April 2009 Archives

Blog Portfolio - EL267

| | Comments (0)

This is my final blog for American Literature, at least I believe that we were supposed to do one, if not it will still be here.

These are the blogs that I did just for homework.
Surviving the crisis over and over
A Dry Flood

These are the blogs that I had in on time. I don't have any comments on very many of my American Lit blogs due to uninterest from my peers and difficulties with my blog.
Gomez and Clare
god is not God

Most of my blogs do not have comments, so are some good blogs that I wrote regardless of the lack of comments
Surviving the crisis over and over
Disability or scar, a hinderance or a help?

These are the blogs that I have spent time on and they are longer than the others
Sex is not well written

These are the blogs that I commented on, some of these blogs I was the only poster and other blogs I was part of the discussion.
What is up with the Bloods? - April's blog
The Time Traveler's Wife - Chelsie's blog
Sex isn't sexy - Matt's blog

Blog Portfolio 3

| | Comments (0)

Well, I can't believe this semester is amost over, (and even though it's almost over I have way too much stuff to do). I think I have come so far this year and this semester. I have learned a lot about literary criticism, especially through my peers because of their blogs and their presentations (thanks guys!).
The project is coming fast and Quinn and I have made some changes already for our presentation. We found that although it is interesting, it is quite difficult to prove that Holden Caufield is Salinger. We are going to Present a little about Salinger's life, talk about what people said about him. Before he wrote Catcher he wasn't very well known. After that we will be talking about what critics had to say about the book its self and why it was banned and the culture that was going on at the time that the book came out, which is what influenced the banning. For the project we are going to be focusing on reader -response and cultural criticism.
For the paper I am going to be looking at catcher again, but through psychoanalysis. I want to talk about how Holden constantly talks about how he is lonely. Whenever he feels this way he acts out in crazy ways to get attention. Once he has the attention, or it wasn't the attention that he was seeking he alienates himself.
Unfortunately I'm not going to get to see my peer's projects but I have been looking at their blog entries and I think that everything that I have seen looks interesting.
Erica and Jenna
They are doing their project on Pride and Prejudice, actually on several different interpretations of it. They wil also produce their own scenes from this book. I think that it will be interesting to see how each movie directer interpreted the book. I also think it is very fun that they are preforming scenes themselves for the class to view. Their project inspires me to read Jane Austen, something I have never done before.
Ellen and Bethany
These girls are focusing the three little pigs. They are going to watch several versions of this story and then use intertextuality. I think it's such a cool idea. There are so many different versions of this tale and I think it will be interesting to see how they pull all of this together, well I guess I won't actually get to see it but I'm sure it will be good. I looked up some of the things the girls mentioned in their blog. The three little pigs by green jelly is hilarious.
Mara and Kayley
These girls are doing their project on the boxcar children and intertextuality. They are going to be looking at the differences that are made in the books due to ghost writers taking over the series after the author wrote the first 19 books. I read these books as a kid and never knew that there were ghost writers for this series and I didn't know that these books are still coming out. I might make a suggestion and use the babysitters club too because ann m martin only wrote the first 20 or so books and the rest are written by ghost writters. I'm sure their presentation will be interesting.

These are the blogs that were completed for homework
Homicidal Tempest
Resisting the urge to scream

All of my blogs for this portfolio were in on time but these are the ones that gathered the most responses from people.
Literature is or is not Knowledge?
Culture Shock
Insert really great title here

These are the blogs that I commented on, there were a few conversations going on in some of them
Warnings on Analyzing Literature - Greta's blog
How do we teach literature - Derek's blog (we even had the same quote but different opinions)
Knowledge Exceeds History - Bethany's blog, she shared the same quote as well

I have been trying really hard to put depth into all of my blogs lately but here are a few that show depth
We take it for granted
Wall paper, wall-paper, or wall paper?

These are the blogs that people commented on because I had them in on time
Womanly images and chastity
Culture Shock

Well, that's my final blog portfolio. I have spent a long time with this blog and I will be sad to see it go.

Other portfolios

Term Project

| | Comments (4)

Quinn and I are doing our term project on the book The Catcher in the Rye.
The Literary Criticisms we are planning on using are Reader Response and Author Intent

We plan to look at The Catcher in the Rye and through Author intent and prove that Holden Caufield is J.D. Salinger. To back up these claims we want to look at Reader Response to see what people were saying about Salinger and the book before and after the book was published.
Because it is important to look at both sides of any situation or theory we want to use author intent and reader response to disprove that Salinger isn't Caufield. We are planning to write a literary paper and sending it to an academic conference. For the presentation itself we will be using powerpoint.

