Unidad 3 Comentarios

8/12/2019 Unidad 3 Comentarios

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unidad-3-comentarios 1/6

TEXTUAL COMMENTARY AND CRITICAL PRACTICE

Literary Author

Elizabeth Bishop !Roosters"#

It is $o%si&ere& to 'ar( her brea(i%) a*ay +ro' Maria%%e Moore,s i%+lue%$e# Moore -.//01

.2034 *as a Mo&er%ist A'eri$a% poet *ho be$a'e Bishop,s 'e%tor#

5el+1assess'e%t E6er$ises

.# Rea& the poe' o%$e throu)h *ithout loo(i%) up a%y *or&s# Liste% *ith the te6t i% +ro%t o+

you payi%) atte%tio% to Bishop,s rea&i%)# 7o* &o her pauses i%to%atio% stresses et$# help us

u%&ersta%& *hat !Roosters" is about8 &o%,t +or)et that the title is also part o+ the te6t#

The simple stanza form and rhythm of the poem in relationship with the content make the poem

sound like a fable or a fairy tale in which the actions carried out by humanised or personified

animals have an allegorical and moral meaning.

The poem is written in tercets that tend to rhyme together, although there are many instances of

tercets in which at least one of the verses does not rhyme with the other lines. The first verse is a

two-beat line and the second and third are three-beat lines (stresses are placed before the syllable,

which is also underlined)!t "four o"clock

in the "gun-metal "blue "dark

we "hear the first "crow of the first "cock

"#ust be"low

the "gun-metal "blue "window

and im"mediately there "is an "echo

$%&

!n e'ample of a tercet that has an irregular rhyme is the following one, the

ninth tercet

$%&

the "many "wiveswho "lead "hens "lives

of "being "courted and de"spised

$%&

ere, *wives* and *lives* do rhyme, but they don"t rhyme with *despised*,

that has a final +d+ sound on account of its being a participle that ends in -ed

after a verbal root that ends in a voiced sound (+d spaizd+ɪ ).

3#9rite a short su''ary -: li%es4 i% E%)lish o+ *hat you thi%( this poe' is about#

This is a narrative poem that describes the beginning of a new day, announced by the crowing of the

roosters of the title. y implicit references to cockfighting,

the behaviour of the roosters is portrayed in aggressive, warlike terms, with the birds themselves described metaphorically as male,

bellicose military officers whose violent behaviour results in the death of one of their group. The

wives or hens are portrayed as passive, unintelligent and emotional beings who are domineered

and "denied" by the "roosters" or men. !bout two thirds of the way through the poem, the speaker

introduces the narrative of /t. 0eter who denied 1hrist three times before the cock crowed. This

works like a parable inside the main narrative. The theme of denial of that story in the 2ospels

points to male denial as one of the ma#or traits in our still patriarchal society and what the roosters

represent symbolically (i.e. what men do to women). This theme is opposed to the alternative idea

of forgiveness that should have played a ma#or role in our culture over denial (this is the moral of

the parable). The poem then continues to focus on how the morning advances with the sun high in

the sky and the cocks are almost silent. The day is referred to in terms of a te't inscribed on amonument and the /un as a reader that follows that te't *to see the end*, thus matching the activity

of the reader who reaches the end of ishop"s poem itself, and pointing to the two possible attitudes







re@eale& i% the pre$e&i%) sta%zas4 repe%ta%$e a%& +or)i@e%ess# 9ithi% the bo&y o+ the poe'

Peter,s story sta%&s i% the 'i&&le o+ a%& pro@i&es a bri&)e bet*ee% the represe%tatio% o+ a

star( brutal 'as$uli%ity a%& a s$e%ario i% *hi$h the +e'i%i%e see's to pre@ail throu)h the

<uiet pi%( 'or%i%) i% the +i%al se$tio% o+ the poe' the e%& o+ the +ra'e that e%$loses PeterGs

story# Peter a%& by asso$iatio% the roosters see's to rea$h out to a less Ma%i$hea%

-H'a%i<uesta4 a%& 'ore positi@e pote%tial 'as$uli%ity# PeterGs story a%& its 'oral 'ust be

$o%si&ere& *ithi% its +ra'e espe$ially ho* the +i%al part o+ the +ra'e as e6plai%e& abo@eai's at the rea&ersG i%terro)ati%) the'sel@es about the i&eas o+ the poe' a%& a$tually e6pe$ts

the' to sho* a +a@ourable +rie%&ly attitu&e to the'#

I%tro&u$tio% to Criti$al a%& Literary Theory

Rea& Barry Chapter ; !Je'i%ist Criti$is'" -pp# ..;1.4#

.# Citi%) Toril Moi Barry re+ers to the !$ru$ial set o+ &isti%$tio%s" -..04 arou%& *hi$h 'u$h

o+ 5e$o%& 9a@e +e'i%is' re@ol@es# 9hat are they8 Use your o*% *or&s#

Toril 5oi distinguishes between feminist (8a political position9), female (8a matter of biology9) and

feminine (8a set of culturally defined characteristics9).

