MaraBarreiro

"By daylight, she is subdued, quiet. I fancy it is the pattern that keeps her so still. It is puzzling. It keeps me quiet by the hour." (Gilman 536)

This psychological study of one womans slow, quiet descent into madness is incredibly suspenseful. The reader gets the opportunity, through the woman's writing, to delve into her psyche and explore the changes that she goes through as her time in this prison with yellow wallpaper drives her over the edge. I liked how she would be talking about something completely different, showing the reader the other obstacles which surround her, like her husband and sister-in-law, and then suddenly the wallpaper would have the foreground again.

It becomes truly interesting when she begins to see a woman inside the paper trying to get out. What she doesn't come to realize is she is seeing herself. It is the narrator who is shaking the bars of her own insanity trying to get out. The woman she sees is subdued in the daytime because the narrator is quiet and subdued during the day. The paper has her as mesmorized as it does the phantom woman behind it. It is only at night that she begins to creep.

"Since the meaning represented by a text is that of another, the interpreter can never be certain that his reading is correct. He knows furthermore that the norms of langue by themselves are far too broad to specify the particular meanings and emphases represented by the text, that these particular meanings were specified by particular kinds of subjective acts on the part of the author, and that these acts, as such, remain inaccessible." (Hirsch 23)

Anyone can assume to know the mind of the author, and I suppose in a way we try to figure out to the best of our abilities what the writer is trying to portray through his writing. But, only the author can know what prompted him/her to write in the first place, let alone why he/she might make certain word choices. The only thing we can do as interpreters of the text is to know how to verify certain criteria. I think many times all it takes is study and common sense. We learn class after class what to look for when we are close reading, what to look for in symbols and metaphor, but what it truly comes down to is realizing that we can never enter the mind of the authors themselves, and in that perspective there will always be a discrepancy in our translation to specify exactly what the author was trying to convey.

Apostrophe (a-POS-troh-fee) an address to a dead person or absent person or to an inanimate object or abstract concept. (Hamilton 62)

I think this word can be confusing because we want to think of the grammatical ways of using an apostrophe. It always takes me a second to get my bearings when I see this word used in this context. I guess by now it shouldn't be that unusual for me, but I still seem to want to make a bunch of these " ' " instead of taking Shakespeares lead and addressing dead people. Though the addressing dead people or inanimate objects is much more interesting than the punctuation.

"Hermeneutics, as we have seen, tends to concentrate on works of the past: the theoretical questions it asks arise mainly from this perspective. This is hardly surprising, given its scriptrural beginnings, but it is also significant: it suggests that criticism's main role is to make sense of the classics." (Eaglton 64)

If criticism's main goal is to make sense of the classics, what about the modern literature of today? In some ways I get the sense, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that criticism can be a bit prejudice in it's choice of what is "classic" and what isn't. I realize that this goes along with the canonnization of literature and the choices that are made in the consideration of what is worthy, but it bothers me. There are so many new and exciting literary choices out in our world today and sometimes I feel that we miss them as scholars. We neglect them because they may not seem "intellectual" enough. I am not saying that every piece of literature should be deemed worthy, God forbid, but I do think, as an example, we tend to overlook popular fiction, because we see it as only entertainment. As the text says, Gadamer would not have "grappled with Norman Mailer."
How many years will it be until the writings of our own generation, or even those before us, be seen as works of literary value or will they ever?

"Monster, I will kill this man: his daugh
ter and I will be king and queen;-save our
graces!-and Trinculo and thyself shall be vice
roys.-Dost thou like the plot, Trinculo?" (III. ii The Tempest)

Oh, how the plot thickens. In true Shakespearian style everyone desires to be top dog. I think what I love best in any Shakespearian play are the drunkards who desire to be king. Stephano the drunk butler stumbles into the scene with drink in hand and believes since the king Alonso is presumed dead, that he has a shot at the title. Only a fool, such as Stephano and his little band of misfits could believe they had a chance at royalty.