Back to other projects

"Indeed, it became a commonplace to describe the peculiar quality of Greek art under the metaphor of chasity"

I was curious about greek art and what this quote meant. From what I found, and it wasn't much, greek artists usually used goddesses to display chastity especially Artemis, she was the goddess of and protector of chastity. Many artists liked to use some kind of image that Keats speaks about in his Urn poem.

I was also curious about the vases that Keats could have possibly used in some way for his poem. Appearently the portland vase was usually used to show off scenes about marriage. Some scenes would show something happening in the mythical relm. This vase is dated back to ancient Rome.

The Townley Vase was used to show off gods and goddesses.

Borghese vase doesn't seem much different from the portland vase, but it still shows us some kind of scene that may have influenced Keats.

The South Frieze of the Parthenon is one of the other pieces that are said to have influenced Keats.

After seeing all of these pieces I think it's funny that several critics now even Garson have even said that Keats was interested in Greek art and spent a lot of time looking at it. Most likely he was influenced by several pieces yet there are people out there that are convinced that there was once specific urn out there that he was talking about. When you look at these pieces you can see that he took something different from each one to create his own masterpiece of work.

Back to Garson

"In other words a text this is fixed in history and, at the same time, curiously free of historical limation" (Barker and Hulme 443).

Isn't this how literary works are supposed to be? If a text was completely about something that happened in history and had no fictionalization what so ever than that work would be some kind of history book or a biography or something.

"Holds that Shakespeare was influenced by his reading of the Bermuda pamphlets" (Barker and Hulme 445).

First of all how do we even know for sure that Shakespeare was even influenced by some kind of pamphlets for The Tempest? It seems like the deeper we get into this literary criticism the more we find out that some of the stuff we read isn't true due to the fact that the criticism isn't even based on true facts. I'm starting to think that some critics are so set in their ways that they don't even look at everything they can at a certain topic to find out if it's completely true. After reading this article I"m still not even sure how The Tempest is based on history. The writers of this article don't even talk about how they know the history behind it and mention sources but what are they? To be honest I want to see cold hard facts that nail down Shakespeare's influences for this play.

The authors of this article also mentioned the chess game that Miranda and Ferdinand play at the end of the game. To be honest I didn't understand the whole concept behind it so I thought I would do a little research behind it even though I'm sure most of you got it the when you initionally read the play. According to sparknotes Prospero had a whole game plan, and in chess you have to carefully think about how you move each piece because you want to eventually capture the king (although I don't understand why since the queen is supposedly more powerful? Dr. Jerz is that true?). Prospero does eventually get the king. Everyone in the story is a game piece, even Prospero's own daughter.

Since we are focusing on history this week I got to thinking about the fact that he mentions magic so much in his plays. I discovered that there were witch trials quite often. My big question is, since Shakespeare used so much magic and witch craft in his plays and appearently knew a lot about it, why wasn't he ever accused of witchcraft or anything like that? Royals were known to go see his plays, so why wasn't anything ever said about this?

I guess I went off the track a little bit but at least this article helped me to see that I really need to investigate things myself because critics don't always tell you everything or tell you the truth.

Back to Barker and Hulme

Culture Shock

| | Comments (3)

"Satire and panegyric. Works in these genres often seem immensely important when they first appear, but their power begins quickly to fade when the individuals to whom the works refer begin to fade, and the evaporation of literary power continues" (Greenblatt 437).

"The footnotes in modern editions of these works can give us the names and dates that have been lost, but they cannot in themselves enable us to reconver a sense the stakes that once gave readers pleasure and pain" (Greenblatt 437).

I think both of these statements are entirely true. My first thoughts when I read this were on Gulliver's Travels and Animal Farm. In Gulliver's Travel's Swift was most likely trying to teach his reader's something about humanity at least according to some critics. He also wrote this story around the time that England wanted to abolish christianity. Although I can't find anything about England's reaction to Swift's Gulliver's Travels Orwell who had written Animal Farm had been influenced by Swift. Part of me believes that the only reason Orwell was influenced by Swift's writting was because he wrote a book that was influential during it's time because he wanted to make some political points. I'm sure that anyone that reads either of these works react as strongly as readers of the past would have, especially since they actually lived through the realistic aspects of the works. I had to read Animal Farm in high school in history, I knew what it meant but I hated it because it was a horrible story. Maybe if I had lived through the Stalin era I would have thought differently about this book.

