence is always without the law,”(126) I do find that the violence committed by the Irish lower class was more understandable than that done by the British. As you stated earlier, the Irish were fighting for some of the bear necessities in life, one happening to be land, which in the eyes of the British, as they so gracefully put it, made the subaltern groups look archaic. Though through this all the British were using excuses such as religion and national security to cover up their violence, using such terms as “state-sanctioned” to justify their actions.
I find your final opinion to be very accurate. If it were not for the British fueling the stereotype of Irish violence, the violence in Ireland may not have held out for so long, and maybe it would not have affected the Irish novel in the way that it had in making it, as so many have called it, “inadequate.”