Prospero has become kinglike after his takeover of the spirit laden island. Caliban the "monster" who ruled there originally wants his power back and King Alonso and his men are in a power struggle. But, it is a drunkard who, only in his idiocy, begins to rule without compulsion. He has already begun to mandate rules and wave superiority over the two following him; Trinculo, the jester and Caliban, the monster. The Tempest is a story, within a story, within a story. The real story is Prospero and his plans to become the true Duke and take down those who expelled him unjustly. The love story between Ferdinand and Miranda, which is also a plan of Prospero, is put into motion to help him win back his dukedom. But, it is the story of the fools which intrigues me. I have always loved Shakespeares ability to make us laugh as he weaves his romantic tragedies. The dialogue between these three is a true comedic parallel to whats happening in the rest of the story. It keeps us entertained, as well as, showing us the ridiculousness of those who desire power so much that they cheat, steal and kill to get it.

Read what others have to say about The Tempest!

"Without clarity, we seldom think well; without provocation, we seldom think at all. (Keesey 7)"

Clarity is seeing clearly, of course. Provocation is the act of stirring something or someone up, usually it is used in the sense of angering someone. Think on this for a minute. As readers we must clearly see what we are reading and understand the issues, at least somewhat understand the issues. But, to have a piece of literature or an essay provoke us into a response, or prod us into finding answers, this is true discovery. Everyone has an opinion about what they read, but have we ever really looked at it as literature provoking a response from the reader. It doesn't matter if the response is good or bad, if it is loved or hated, just the fact that it forced you into a corner and caused enough emotion in you to have a response, to think on it critically, then it has done its job. And it has done its job well. I hope everything I read provokes me to think. This is the joy of reading.

"...to demand of the historical critic that he should in all circumsstances limit himself to seeing in a Shakespeare play only as much as the dramatist himself might have seen and in something like the very terms in which he would have seen it is to ask, in large measure, that literary studies should be stopped. (Watson 33).

It is impossible to know what an author intended. And I agree with the quote above, if it is demanded of the critic to limit himself only to what the author intended then as critics we lose focus on what is deeper inside the text. Knowing the authors intent is a great place to start, but critics must dig deeper. It's like we talked about in class last week. Even if we had Shakespeare sitting in our classroom telling us exactly what he wanted us to get out of The Tempest, how many people would argue with him that they discovered even more than he was giving? And how would his opinion change from when he wrote the drama to now?

"...it does not, of course, necessarily follow that Shakespeare's audience would have valued individual rights over the interests of the state, or would have associated political obedience with the abuses of facism (Yachin 40)"

I think it is good to remember that the facts of history do play a huge part in interpreting a text. It doesn't necessarily have to be the only way, nor should it, but to fully comprehend the deeper meanings and issues of a text history should be acknowledged. There is always the possibility of making an historical piece of literature our own, but we miss the implications of its past, and our own, if we completely ignore the time inwhich it was written. The original audience is relevant to the understanding of the work. Shakespeare was writing for his peers and the audience of 1611, not for the audience of 2009. The political connotations of today are not the same as they were then. I think sometimes it is difficult for us to remember that, because we have become so ingrained in our own culture and political circumstances.

"Repetition becomes a prominent figure in Shakespeare's late style generally, and The Tempest in particular derives much of its poetic power from phonetic lexical, and syntactical reiteration." (McDonald 101)

One of the first things I noticed while reading The Tempest was the repetition. It forces the reader to recognize that something important is happening in these scenes. I went back a few times and reread where the repetition seemed to echo through the text. McDonald does a wonderful job of pulling out these lines.

The power of repetition works on the mind subconsciously. The reader senses a sort of deja vu which inclines them to reread or study those repetitive lines. Shakespeare knew he could capture the attention of his audience with the emotion of repetitiion.

"The ideal reader or 'super-reader' posited by structuralism was in effect a transcendental subject absolved from all limiting social determinates. But not even Levi-Strauss was able to read texts as would the Almighty himself." (Eagleton 105)

Structuralism, much like all the other schools of criticism we have been studying, can be a method to use when interpreting a piece of literature, but it cannot be the only method used. There are way too many restrictions. When I first started reading Eagleton's essay I found myself going along with the structuralist system. But, then I realized that to just concentrate on the rules and expel the "human subject," ergo take humanity out of literature, was a disturbing concept. Concentrating on only the rules and seeming to have a God-like knowledge of these rules was a bit ridiculous.