Back to Greenblatt

Ok, so I didn't get as much out of this article as I thought. I find this topic interesting but there wasn't anything that really grabbed my attention or stood out that really seemed understandable.

"Literature is not a knowledge. Literary criticism is a knowledge." (Belsey 432).
I really don't think I agree with this quote at all. First I think you can learn from literature, fiction and nonfiction. Awhile back my American Lit class read The Grapes of Wrath. Yeah it isn't the exact story about the dust bowl, but it does portray events that really happend (once I read the story I did a little research and found that most of the stuff Steinbach talked about was true - in the fact that people had to leave their land and most went to california and were treated badly and they were just in a bad situation.) I also believe that a lot of authors do this as well, write about a true even but fictionalize it a little bit, even Shakespeare did it.

I also believe that literary criticism isn't always knowledge. For one thing if you disagree with a certain criticism are you really going to learn from it? Possibly not. Also as I read in the other articles for this week lot of the critics especially those who focused on The Yellow Wallpaper didn't even have accurate information to go off of. So if we read works from those critics we will learn something but it will most likely be false information/knowledge.

I'm also wondering if some critics are being too political (once again going back to the feminist critics). If you are so focused on your own views and what you think was going on how are you/they ever going to have the accurate facts about the works?

Back to history literature and politics


| | Comments (0)

"Genetic studies that investigate an author's life and times to determine what that author might have meant in a given work continue to be produced in larg numbers" (Keesey 409).

When I read this I automatically thought of author intent. Isn't this what this is. When you look at history aren't you trying to figure out in some what what the author was trying to say or how the author was possibly influenced? I actually thought history or cultural criticism would be very different or could stand on it's own but I guess it can't.

"We need to be aware of how much of our present we carry into our investigations of the past." (Keesey 410).

This is so true. I mean how often do we judge the things that we read by today's standards. This happens on a regular basis in most of my classes especially my english classes and it drives me nuts. Look at The Yellow Wallpaper , feminists have gone crazy over it because they are looking at it today's standards, all they can think about are women's rights. I wonder how many of those feminist critics have actually looked at the history of Charlotte Gilman Perkins and what was going on around her when she wrote the story.

The article also talks about how critics believe that when we read things like the yellow wall paper we are supposed to become more self aware. I understand that we may relate to the work depending on the situation of the main character but I don't agree with this because I think it goes against cultural criticism. The article says that we are supposed to become more aware of ourselves but if we are going to look at a work in this criticism aren't we supposed to become more aware of history and the things concerning the work, not ourselves? I think that if you want to have some kind of awareness about yourself you should read nonfiction.

Back to Keesey

I really liked this article, well I guess it also helps that this was a story that I actually liked even though I have read it a million times. I also enjoy looking at what people have to say about it.

"If Gilman had the advantage of our perspective, she might have been pleased by this confusion of textual identity" (Feldstein 402).

When I read this I got to thinking, imagine that. Anyways, I have to wonder if Gilman did want different spellings of wallpaper, I really think that the different spellings helps the story, the confusion of the story ties in with the confusion of the narrator (well if you want to say the confusion of insanity). "It is appearent that the words wall - paper were conceived as a shifter calculated to creat ambiguity about a referent that resists analysis, even as the narrator resists her husband's diagnoisis" (Feldstien 402). We aren't really supposed to be very clear in knowing whether the woman is crazy or what is really going on, or even if we have and understanding of the narrator's relationship with her husband. I really don't think this is a mistake and I kind of wonder what the reader's reaction would be if the editors would have left the original spellings in.

Along with this, if we want to say that this has nothing to do with the story, Gilman was probably writing in a time where there wasn't restraints or rules in writing. For the longest time writers could do whatever they wanted. Look at Emily Dickenson with all of her dashes, nobody does that anymore because I'm sure some editor would come along and say, "you can't do that".

"Critics generally agree that the narrator's condition deteriorates after she stopes writing in her journal" (Feldstein 403)
To be honest I think everyone thinks this is interesting, ok maybe not everyone did but I noticed it and thought it was interesting. I think it makes a lot of sense too. I know we are getting into the whole history thing and the fact that we aren't supposed to use the present to figure out the past but I think in this case it works. Recently researchers have learned that writing/journaling is really good for people, it helps get get thoughts, emotions, and feelings, and thoughts out there. When people bottle everything up everything around them changes, and it make sense that the narrator (after being discouraged from writting) lost her mind. Not that we all lose our minds if we don't journal but she just wasn't able to get her feelings out in anyway, not in speaking or writing.

