MaraBarreiro

This is my second portfolio and I'm happy to say that I am much more knowledgable of literary criticism than I was when I did my first portfolio. Don't get me wrong there is still a lot I'm unclear of, but through the help of all my classmates I think we have grown together and learned much since the beginning of the semester. Kudos to all of us. Now on with the show...

Coverage

Searching for Knowledge in Reality
A Living Stream
Women writers trapped within their own literature?
Give me Freedom
Character Experience
Sexism in Literature, Yes or No?
Being part of the Tribe
Psychological importance of History
Intertextual Marriage
Solving the Crime of Benito Cereno
Romance is Comedy
Challenging Language
Oh Signifier, My Signifier
Creature or Creator
A confusing bit of Theory
Bricolage
Come on Down Your the Next Contestant

Depth

Character Experience
Sexism in Literature, Yes or No?
Challenging Language

Interaction

Challenging Language There is some good dialogue going on here with Derek and he links to another blog.
Bricolage People had fun with the French

Timeliness

Oh Signifier, My Signifier
Creature or Creator
Just to name a few

Xenoblogging

A Confusing bit of Theory Ellen helps out with this blog entry and gives links to Greta's and Angela's

Well, here ends my second portfolio. The semester is soon coming to an end and it's hard to believe how far we all have come in such a short time.

...Any body of theory concerned with human meaning, value, language, feeling and experience will inevitably engage with broader, deeper beliefs about the nature of human individuals and societies, problems of power and sexuality, interpretations of past history, versions of the present and hopes for the future." (170)

"It is not a matter of regretting that this is so--of blaming literary theory for being caught up with such questions, as opposed to some 'pure' literary theory wich might be absolved from them. Such 'pure' literary theory is an academic myth: some of the theories we have examined in this book are nowhere more clearly ideological than in their attempts to ignore history and politics altogether." (170)

"There is of course no harm in students questioning the values conveyed to them: indeed it is part of the very meaning of higher education that they should do so." (Eagleton 175)

You will have to excuse me for going on and on with the quotes, but I found these interesting. The idea of politics being involved in all aspects of literary theory makes sense. Politics is a part of everyday life, even when we are not conscious of it. Every decision we make is somewhat political. Politics can be something quite different from just a government view point. There is politics in schools, churches, and jobs; why shouldn't it trickle into the realm of literary theory.

The human experience is laced with political ideas. The concern with society and most definitly the "problems of power and sexuality" all have political implications.
we have discussed in our blogs, as well as in the classroom, how impossible it is to separate most theories into compartmentalized pockets and solely dwell in one area. It seems that we must have several options to come to a clear, or somewhat clear, understanding of the text. Could this itself be political?

If there is no harm in students questioning "the values conveyed to them" then aren't we practicing politics by questioning? This whole idea of politics infiltrating several, if not all, aspects of our lives, including the politics of literary theory, is fascinating. I, for one, have never had a huge interest in politics, but there seems to be no getting around it. It surrounds us. History involves politics, feminism involves politics, even psychology involves politics, is there any way to dismiss politics from these different views of theory? What do you think?

Read what others have to say.

"The reading is not "our" reading, since it uses only the linguistic elements provided by the text itself; the distinctions between author and reader is one of the false distinctions that the deconstruction makes evident. The deconstruction is not something we have added to the text but it constituted the text in the first place. A literary text simultaneously asserts and denies the authority of its own rhetorical mode and by reading the text as we did, we were only trying to come closer to being as rigorous a reader as the author had to be in order to write the sentence in the first place." (De Man 373)

My title is a little misleading, but I think that this quote shows the importance of the reader/writer relationship. Even though this quote is speaking of a text by Proust, I think it can be used for any text. Deconstrusting a work of literature shows the differnet views a reader and a writer can take on any given text. And I agree with the statement that as readers we have to be just as "rigorous" with our reading as the writer was in writing. If we are not are we giving full recognition of the text?

There of course distinctions between the reader and writer, but how far apart are these distinctions?
How much opposition should there be between reader and writer when interpreting or deconstructing the text?
Does this quote show the importance of author intent and reader response when using poststructuralism?

"Moral art as well as the art of illusion are natural, so the common split in the word's use--unatural acts being either magical or immoral--are not contradictions but isolations...That brothers can kill each other is unnatural only from the point of view of someone who insists that natural always means moral..." (381)

"...all the characters are mirrors of us, especially as we are all artist-dreamers, and all the mirrors are chipped and cracked." (Miko 382)

The word "natural" is to me much like the word "normal." How exactly do we define these words when in so many different cultures, and even within the complexities of our own, they mean different things?

In The Tempest the reader witnesses many different acts of barbary, or so it seems if one takes the opinion of natural morality. How moral is Prospero? How can the reader justify his acts, or should they be justified? Perhaps he is just as guilty of immoraity as those who plotted his death. What if Caliban is the one with true morality? He at least is trying to defend and take back what was "rightfully" his in the first place, right?

