MaraBarreiro

Stream of consciousness: "is used to replicate the thought processes of a character, with little or no intervention by the narrator. The running meditation may include sensory impressions, memories, opinions, and insights, organized by free association, in just the digressive form that it might follow in real life." (Hamilton 118)

This form of third-person limited point of view was mentioned in Keesey's introduction pertaining to realism (206). I also picked it because I've come across the term for research I'm doing in another class about Allen Ginsberg. Jack Kerouac used this form of third-person point of view many times in his writing and I thought it would be interesting to define it for our class.

"Women authors, however, reflect the literal reality of their own confinement in the constraints they depict, and so all at least begin with the same unconsious or consious purpose in employing such spatial imagery. Recording their own distincitively female experience, they are secretly working through and within the conventions of literary texts to define their own lives." (Gilbert & Gubar 261)

Okay, here is my problem with this essay, Gilbert and Gubar do exactly what we have been told time and time again not to do they make assumptions that all female writers try and define their own lives in their texts. I'm not saying that this may not be true for some of the earlier writers (or even some writers today), but that includes male as well as female writers. I do not think that Gilbert and Gubar do women any justice in this essay, in fact they made me a little angry while I read it. To assume that every female writer is using her writing to express her woe at the world and the presumed injustices done to her is not giving women any credit as true artists and writers.

I am not arguing that there are differences between how men and women percieve ideas or things, but to throw men and women into this one boat and use the word "all" upsets me. Every person has their own "distinct experience," but this includes within the gender lines, as well as, without. Even women percieve things and ideas differently than other women and though I am not male I would guess that it is the same with the opposite sex. To lump us all into one category is disturbing and I felt rather gender bias of these writers.

"It is this "hacer bien" that becomes the condition of free will: Segismundo must learn that he is not free to do whatever he chooses; he only is, or will be, 'free to do what the hierarchy of powers has determined os allowable or appropriate. Free will is thus something closer to 'acceptable constraint'" (Sears)

Segismundo, in La vida es sueno must learn the true meaning of free will. The education that he was offered through Clotaldo is not enough, only because Segismundo has never been allowed the opportunity to interact with other people. His conceptions of true freedom is skewed in his alienation.

The "test" his father Basilio gives to him by letting him out of the prison was doomed from the start. Segismundo had to learn that even free will comes with rules and laws that the human race has to obey, meaning with free will comes responsibility. Segismundo begins to learn this at the end of the play when he constrains himself from his "true" nature, which is quite animalistic.

Back to class.

"In novels of psychological realism there is a character-creating impulse which has its own inner logic and which tends to go its own way, whatever the implied author's formal and thematic intentions may be." (Paris 219)

I have heard many a writer talk of how surprised they were when their character moved or acted differently than they had initially expected them to. This doesn't mean that the character took over the writing of the story, but it does mean that the psychological expectations of the characters motives changed according to the actions and conflicts within the story itself. I believe this is what Paris is trying to get at in his essay. The realism of the fictional character comes through in the believability of the characters actions and emotions throughout a story. Does the reader or critic believe that a person would truly respond in a certain way to certain situations? The wonderful thing about this is realistically every person acts differently in situations, so to make the character realistic the writer must "go with" the characters personality traits, which the author has created.

We may not be able to say emphatically that one persons idea of realism is more real than another, but the author must be true to ones characters and "listen" to what they are saying as one weaves the story. In this way the characters can surprise the author by "taking control" so to speak.

"Any text which does not recognize the fundamental moral reality of women is sexist." (Donovan 226)

What?! Is Donovan being serious? I take offense to this as a writer. What if I, as a woman, decide to write a story with a male protagonist (which I do quite often) does this mean I am not recognizing the fundamental moral reality of women? Or would this only apply if I were a male author?

I am sure in many ways stories have objectified women throughout the ages, but to say that there is nothing in them where women can find self-awareness is something I just cannot agree with. All Donovan talks about in her essay is how these stories have "been a vehicle for the male's growth in self awareness," but offers nothing for the female (226). I think that the self-awareness for women comes from the knowledge and realization of history and this becomes a growth not a detering factor.