Back to more wallpaper

"It seems clear that we have to imagine what went on in the mind of Keats, as he wondered what the pot can have meant - we, it is understood, being those who have lost our innocence in the matter by reading the contradictory babble of the critics" (Guetti 385)

I really hated this article. I couldn't help but wonder why she wouldn't stop talking about everyone else's opinions and thoughts and get down to her won point. So I didn't as much out of this article as I would have liked. This is one little section though that I did get. I find it interesting that we always seem to turn to the critics or even just history to understand literature, or the writer his or herself because if we learn about something they were living through or going through it might explain everything. But what makes me want to scream is that my mind went back to author intent, we don't know if any of the stuff the author went through really affected what they wrote or what they were thinking. This never seems to end, every single literary criticism has something to do with another one in some way or another. Sometimes it would be nice if something meant one thing and we didn't have worry about what it really meant over here because of what the reader response is or whatever.

"The words in the poem, in other words - in Keats'swords - tease, us as the girl teases her forever panting lover, constantly holding out the bait of an object that is constituted by the failure of our efforts to reach it." (Guetti 389).

This whole section we had to read this week made me think about research. Sometimes I wonder if we really are supposed to reach what Keats is saying, or any other writer for that matter. This goes back to what I was saying earlier in another blog, maybe we are supposed to just enjoy the poem, story, play, or whatever. Yeah we are in literary criticism and we have to over analyze everything but in a normal situation are you really going to go out and try to figure out what the heck Shakespeare or Wordsworth was trying to say, probably not, most likely you are going to say, oh that was nice, or that sucked and then go on your merry way. Sometimes I love looking at books or whatever and discussing what they really mean but sometimes I really think we through the discussion and the research we miss out on the true beauty of any kind of work.

Home again home again jiggity jig

Homicidal Tempest

| | Comments (0)

Except for the most obvious one, residing in the gap between Miranda's innocence and our knowledge that some of these beauties are attempted homicdes" (Miko 375).

Miko mentions other characters when he talks about attempted homicides but I thought of Prospero. Yeah we know that he didn't kill anyone on the ship, he brought them safely to sure and even made sure their clothes were all nice and fresh but he could have easily killed everyone on that boat. You have to wonder why he didn't, that would have been his ultimate revenge if you think about it. He would have gotten rid of the brother that cast him out and then he could have easily had the ship repaired and could have easily sailed away, never even thinking twice about anything.

"Does this play have loose ends or not?" (Miko 375).

I think this play does have loose ends even though Miko argues that it doesn't. Yeah Prospero and his buddies go sailing away at the end but what about Caliban, nothing is ever really resolved in his story line. Does he rule the island now that he's on his own? Now that Prospero is gone he can do whatever he wants, he can live in their little castle or whatever it was that Prospero and Mariah lived in, he no longer has to be a slave. What about the two guys that are still bad when they sail away, nothing about them is changed. They knew that Prospero had magic (even though he gave it up at the end) they could have made him get it back and do things their way. The audience, ok me, has to wonder if things will go the way the are supposed to once they get back. Prospero's brother could easily change is mind even though I doubt it. The other reason I think that this play has loose ends is that I have heard several times that this play was never even finished, supposedly this was the last or one of the last plays that Shakespeare did. Maybe he didn't want to finish it.

"The creation of dream states for moral psychotherapy. The magic lore that creeps into the play is capable of causing embarrassment both to those who prefer the notion that they all just dreamt the tempest and the transportations and those who say magic is magic" (Miko 376).

Even though we know this play isn't a dream, why couldn't it be? First many of Shakespeare's plays did involve dreams, Taming of the Shrew is a play within a dream. But it the dream thing makes sense. Prospero could easily dreaming about he would love to reconcile with this brother, see his daughter fall in love with a great guy, and have spirits and other creatures running around to do his every little wish. I'm sure you are wondering how the bad guys would fit in then if this is a dream. Well, the world isn't perfect for one thing. The bad guys also would be used to make Prospero look good.

"Prospero's power does not extend to minds or souls, so we may wonder how much external manipulation can touch natural evil" (Miko 377).

I think it's so interesting that the characters in this play change only because they are good. I'm wondering if because they are good it makes them want to change. Also the magic never really seems to teach any lessons, I mean the bad guys don't learn anything thus there really isn't any reason for them to change. I think the magic can only be used to create a situation (a manipulative situation obviously) that causes change.

Back to The Tempest

We take it for granted

| | Comments (0)

"A property now perhaps somewhat too easily taken for granted" (De Man 365).