The idea of what is or isn't natural is a tough one. Should we limit ourselves to the moral issue, and what makes it moral? Who's idea or view of morality should the reader take?

I love the end quote to Miko's essay. As a person who is fascinated with psychological horror, I have always believed that every person has the ability to do evil, the only reason we do not is because most can restrain themselves or are taught to be "good" people, but we are all "chipped and cracked" in some way. When we read a piece of work that delves into the intricacies of the immoral those chipped and cracked pieces of ourselves can get a glimpse of the darker side of ourselves, sometimes we turn away in revulsion and sometimes we stare in fascination.

I don't know if is was Shakespeare's intention to "test the limits of art or morality" (376), but I think the character study of The Tempest shows the reader that there is more to these characters than a play of magical disruption and colonization. We must consider asking ourselves the question's why and what. Why are certain acts immoral or moral? What is natural? What is moral? And, why do these things matter?

"And I would argue that what gives the urn its special status for Keats is precisely whis problem: that the urn "matters" to Keats because of his ignorance about it." (Guetti 386)

I thought this idea that Keats wrote about the urn out of a curiosity of what made it important to the people who created it was important to the understanding of the poem. It definitly gives the reader a different perspective. So many critics seem to have concentrated on what the figures on the urn are trying to tell the reader or what the poet is trying to see in the implications of eternity, that this idea that Keats wrote the poem asking questions of it to get a better understanding of the people who created it takes us into an historical aspect that we may not have looked at before.

Ignorance of something can be in itself a drive for better understanding. Whether or not poet or reader recieved a better understanding is not really the issue, the idea of questioning what we don't understand is really the point. For how can we gain any understanding if we don't question and Keats questions the urn, looking for answers.

"Commentators who consider these actions conclusive evidence of madness find it difficult to accept Gilman's protagonist as a feminist, especially since she seems incapable of fending off insidious forms of surveillance." (Feldstein 403)

This quote is speaking of the seemingly "mad" actions of the protagonist throughout The Yellow Wall-paper. Because of these "mad" or insane things that she does she is no longer seen as a credible feminist. But, why can she no longer be seen this way? Wouldn't the circumstances of the time period in which she lived hold her back from "fending off insidious forms of surveillance"? What if her actions are her strength? What if delving into a world of "insanity" is the only way for her to gain an upper hand in her given situation? I realize to some that these may seem like silly questions, but isn't one persons sense of normalcy different from anothers?

We just assume that the protaganist is falling into madness, because of the writing that she leaves behind, but since it is her writing about this particualr situation how reliable is she as a narrator? Should readers be looking deeper into the text for something that may not be satated? And what makes her madness weakness? Perhaps it is the very thing that gives her strength. Perhaps it is the very thing that makes her a stronger person than the one keeping her captive. Perhaps John is the truly weak character, for it is he who faints and can't handle the "mad" actions of his wife.

"...the analytical stratagies of postrstructuralist criticism can indeed open up cultural issues in exciting and disturbing ways. They are especially effective for dismantaling foundationalist and essentialist arguments, for demolishing totalizing claims, for deconstructing ideologies, for delegitimizing power, and generally for demonstrating that nearly everything called universal, timeless, and natural is really local, historically contingent, and socially constructed." (Keesey 416)

In this chapter I thought Keesey had tones of Eagleton. There seems to be a connection between our historical and social lives and the idea of politics. It brings us back to the question are political issues involved in every aspect of human lives? If it is then it would seem to make sense that it is the question to be answered in literary theory, or perhaps it is the essence of theory itself. I'm not saying I necessarily believe this I'm just asking the question.

History and politics have always kind of gone hand in hand so why not explore that idea in literature. Social issues whether local or taken from a world view always seem to be litterd with politics. Some may seem greater in importance than the other, but each has its place. What if all literature comes full circle into the arena of politics, even if the writer meant it to or not? What implications does this have on us as literary theorists?

"Lane goes on to assert that "horror writer H. P. Lovecraft called [The Yellow Wallpaper] one of the great 'spectral tales' in American Literature," but her footnote for this quotation merely offers "thanks to Paul Buhl for providing this piece of information" (Dock 477)

"Gilman chooses to interpret the initials as a doctor's signature. When she reprints the letter she closes up the space between the initials M.D....She obscures the implication that the writer and the patient are related." (Dock 479)

"Not surprisingly, the story of this apt conclusion originates in Gilman's accounts. In three successive versions, the author fleshes out the details of the story's effect and heightens her sense of mission in writing it." (Dock 479)

I chose these quotes because it amazed me all the inconsistencies which critics have chosen to just take at face value throughout the years. Whether or not this essay is as reliable as it makes the others unreliable isn't really the point. What matters to me is that there is an excellent chance that much of what we read and use as sources in our writing could be wrong. Wrong in the sense that they didn't do their homework the way we would be expected to do ours.