Perhaps Donovan is forgetting that in many ways women were looked upon as the "object" and the "Other" as she calls them. This is a fact that most people, if not all, are aware of, so why must we focus primarily on these issues. Perhaps there is a strength in these female characters which Donovan hasn't brought out. There is a sense of survival that all women, even today, have that most men will never experience, maybe she should be focusing on those aspects of the female character.

Read what my classmates have to say.

"Traditional poets may be self-effacing, but their art is very important. That art is sometimes called the "collective memory" of the tribe, but it is really more like the tribe's collective imagination. (Keesey 268).

Intertextuality is very interesting to me and it makes sense. We are told constantly that nothing new exists and all a writer is doing is taking the old and trying to make it new. I picked this quote for the simple reason that I liked how Keesey attributes the poet, and pretty much any artist in my opinion, to belonging to a tribe. I also liked how he differentiates the words "collective memory" and "collective imagination." Poets do not have the same memories that would be a silly concept, but there is a re-creation of imagination that takes place throughout the ages. This is fascinating to me. I thought that Keesey captured this artistic collectiveness rather well.

"Instead of fitting literature into a prefabricated scheme of history, the critic should see literature as a coherent structure, historically conditioned but shaping its own history, responding to but not determined in its form by an external historical process." (Frye 284)

I chose the quote above, because Frye's articulation of the uses of historical theory within the realm of the psychological as it relates to literature made sense to me. It seems to me that looking at literature as its own coherent structure instead of relying completely on its historical context, but instead using that as a basis of comparison, the critic would be able to get more out of the piece of literature that is being studied. The concept of the literature "shaping its own history" is fascinating, because isn't that really the point of criticism? Are we not supposed to learn from the works that we are studying? And though we can compare and contrast a work intertextually or formally, etc., giving the literature its own identity could perhaps teach us more about the history in which it was written, if that is our intention, of course. But, even if this is not, I thought it was an interesting concept to see each individual work of literature as its own mold shaping and responding to the different types of criticism which is tearing it apart and examining it.

What are your thoughts?

Read what others have to say about Frye.

"In the tradition of comedy that Shakespeare inherited from Plautus and Terence, what typically happens is that a young man and a young woman wish to get married, that there is parental opposition, and that this opposition is eventualy evaded and the marriage takes place." (Frye 303)

This concept of the comedic love story is not only throughout literature but it has also slid into contemporary film. The romantic comedy is all about 'will the couple we know truly love each other get together in the end.' Even though audiences and readers know the outcome they are still drawn to the film or literary work.

Okay, so not all romantic comedies on screen have the whole parental opposition thing happening, but there is always some kind of conflict which blocks the couple from getting together until the end when they discover that nothing as silly as the happenings or feelings of others should get in the way of "true love."

But, the idea of parental opposition is still as popular as it was in the day of Shakespeare, just look at some of the films from the past on into today. There is "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," "Meet the Parents," and "Monster-in-Law," this is just to name a few. There are so many more out there. The influence of Shakespeare and those before him is still prevelant today.

Angela raises the issue of intertextuality in sibling rivalry--read her blog here.

" 'Benito Cereno' may look very like a detective story with Delano as a Watson minus Holmes, but, of course, Melville is an artist and "Benito Cereno" is literature; therefore, it is much better than any mere detective story could be." (Swann 317)

I enjoyed how Swann compares "Benito Cereno" to a detective story, only an advanced version of the detective story. Truth be told for those out there that are faithful crime readers, it is almost always guaranteed that the reader will be able to identify the criminal before the detective, or at least keep up with the detective in the story. Melville weaves a tale that mystifies and keeps all in suspense. The reader is effectively fooled into thinking a certain way. We are sure we understand the circumstances of the "crime" taking place, if there is a crime taking place. The reader knows Delano is less than insightful to the goings on around him, the reader knows Delano isn't necessarily all that bright, yet the reader still follows Delano along with the narrator into the misguided belief that Cereno is up to something. This makes "Benio Cereno" a most effective detective story; one which insists on being read again if the readers wishes to see the clues which were left for them to follow.

Romantic Comedy: "center on a love affair between a beautiful and resourceful maiden, often in male disguise, and a worthy suitor, who must overcome social and personal obstacles to arrive at a joyous resolution." (Hamilton 4)

I chose to define the romantic comedy because it was a topic in my blog entry Intertextual Marriage, so I thought it would be fitting to give a defintion to this neverending cultural phenomenon which no one seems to tire.