When I read this I had to stop and think about it. We do take literature for granted. Not only do we always assume that it will always be around but we have easy access to it too and we don't have to worry about someone taking it away because it isn't appropriate or whatever. I was also thinking about how we take it for granted that we can even read and appreciate things like Shakespeare's plays, or Emily Dickenson's poems. There are so many people out there who are unable to read, because they are too poor to go to school or they don't have anyone to teach them. Other people don't have the opportunity to read because books are banished, some people are punished for reading certain books (think Azar Nafisi). I just don't think we appreciate the literature that we have sometimes. This also made me think about how much time we spend analyzing every single work there is out there. People spend so much time looking at every little detail. Why can't we ever enjoy Keats without haveing to look into every little thing we can kind to explain why he wrote it?

"What's the difference? Being a reader of sublime simplicity, his wife replies by patiently explaining the difference between lacing over and lacing under, whatever this may be, but provokes only ire. What's the difference? did not ask for difference but means instead I don't give a damn what the difference is." (De Man 368).

I thought this was so interesting. How often do we do this and never really think about it? As a kid you think grammar isn't ever going to matter or make a big difference in how we talk or write but it ends up making a huge difference. I also have to think that there would also be a totally different reaction had Archie Bunker answered differently, saying he didn't really care instead of saying what's the difference. And we do get a laugh out of people sometimes when they don't use grammar correctly or in the right tense.

"Does the metaphor of reading really unite outer meaning with inner understanding, action with reflection, into one single totally?" (De Man 370).

At first I was totally confused when I read this, but it makes sense when you think about it. If you don't understand the metaphor that is used you aren't going to have inner understanding. There won't be inner understanding when we don't get the conversation that happens between Archie Bunker and his wife.

Back to De Man

god is not God

| | Comments (1)

I thought this play was really interesting and very different from Death of a Salesman. I was kind of interested in the references of God as god. There are a few people who I know who refer to God as god because they don't believe in him (athiests). Other times God is used as god is when people are talking about other gods, like the god of war.
Charley (as he is called for a short amount of time) is seen as a god, people think that he can fix everything and change their country from a third world country to a country England or the US. In some way Miller is trying to show us that Charley isn't God and this isn't the second coming.

I was also interested in another part in this play.
"It is true, Felix! And the Symptom of course is orange hair." (Miller 12).
I really didn't understand the whole orange hair thing. I went and did a little research and found that orange hair is a symptom of malnutrition. So basically the people in this country are malnurished. I never even realized this before. I think it's interesting and sad.


Gomez and Clare

| | Comments (0)

At first I wasn't even going to have a quote in here because I was going to focus on a character who really irritated me (I liked the book but just hated this one character).

"Gomez is in love with Clare"
"Yes" I'm not helping her out with this.
"So....Clare has been telling him to take a hike, and he thinks that if he just hangs in there long enough something will happen, and he'll end up with her."
"Something will happen....?"
" To you." Charisse meets my eyes. (Niffenegger 442).

First I have to say that I had a feeling long before this part that Gomez was interested in Clare, especially since he kept tryiing to persuade her to stay away from Henry before they got married. In some ways I understand that part. Henry wasn't that great of a guy before he was with Clare, but I also can understand that he acted the way he did out of frustration, I think he just wanted to act out.
Until the moment that I quoted I had to wonder why Charisse and Henry didn't seem to notice or care. Even though we find out for sure that Gomez had a thing for Clare and that Charisse knew about it, why would she stay with him? Why didn't she talk to Clare about it? Wny talk to Henry? It's not like either of them can really do anything about it. Did Charisse expect Henry to do something? What could he have done? Why didn't this statement bother him? Why did he just let it go? That part ends with them leaving the opera and going to their own homes, Henry goes to bed and nothing is ever said again. I also never really understood why Henry trusted Gomez so much, he obviously wasn't a good guy. Also if Clare knew about it and kept telling him to buzz off why did she continue to be friends with him? I thought that was a little weird that she continued to hang out with him? Was it just because she was good friends with Charisse?