3# O% pa)e ..0 para)raph -!Thus i% +e'i%ist $riti$is'>"4 Barry %otes three $ha%)es or

a&Kust'e%ts that +e'i%is' u%&er*e%t i% the .2/s# Usi%) your o*% *or&s say *hat they

*ere#

Bne, feminist criticism became more wide-ranging and began to seek inspiration from the

conclusions and approaches of other schools of criticism two, feminist criticism turned away from

challenging the male outlook to e'amining instead the female version of reality and recovering

vanished or silenced accounts of womens e'perience three, focus changed to building a body of

womens writing by revising the history of the novel and poetry to incorporate neglected women

authors.

# No* re1rea& !9hat +e'i%ist $riti$s &o" -Barry pp# .3/1.324# Paraphrase his ar)u'e%ts i#e#

re1*rite Barry,s poi%ts -so'e o+ the' are @ery short4 *ith your o*% *or&s#

Ihat feminist critics do

E. 1hallenge and re-write the canon, seeking to rediscover women-authored te'ts.

;. @e-assess womens lives.

:. Jook at how women are represented by male and female authors.

=. Kuestion constructions of women as Bther, as lack, as being automatically linked to nature.

<. 1hallenge hierarchies in writing and real life, seeking to dismantle them, view reading as political

practice and e'pose (7 uncover, make manifest) patriarchy.

L. !cknowledge that language constructs social reality, making it seem natural or innate.

M. !sk whether men and women are essentially (because biologically) different, or whetherdifference is one more social construct.

F. @aise the possibility of écriture feminine (a feminine practice of writing) and of whether men can

practice écriture feminine too.

G. 2o back to psychoanalysis to continue e'ploring male and female identity.

E>. Jook again at arthes the death of the author, a notion which favours sub#ect positions

constructed through words ask whether experiential sub#ectivity (i.e. se'uality, ethnicity) should be

foregrounded instead.

EE. 5ake clear that impartial or conventional interpretations of literary te'ts are in fact rooted in

ideology.

Criti$al Authors



5ANDRA M# ILBERT -b# .2;4 a%& 5U5AN UBAR -b# .2::4# Jro' The Madwoman in the

Attic. The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination -.2024# Jro'

Chapter 3 !I%+e$tio% i% the 5e%te%$e The 9o'a% 9riter a%& the A%6iety o+ Authorship"#

Ihat does it mean to be a woman writer in a culture whose fundamental definitions of literary

authority are $%& ?patriarchalN 6f the ve'ed and ve'ing polarities of angel and monster, sweet dumb

/now Ihite and fierce mad Kueen, are ma#or images literary tradition offers women, how does

such ?imagery influence the ways in which women attempt the penN 6f the Kueens looking glass

speaks with the Oings voice, how do its perpetual kingly admonitions affect the Kueens own

voiceN Br does she 8talk back9 to him in her own vocabulary, her own timbre, insisting on her

viewpointN Ie believe these are basic 4uestions feminist literary criticism H both theoretical and

practical H must answer $%&.

That writers assimilate and then consciously or unconsciously affirm or deny the achievements oftheir predecessors is, of course, a central fact of literary history $%&. 6ncreasingly, $%& critics study

the ways in which, as A. illis 5iller has put it, a literary te't 8is inhabited%by a long chain of

parasitical presences, echoes, ?allusions, guests, ghosts of previous te'ts9.

$T&he first and foremost student of such literary psychohistory has been arold loom.L!pplying

Dreud $%&, loom has postulated that the dynamics of literary history arise from the artists

8an'iety of influence,9 his fear that he is not his own creator and that the works of his predecessors,

e'isting before and beyond him, assume essential priority over his own writings. $%& looms

paradigm of the se4uential relationship between literary artists is the relationship of father and son

$and& a 8strong poet9 must engage in heroic warfare with his 8precursor,9 for, involved as he is in a

literary Bedipal struggle,a man can only become a poet by somehow invalidating his poetic father.

$6&f we ac4uiesce in the patriarchal loomian model, we can be sure that the female poet does not

e'perience the 8an'iety of influence9 in the same way that her male counterpart would, for the

simple reason that she must confront precursors who are almost e'clusively male, and therefore

significantly different from her. Cot only do these precursors incarnate patriarchal authority $%&,

they attempt to enclose her in definitions of her person and her potential which, by reducing her to

e'treme stereotypes (angel, monster) drastically conflict with her own sense of her self H that is, of

her sub#ectivity, her autonomy, her creativity. Bn the one hand, therefore, the woman writers male

precursors symbolize authority on the other hand, despite their authority, they fail to define the

ways in which she e'periences her own identity as a writer. 5ore, the masculine authority with

which they construct their literary ?personae, as well as the fierce power struggles in which they

engage in their efforts of self-creation, seem to the woman writer directly to contradict the terms ofher own gender definition. Thus the 8an'iety of influence9 that a male poet e'periences is felt by a

female poet as an even more primary 8an'iety of authorship9 H a radical fear that she cannot create,

that because she can never become 8precursor9 the act of writing will isolate or destroy her.