I would like to claim this article for my presentation.

"Writing, like any process of language, works by difference; but difference is not itself a concept, is not something that can be thought. A text may 'show' us something about the nature of meaning and signification which it is not able to formulate as a proposition."

"The advent of the concept of writing, then, is a challenge to the very idea of structure: for a structure always presumes a centre, a fixed principle, a hierarchy of meanings and a solid foundation, and it is just these notions which the endless differing and deferring of writing throws into question." (Eagleton 116)

So, language is basically volatile and uncertain. It cannot be bound to a specific structure, because it is always changing and the concept of language differs for everyone, much like Eagletons example of the meaning to the word 'cat' in the beginning of his essay. This is why we have metaphors and similes, because language itself can be manipulated.

Though I felt that Eagleton went on and on to explain post-structuralism, I think I get it. But, I don't like to say that with too much conviction, because I'm not completely sure. I have to admit my eyes began to hurt after the first few pages, but there were certain things that stuck out to me. These two quotes for example. I liked how Eagleton says that structure 'presumes' a center and foundation, because if language is so volatile and changeable then that center or that foundation can be shaken, or it can crumble. I think this is why we are never satisfied with one particular school of criticism. Though the basics seem to stay the same it still has to do with interpretation and what we discover inside the text. The foundation of language, so with writing, is always on shakey ground. This makes it rather exciting I think.

"Signifier" and "signified":are terms used in one branch of linguistics and literary criticism to describe the components of a sign. The signifier, to put it simply is the word and the signified is the thing or idea it represents. Signifiers needn't be confined to words; they can include any system of representation, including drawings, traffic lights, body language, and so on." (Lynch)

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Terms/signifier.html

I found this definition on this site and I thought it went perfectly with what Eagleton was explaining about language.

"... if the English phonemic system is the only one they know, listeners will quite automatically "hear" any language the same way, which means that they will miss some significant sounds when listening to a different language. So it would be as accurate to say that English has structured their hearing, has formed their perceptions. In this respect, surely, we are much less creators than we are creatures of "our" language." (Keesey 345)

So, we have to ask the question, how does what we percieve in language communicate itself to us? Do the sounds of words structure and form our perceptions, or is this taking it too extremes?

I think that all of these things have some influence in how we percieve differnet words and how we interpret text. Even when a person reads to themselves there is an inflection in the voice of the imagination, which "sounds" and "hears" the word as if it was spoken out loud. How do you think this fits into the structure and form? And are we more creatures than creators?

"This moment was that in which language invaded the universal problematic; that in which, in the absence of a center or origin, everything became discourse--provided we can agree on this word--that is to say, when everything became a system where the central signified, the original or transcendental signified, is never absolute present outside a system of differences. The absence of the transcendental signified extends the domain and the interplay of signification ad infinitum." (Derrida 355)

Okay, I had a really hard time with this essay. The constant repitition of wording, though I understood his reasons for doing so, was a constant distraction and made it difficult to read. I got lost quite a bit, that is to say, I'm not sure if I read this correctly. Derrida's constant interjections of, that is to say, andthat in which, and if we can agree upon this word or that word, etc, was nerve wracking.

If anyone could help me out with this essay I would appreciate it. This will definitly be my muddy point for the week. And I think it is only because I got lost in all the distraction caused by his wording and phrasing.

Bricolage: French for, the construction (as of a sculpture or a structure of ideas) achieved by using whatever comes to hand.

I thought this was an interesting word and I wasn't quite sure of it's definition so I looked it up and this helped me to understand this part of Derrida's essay. Hope it helps others.

Click here to see other words.

"Together the three contestants form a triple consciousness of various stages of incomplete awareness caught up in a vicious circle, all blighted by their lack of a concept of true authority." (Wright 398)

These "contestants" Wright is speaking of are Cereno, Delano, and Babo. The "lack of a concept of true authority" I thought was an excellent example of psychoanalyzing these three characters. She uses examples of how each character struggles to maintain their own authoritative position, but in the end which of the three actually had any authority, if any of them.

I enjoyed this essay, but I would like to read more on the psychoanalytical aspect of post-structuralism. I feel that I still need a bit more explanation to fully understand the implications and workings of this theory. I have to admit though, this definitly peaked my interest.