I liked this quote because it shows that only the Almighty himself would be able to have the capacity for true structuralist criticism. Later in the text Eagleton brings up a valid point he says "the competent reader is one who can apply to the text certain rules; but what are the rules for applying rules? (109)" This also goes against the structuralists teaching. For who put the laws and rules there in the first place?

"They (the formal critics) seem to claim no specail expertise beyond well-developed powers of observation and a sharpened sense of what to look for. And we can all play the game. We test their reading against the poem and accept, reject, or modify that reading as our own understanding of the text demands. Indeed, we must all play the game, for the analysis never substitutes for the poem." (Keesey 78-79)

So, unlike the historical critic, as it says in our text just before these lines I've quoted, the formalists don't boast an expertise just well-developed powers of observation. Doesn't this type of criticism still demand some type of expertise? A formalist critic still has to understand the mechanics of a poem to study structure and poetic terms. Later in this section of the text Keesey says that if what the formalists believe about analyizing poetry is true then anyone, even those who do not understand structure and poetic terminology should be able to explicate a poem. But, since this is rarely the case I feel it proves that there has to be some specialization other than well-developed powers of observation.

I agree with Keesey that we can all play this game. The sentence I left out of my quote was, "the critics can tell us where to look and what to look for; we have to see for ourselves" (Keesey 79). What it all comes down to is that as long as we play the game we are able to come to our own conclusions. The formalist critics chant structure, structure, structure, but they have to know what it is they are looking at first.

"Certainly the repetition conveys a sense of strain and desperation. Yet the repetition equally suggests a poverty or inadequacy in language itself, perhaps implying that the poet has reached the upper limits of his power to articulate his experience." (Kent 114)

Okay, a few blogs earlier I spoke of repetition and how it can be used as a powerful tool in poetry. It brings the reader back to certain thoughts and ideas and it can express emotion. Now, we have someone who claims that repetition is a deficiency on the part of the poet. Is he serious? Or am I missing a bigger picture? I'm having a difficult time understanding where Kent is coming up with this. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it or I have missed something in the text that explains his statement.

I just have a hard time believing that Keats had reached his limit in articulation, so he began to use repetition. A poet has reasons for the word choices he/she makes and I don't quite believe that "Ode on a Grecian Urn" contained repetition because Keats couldn't articulate himself properly.

Read what others have to say.

"...the elements of a poem are related to each other, not as blossoms juxtaposed in a bouquet, but as the blossoms are related to the other parts of a growing plant. The beauty of the poem is the flowering of the whole plant,a nd needs the stalk, the leaf, and the hidden roots." (Brooks 85)

I love these lines. I like how Brooks uses metaphor to explain metaphor, and the need of it in poetry. What would be the point of poetry if it just said what it meant. Poetry would no longer exist and the world would be a sad place, especially for all us english majors who love this stuff. There is no better way to speak of poetry than by speaking in a poetic voice. Brooks uses these images to great advantage when making his point of the importance of metaphor in poetry.

Okay, Hamilton needs more words. There was that whole list Dr. Jerz said we could use from Mcdonald's essay and I can't find one of them in Hamilton's book. In fact I couldn't find them anywhere, are we sure McDonald didn't just make them up? Anyway, I'm going to just have to pick a word, any word...

Irony-"presents a deliberate contrast between two levels of meaning. The word derives from a type of character in Greek drama, the eiron, who pretended to be stupid and unaware. He used the pretense to decieve and triumph over a stock character, the alazon, who was truly stupid, but boastful and complacent." (Hamilton 44)

I actually learned something picking this word, I had not known about the Greek dramatic characters. That was really interesting.