Gilman, from this essay, seems to have had her own political agenda. It seems to me that her "fame" comes from the fiction which she created around "The Yellow Wallpaper." This essay definitly shows the dangers involved in criticism when concentrating on one particular field, such as author intent. Gilman's intent when writing "The Yellow Wallpaper" not only changed throughout the years, but there is a chance she altered circumstances to enhance her own agenda later.

What disturbs me is that critics, instead of taking the time to do indepth research, wrote whatever they came across that fit their own political agendas and then attached a presumed truth to it, the example of H.P. Lovecraft is perfect in showing this inept research. Every piece of "solid" information is from second or third hand sources. Who else was disturbed by this possibility?

Read what my classmates have to say.

"The novel has been particularly sensitive to the diverse ways in which individuals come to terms with the governing patterns if culture; woks like Dickens Great Expectations and Eliot's Middlemarch brilliantly explore the ironies and pain, as well as the inbentiveness, of particular adjustments.
In representing this adjustment as a social, emotional, and intellectual education, these novels in effect thematize their own place in culture, for works af art are themselves educational tools." (Greenblatt 439)

Culture has a huge impact on how we view the world and I believe this comes out strongly in art and literature. Every culture has significant differences, these differences can be in how they view everything from marriage and sex to government and freedom. Literature is no exception. The novel is sensitive to these issues, in part, because it has the lengthiness to get more indepth about the culture in which it was created. Great Expectations is a perfect example of cultural patterns. I think most, if not all, of Dickens's work is culturally relevant. He deeply explored the governing and societal patterns of his England.

These aspects of literature are great educational tools. Not, only is the reader granted access into a different time and place, but they are also being granted a piece of history and the culture of a people they may have never been exposed to.

"The intertextual relations of the text are never purely literal. Fiction draws not only on other fiction but on the knowledge of its period, discourses in circulation which are themselves sites of power and the contest for power." (Belsey 433)

Belsey goes on to use Shakespeares Macbeth as an example of this power in cultural fiction. She sites all the inferences that Macbeth has on its culture which are not limited to the obvious "vaulting ambition" which is throughout many of Shakespeares plays.

There needs to be knowledge of ones culture to write a story or poem that readers can relate to. This doesn't mean one must limit themselves to only their culture, exploring others can add many dimensions to a writers work, but an author is still going to be influenced by their own culture first and that will come out in their writing. Shakespeare shows us this in his writing and the power struggles that consume so much of his work. Belsey goes on to list all that these power struggles and ambitions encompass. What we think of in terms of power can be stretched to include many different aspects of a culture.

"The urn's seamless surface tends to conceal that it is constructed of historical materials--made up of fragments of an appropriated culture." (Garson 454)

"Keats's project has as its prototype the very historical process that made the urn accessible to him in the first place--the process of cultural and national appropriation." (Garson 458)

I think I am more inclined to agree with this analysis of Keats and the urn than with Guetti and her idea of Keats's ignorance. Though that was an interesting study on the urn and Keats's questions, it seems to me that the rhetorical question is the most conducive to the poem.

The idea of culture can be seen in both point of views, but as Garson says on page 456, "as the speaker interrogates the urn, we interrogate the poem: his questions serve as our answers." We can see through his questions the activities depicted on the urn, these tell the story or what we assume is the story. This creates within the rhetoric a cultural and historical signifcance.

We see the culture within the lines of the poem. Each picture depicts an attitude or assimulates a view of that attitude or culture. Keats portrays these actions with questions that cannot be answered because it is within a realm of history and culture that he was not party to. I found this concept interesting. Sometimes we have to ask unanswerable questions in order to find the answer, but we can never be sure if our answer is the correct one, which leads to the unending differences of opinion and study in criticism.

"Texts are certainly not available for innocent, unhistorical readings. Any reading must be made from a particular position, but is not reducible to that position." (Barker& Hulm 444)

Barker and Hulm are speaking here of using the autotelic, or single fixed meaning when reading a text. This quote I feel shows that though there should be a specific platform from which a critic takes his/her views this platform is not the only one in which the critic can take a stand. They go on to say how "different readings struggle with each other," but when all is said and done it is still the knowledge of the text which matters. Anyone can have an opinion, but without sufficient knowledge the historical redings can go awry.

Barker and HUlm are establishing that there can be a 'wrong' way to look at a text from an historical perspective. There are certain "constraints and resistances"(444) wehn reading a text. Some critcs, as we've read, seem to trya nd manipulate the text to fit in with their own political and historical views, this is not always possible if the historical view is not consistant with the true nature of history.

Kayley and I are doing our project on The Boxcar Children a series of childrens books written by Gertrude Warner.

Gertrude wrote the first nineteen books of the series and then the series was taken over by different ghost writers, but always kept in Warners name. Kayley and I are going to discuss the intertextuality of these books, looking at the similarities and differences between authors and the structure of the books throughout the decades they have been written; the early seventies up until today.

Back to other projects