/BP@1Q The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (;>>E)

.# Loo( up a%& )i@e &e+i%itio%s o+ the *or&s 'ar(e& *ith a% -asteris(4#

patriar$hal a&Ke$ti@e *hi$h &es$ribes a syste' o+ 'ale authority *hi$h oppresses *o'e%

throu)h its so$ial politi$al a%& e$o%o'i$ i%stitutio%s -Ma))ie 7u' The Dictionary of

Feminist Theory# E&i%bur)h E&i%bur)h U%i@ersity Press 34#

i'a)ery the terms image and imagery have many connotations and meanings. 6magery as ageneral term covers the use of language to represent ob#ects, actions, feelings, thoughts, ideas, states

of mind and any sensory or e'tra-sensory e'perience. Image does not necessarily mean a mental



picture.

allusio% usually an implicit reference, perhaps to another work of literature or art, to a person or an

event. 6t is often a kind of appeal to a reader to share some e'perience with the writer.

perso%ae plural of persona $a Jatin loanword&. 6n literary and critical #argon, persona has come to

denote the person (the 6 of an alter ego) who speaks in a poem or novel or other form of

literature.

3# i@e rief &e+i%itio%s or e<ui@ale%t ter's +or the +ollo*i%) ter's a%& e6pressio%s# Ta(e i%to

a$$ou%t their $o%te6t *ithi% the passa)e# Re'e'ber to $o%sult a )oo& 'o%oli%)ual E%)lish

&i$tio%ary i+ %e$essary

- attempt the pen try to write

- kingly admonitions stern advice uttered by a male monarch

- paradigm model, e'ample

- male counterpart male e4uivalent or complement

- stereotypes standardized, simplified and fi'ed conceptions.

# ilbert a%& ubar &is$uss 7arol& Bloo',s !a%6iety o+ i%+lue%$e" -para)raph 4#

5u''arise para)raph *hi$h )i@es us a% e6pla%atio% o+ this ter' -'a6i'u' li%es4#Dor loom, 8an'iety of influence9 refers to the (male) writers fear that his works are fatally

overshadowed H even owned in some way H by those of previous (male) authors. The author can

only counter (7contrarrestar, oponerse a) the paternal influence of (male) literary ancestors by

aggressively challenging and nullifying them, much as Bedipus nullified his father.

1B55QCT/

Cote how the act of summarizing closely resembles what Rerrida describes as 8the respectful

doubling of commentary9 that reading, at one level, performs. ! summary will focus on the surface

of a te't, the words themselves, and not 8aim at a certain relationship, unperceived by the writer,

between what he commands and what he does not command of the patterns of the language that he

uses9 (arry LG).

:# The a&Ke$ti@e Oe&ipal -par# 4 $o'es +ro' the ree( 'ytholo)i$al $hara$ter Oe&ipus the

(i%) o+ Thebes *ho 'arrie& his 'other a%& (ille& his +ather# 9hy &o you thi%( ilbert a%&

ubar &es$ribe the literary $o%+li$t bet*ee% a 'ale author a%& his pre$ursors as a% Oe&ipal

stru))le8

The male author must 8kill his father9 in order to survive and become his own person.

1B55QCT/ looms model is inspired by Dreuds Oedipus complex. This is what arry says

8the male infant conceives the desire to eliminate the father and become the se'ual partner of the

mother. 5any forms of inter-generational conflict are seen by Dreudians as having Bedipal

overtones, such as professional rivalries9. arry also notes the masculinized pre#udice of the

Oedipus complex 8!s the very idea of the Bedipal comple' would suggest, Dreudian theory is oftendeeply masculinist in bias9 (G:). loomian theory, too, one might add%

# Challe%)i%) Bloo',s Oe&ipal 'o&el ilbert a%& ubar $reate their o*% ter' !a%6iety o+

authorship"# Re1rea& para)raph : +ro' !Not o%ly &o these pre$ursors>" to the e%& a%&

paraphrase their ar)u'e%ts -'a6i'u' ; li%es4#

6n response to the masculinized version of literary rivalry represented by looms 8an'iety of

influence9, 2ilbert and 2ubar propose a feminized 8an'iety of authorship9 which can be

summarized thus 5ale literary ancestors are associated with the patriarchal attempt to define the

woman author, reducing her sub#ectivity to stereotypes (angel, monster) and her potential to define

herself. The male power conflict with a literary precursor does not reflect the female writers sense

of her own gender (7 gSnero). er inability to see herself as a (hostile, aggressive, i.e. masculine) precursor, therefore, leads to a fear that she cannot write, that writing will lead to her isolation or

annihilation.

Documents

Unidad 3 Comentarios