"Although no reader-response critic gives the text the autonomy that the formal critic would give it, some do see the text as considerably restricting the range of readings they will accept. So these critics must construct some hypothetical reader whose responses will be in conformity with the text's clues, and they show consequently, little interest in the responses of actual readers. Other reader-response critics largely reverse this emphasis." (Keesey 138)

Okay, so for the reader-response critic there are two main perspectives to consider, the actual reader or the hypothetical reader. Again, I have to say that perhaps the best solution to this is a mixture of both. The hypothetical or "implied" reader is difficult for me as an authority in reading text, because this perfect or ideal reader does not exist. But, on the other hand I can also see how actual readers can have flaws. An actual reader can, for example, have preconcieved ideas of how a poem or text should be written, or they can just not be qualified to be a critic. But, then we get into the whole arguement, who or what makes one qualified? Perhaps no one is truly qualified.

So, I think that this falls right back into the discussion we have been having in class; this is another school of criticism which doesn't seem to stand well on it's own. The choices are an actual reader, who has flaws, or a hypothetical reader who doesn't exist. And how can we be sure that one persons hypothetical reader is the perfect reader for that particular text?

"The sacrifice of the real reader's own beliefs would mean the loss of the whole repertoire of historical norms and values, and this in turn would entail the loss of the tension which is a precondition for the processing and for the comprehension that follows it." (Iser 146)

I felt that Iser's essay gave an outstanding view and interpretation of the different types of reader-response criticisms that can be employed. I chose this quote because for me it summed up the whole implied and actual reader struggle that I was having as I read this essay. My problem with the implied or hypothetical reader, which I also mention in my blog on Keesey, is the whole idea of a nonexistent person telling me what to comprehend from a text. Iser cleans up the idea behind the implied reader. There still has to be some type of structure for this reader-response method to work.

But, back to the quote, what I found interesting about this quote was that to have a true response the reader has to be real. Without human beliefs, emotions, and values, aren't we at risk of making the whole work obsolete? What would be the point of doing any of this, of even caring about literature and it's meaning if we take the humanity out of it? But, on the other hand, we do have to open ourselves up to new ideas and sometimes distance ourselves from our beliefs to delve into a role that the text offers for us. I believe there can be a fine line and as readers and critics we must know when the line can be crossed and when to stay on our own side.

"The narrator is the shadow figure in "Benito Cereno" who operates in the background, stirring the pot and adding murkiness that appears unnecessary to the plot (unless a crucial plot element is seen to be the creation of confusion, not just in Delano, but in the reader as well). (O'Connell 191)

O'Connell explains eloquently how Melville's narrator was the perfect manipulator in this text. The narrator is the "shadow figure" playing the reader along on a journey where the outcome seems so sure. From an historical point of view a reader could be fooled by the narration, because this would have been a time when there were people who thought it was okay to regard African Americans in this light, or at least would have believed that perhaps Melville, himself, held such regard.

This essay showed the astuteness that a reader must have when coming to a text. "Benito Cereno" is a great example of a text that could, and has been, misinterpreted by the reader, if the reader is not looking closely at the text and reading "wisely."

Narrator: "is the one who tells the story. His or her identity differs from that of the author, because the narrator is always in some sense the author's invention, one of the devices that he or she is using to shape the narrative. The narrator often differs from the author in age, gender, outlook, or cicumstances." (Hamilton 112)

I chose the term "narrator" because it was discussed in our essays this week, especially in O'Connells. And it still doesn't cease to amaze me that there are those who constantly want to combine the narrator and the author. These are two different entities and should be treated as such. For example,just because the narrator of a story is gender biased does not mean that the author is.

"As he thus responded, Captain Delano again glanced at Don Benito, but the latter's eyes were averted; while abruptly and awkwardly shifting the subject, he made some peevish allusion tot he calm and then, without apology, once more, with his attendant, withdrew to the opposite bulwarks,, where the whispering was resumed." (Melville 501)

This may seem like a strange and random quote, but for me this was my turning point in the story, this is when I began to grow suspicious of the servant. This scene happens directly after Don Benito asks Delano about the men and guns on his ship. At first I thought, oh, Benito is a pirate, or something of that nature, but there was something about the whole servant and whispering that was going on in these few scenes that didn't sit well with me. Above this passage that I quoted I have written "servant the master?" I knew something was not right with Babo and Benito's subservient way of reacting around him.