Travel back in time at least to the class blog anyway

Sex is not written well?

| | Comments (2)

"The truth is that most of the time when writers deal with sex, they avoid writing about the act itself." (Foster 144)
Ok, I will come right out and say that I was in total disagreement with Fostser throughout this chapter. I understand that way back in the day people had to write about sex through symbols because writing about the actual deed would be scandalous. "In the victorian age, sex was nearly impossible to find in polite literature, due to rigid censorship both official and self imposed." (Foster 144). But now things are different and this man has obviously never read a romance novel. In many of the romance novels I have read sex scenes go on and on for pages at a time and they happen quite frequently throughout the book, and it doesn't just last for a minute and a half. Also, most authors don't just skip over the act itself. I will agree with him in the fact that the sexiest stuff does happen before the sex but most romance writers put everything in their books. It's also true that many writers use metaphors but they still use all of the details.
I do also agree that there is more than just the sex. Most of the books that I have read have some kind of exciting adventure going on (and most of the time I read for that), for instance in a book called Montana Sky there is a murder mystery going on while the romance plays out.
In some ways I think it would be nice if books weren't saturated in actual sex scenes and still just focused on the metaphors such as the blowing curtains. We see sex everywhere in today's society it would be nice to take a break from it.

Back to Foster

This is the second blog portfolio for Lit Crit this semester. I found that keeping up with work and commenting on other peoples blogs helped to produce a better portfolio this time around.

These are the blogs that I had to do for homework, its not that they weren't important but there are other blogs that I spent a lot more time on.

Plato hated poetry?
I am told I am a monster, therefore I am a monster
Azar Nafisi Lecture

These blogs were on time and had thought put into them.

Revenge is innocent
A whole lot of words
Can't explain everything

These are the blogs that I commented on. I wasn't always first in commenting but I was included in the conversation that was going on.

What? He was supposed to be funny! OHHHH!!!!
Come on down, your the next contestant
Creator or Creature?

For this portion I think I have succeeded in doing better since the last blog portfolio. I spent time reading the text and going through everything that intrigued me in some way, while reading I spent a lot of time looking up words so that I could understand the text.

Taking the writer to a whole new level
Women = Other
You got the wright stuff

Once my classmates saw that my blog was working they did finally start commenting on it. I don't have many comments but I did try in some cases to comment back to my classmates comments. Some comments weren't answered but they were helpful.

Starting at the beginning
Psychology just ties everything together
Life's a Dream, not the imitation we thought

Xeno Blogs
I still don't think anyone got any ideas from my blogs. I didn't really write any blogs that influenced my blogs either. Actually I'm not even sure if I even understand what a xeno blog is supposed to be.

I'm going to use my literary terms blog for this. I have been spending a lot of time looking up words I don't understand which usually do help me in the end and I think they help my classmates as well.

More words

Other blog portfolios

One big ol' muddy point

| | Comments (1)

Signs? Signifiers? Signified? I think this is the first article that we read that I honestly cannot post any kind of quote. Everything was muddy and I had no idea what the heck I was reading. I even looked up words and still felt completely lost. I will admit that I enjoyed reading the other stuff better than reading this. So if anyone actually understood any of Derrida and cares to enlighten me, please do.

Derrida blogs

More words

| | Comments (1)

Once again, I picked out a bunch of words I had to look up using the same literary term dictionary I used before. I also know that Derek looked up the word paradox already but I had to look it up again because his blog wasn't exactly around when I came across the word.

Metaphor - a figure of speech that associates two distinct things, the representation of one thing by another

Rhetoric: the art of persuassion through speaking and writing

Phoneme: A basic sound unit (unit of pronunciation) in a language.

Paradigm: A netword of discursive practices - of thoughts, concepts, and cultural codes - dominant during a given historical period and the rules governing the transformation of those practices.

Paradox: A statement that seems self contradictory or nonsensical on the surface but that, upon closer examination may be seen to contain an underlying truth.

Deconstruction: Deconstruction involves the close reading of texts in order to demonstrate that any given text has irreconcilably contradictory meanings rather than being a unified logical whole.

Dissemination: Sometimes used to refer to the way in which texts influence later texts across the generations, Recently it has been used to refer to the way in which the meaning of a given word scatters, spreads, or disperses.

Marxist Criticism: A type of criticism in which literary works are viewed as the product of work and whose practioners emphasize the role of class and ideology as they reflect propagate and even challenge the prevailing social order

Structure: When equated with form a term that refers to the arragement of material in a work, that is, the ordering of its component parts or the design devised by the author to convey content and meaning

Sign: Something that stands for something else

Signified: A term by swiss linguist to refer to the comparatively abstract idea being represented by the signifier

Signifer: A term used by swiss linguist to refer to the linguistic sound image used to represent some more abstract concept called the signified

Ambiguity: The result of something being stated in such a way its meaning cannot defintely determined

Even More Words

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from April 2009 listed from newest to oldest.

March 2009 is the previous archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en