In this second lecture on On The Road, Professor Hungerford addresses some of the obstacles and failures to the novel’s high ambitions for achieving American community through an immediacy of communication. Sal Paradise’s desire to cross racial boundaries, for example, seems ultimately more exploitative than expansive; Dean’s exuberant language of “Yes!” and “Wow!” devolves into meaningless gibberish.
Professor Amy Hungerford’s lecture on Kerouac’s On the Road begins by contrasting the Beats’ ambition for language’s direct relation to lived experience with a Modernist sense of difficulty and mediation. She goes on to discuss the ways that desire structures the novel, though not in the ways that we might immediately expect. The very blatant pursuit of sex with women in the novel, for example, obscures the more significant desire for connection among men, particularly the narrator Sal’s love for Dean Moriarty.
In the last of three lectures on Lolita, Professor Amy Hungerford discusses the broader context of Nabokov’s relation to his novel: both the debate it inspires surrounding censorship and artistic originality, and the concern it evokes in him about the work of art’s distillation of the living world or word. Hungerford masterfully draws connections between Nabokov’s interest in lepidoptery–butterfly collecting–with his evident fear that the printed word become lapidary, or stone-like.
In this guest lecture, Teaching Fellow Andrew Goldstone provides us with some key concepts for understanding Modernism and Nabokov’s relation in particular to his literary forebears T. S. Eliot, James Joyce, and Marcel Proust. Positing the “knight’s move” as a description of Nabokov’s characteristically indirect, evasive style, Goldstone argues that Nabokov’s parodies of Modernist form in fact reveal his deep commitment to some of the same aesthetic principles.
Professor Amy Hungerford introduces the first of three lectures on Nabokov’s Lolita by surveying students’ reactions to the novel, highlighting the conflicting emotions readers feel, enjoying Nabokov’s virtuosic style, but being repelled by the violence of his subject matter. Nabokov’s childhood in tsarist Russia provides some foundation for his interest in memory, imagination, and language.
In this second lecture on Flannery O’Connor’s Wise Blood, Professor Amy Hungerford continues to offer several specific contexts in which to read and understand the novel. Having used O’Connor’s letters to delve into her theological commitments in the previous lecture, Professor Hungerford now explores the southern social context, particularly with respect to race and gender, and the New Critical writing program of which O’Connor was a product.
Professor Amy Hungerford’s first lecture on Flannery O’Connor’s Wise Blood addresses questions of faith and interpretation. She uses excerpts from O’Connor’s copious correspondence to introduce the critical framework of O’Connor’s Catholicism, but invites us to look beyond the question of redemption. What do characters see in this text, and what are they blind to? What do we see as readers, and how does methodology shape this vision?
Professor Amy Hungerford continues her discussion of Richard Wright’s classic American autobiography, Black Boy. Through a close analysis of key passages, she demonstrates an oscillation in the narrative between the socioeconomic deprivations and racial jeopardy confronting its characters, and the compensations to be found in sensual experience, the imagination, and in particular, the power of words.
In this first lecture Professor Hungerford introduces the course’s academic requirements and some of its central concerns. She uses a magazine advertisement for James Joyce’s Ulysses and an essay by Vladimir Nabokov (author of Lolita, a novel on the syllabus) to establish opposing points of view about what is required to be a competent reader of literature. The contrast between popular emotional appeal and detached artistic judgment frames literary debates from the Modernist, and through the post-45 period.
In this final lecture on literary theory, Professor Paul Fry revisits the relationship between language and speech, language and intention, and language and communication. Over the course of this discussion, he retrospectively defines theory as a means of establishing the extent to which “it is legitimate to be suspicious of communication.” Along the way, he reconnects with New Criticism, Jakobson, Bakhtin, Saussure, de Man, Fish, and Knapp and Michaels.