But, honestly Melville had me going quite a few times. It wasn't really till later that I figured out for sure that the slaves had taken over the ship, this was just where I became suspicious.

Do you think the reader-response to this text is as confusing now as it seemed to have been at an earlier time in history? Do you think this has to do with the way we view history and the way we view our own world and culture today?

"For while my main concern here is with reading (albeit largely and perhaps imperfectly defined), I think it worth noting that there exists an intimate interaction between readers and writers in and through wich each defines for the other what s/he is about." (Kolodny 196).

I like this quote because to me it epitomizes the context of this essay. The whole point, I felt, Kolodny was trying to make was that there are difficulties in interpretation when reading outside of who we are. It only makes sense that a woman would see certain objects differently than a man would and vice versa. This is true in reality as well as in fiction. And for the time period, in which the text she uses as examples of misinterpretation, were written it makes even more sense. Woman were not taken as seriously as they are today as writers. Again, there is an absolute need to look at the historical aspects of the canonical work during the writing of the texts involved in this essay. The readers responses to them would be drastically different, in all reality though, even in the classroom today men and women see things differently. I don't think this is a negative aspect as it once was, because today we have realized the importance of learning from one another.

Reading is an intimate act. And the closer the reader is to the text, (the narrative voice), perhaps the more intimate the text becomes. This is for any reader, no matter gender or race. Kolodny does a fine job of taking this concept and applying it to the struggles of the female reader and writer, but it can be used for any writer or reader.

Wow. I am constantly astounded to see how fast time is slipping by. Some times I'm not even sure what day it is. I feel like I have so much more work to do and no time to do it. But, enough about me and my problems with time.

This whole blogging experience is new to me and I have to be honest I'm not all that sure how crazy I am about it. It digs into time that could be spent doing other work and that can be irritating at times, but I am trying to get my time management skills finely honed and this has forced me to try harder; though I must admit it hasn't really helped yet. I no longer know what sleep is and I think soon the sleep deprivation will make me not care anymore about this much needed loss.

So, on with my portfolio. Since this has been my first experience with blogging I have tried to to be honest in my writing and not only express my feelings towards certain works , but also convey what I have learned and feel I will take with me from the learning experience. I've tried to this in a way that would interest my peers and perhaps reveal to them somethings that perhaps they hadn't thought of before. Here is my first list of blog entries:

Coverage

Liberty to "feel" outside one's comfort zone this is me explaining how a writer needs to distance themselves sometimes from their writing.
My Meaning is your Meaning, Or is it? this is how it is impossible to ever really know what's inside the authors mind when writing.
Making Sense of the Classics? is about the works we miss in the canon of literature.
I'm King, No I'm King, No Me! is a reflection on Shakespeare's wonderful world of the fool.
Structuralism's God Complex this is how it takes a Godlike knowledge to know all the "rules" to structuralism
The Hidden Roots how we need images in poetry for it to be poetry.
Real or Hypothetical? is about the mystery of the hypothetical reader and whether it is better than a real reader.

Depth

Eternity Etched in Clay my interpretation of Keats's "ode on a Grecian Urn"
What's the "norm" in normal? what does normal mean anyway, and how does society view what is or is not normal.
Provoke Me this is me discussing how literature can provoke us into a response or a desire to seek a response.
Value of History comprehending the deeper issues of a text with history.
Let's Play a Game asks the question does it take more than good powers of observation to analyze structure.
Sacrifice Reality for the Implied? asks do we risk making a piece of literature obsolete by taking the human element out of it.

Interaction

"unmediated response" this is a comment I made on Greta's blog about cluttering our minds with other peoples ideas and her response
Dereks Blog Derek asks wonderful questions on his blogs and this is just an example of the responses he provokes

Blog Carnival Entry

Colonialism Carnival a blog on the comparison of colonialism in "Benito Cereno" and A Heart of Darkness
Similarities at the Carnival this is my blog for the carnival discussing the treatment of race.
Discussions

Silents Madness Inside the Yellow Wallpaper my blog on the descent into madness for the protaganist in Gilman's story. My peers had much to say about what they thought of this descent into madness.
A Tempting Repitition this blog is about the meaning behind Shakespeares use of repitition. Quite a few of my peers had something to say.
Structuralism's God Complex lots of my peers had strong opinions about Eagleton and Structuralism. Check it out!
Wrongful repitition everyone seemed to have a problem with Kent and how he discusses Keats's "ode." A great discussion follows my blog and my peers had a lot to say.
Real or Hypothetical? the real and hypothetical reader got many people motivated and opinions fly.

Timeliness

The HIdden Roots This is the only one of my blogs I'm stating for this section. Majority of my blogs were posted on time. The few that were not was because of computer glitches that have hopefully been remedied.

Xenoblogging

Please Repeat That this is a link to Jenna's blog on repitition, which she linked to my blog A Tempting Repitition, which contributed to a good discussion.

Wildcard

I'm Just too Tired just a little fun with The Yellow Wallpaper

Well, this has been my first portfolio attempt. I'm not sure if I like this whole process, but it was interesting to look at all of the work I've done so far this semester.

Check out other Portfolios

The way in which Captain Delano views the black slaves in Melville's "Benito Cereno" should alert the reader that something is not right in the "kindness" which is placed upon his personality by the narrator. Though he looks at the slaves aboard ship fondly, his descriptions of them are less than kind or fond. Animal references are abundant throughout the descriptions, making the slaves seem less than human. This should give the reader an inkling that Delano is not the hero he is first made out to be.

This view of the African forced into a colonial world is seen in many different texts of this time, but Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness was similiar to Melville's "Benito Cereno" in its complexity at showing the realistic views that the white colonists had of their African counterparts. These views were not pleasant, nor were they flattering. There are many parallels to these two works.

To hear more on this check out the Colonial Carnival

Okay, so my apartment has paneling not wallpaper, but right now I don;t think that matters much. I'm beginning to understand how staring at the walls, or in my case the computer screen can drive a person mad.

In "The Yellow Wallpaper" all our protaganist does all day is look at the four walls she is imprisoned in. Imagine being stuffed in a little room, (say like a small room with just a computer), and not able to look at much else day in and day out. Who wouldn't go nuts? Every now and then you get to venture out into the fresh air, but the only thing you are really thinking about is that computer screen, oops, I mean wallpaper. Fresh air isn't going to help anymore as you sink deeper and deeper into despair. You begin to have nightmares about the flickering screen, I mean wallpaper, even in the dark you can see its haunting glow, from the moonlight of course. Soon there is no escape and eventually you are just to tired to fight any longer, so you succumb to the madness of the cursor making its way across the screen, wallpaper.

Just a little example of falling into madness.

"How does the poem, in conforming to a reality already known, give us knowledge? Or, if the reality is not already known, how can we be sure the poem does in fact conform to it?" (Keesey 210)

Mimetic criticism seems to me to be filled with inadequacy. These questions that Keesey posts to us in his introduction, I felt summed up not only the difficulties surrounding mimetic criticism, but perhaps also the fascination with it.

We presume that if we are already aware of reality, how then can we learn more about it from a poem that tells us what we already know? Keesey goes on to explain that perhaps it is the poet or artist who takes a particular image and magnifies it so that our perception of its reality becomes a learning experience. On the other hand, like the second question in the quote I chose, what if this reality is not known, then how are we to know if the poem conforms to reality? This I think is the tougher question. I think the first question is answerable in the idea that even in the reality we are aware of, there is knowledge. We always can find something new, even in what we think we already know. But, when we begin to play with the unknown, then we can not be sure of the true reality of the piece. This is where I think the fascination for mimetic criticism comes into play, the unknown is always exciting territory.

But, to go to the "muddy point" this is also where I get a bit confused. If we are unsure of the reality in the poem, how do we know to use mimetic criticism, or should we? Does this make sense?