My Favorite School of Theory

My favorite school of theory was New Criticism. At first I did not really like it but I started to like it while we were doing our first paper using a New Criticism method. Not at first, but in the end i liked it because of how close the poem was too the author's childhood. I had done "Those Winter Sunday's" by Robert Hayden and I felt like my interpretation of his poem was close to his actual childhood. He grew up in a rather poor African-American part of town and much of his struggle was found in his poem. I like the idea of just using imagery from a text to find the meaning, it seems so clear cut and perfect (although New Criticism has been disproved to be the best method). I still prefer this method because I read texts and I generally only focus on the text at hand (unless you're one of my favorite author's) so I only focus on the imagery most of the time. The only thing I do not really like about New Criticism is the idea of the "single best interpretation" because I believe that everyone thinks about things differently and not everyone will see the same thing in texts. For example, in A Rose for Emily, many people think Emily killed Homer Baron and many people think she has her problems but she didn't kill him. That's the only part of New Criticism that I don't particularly like, but other than that, it is probably my favorite school of theory.

Reflection Statement for A Rose for Emily

Reflection

I did a Marxist reading of A Rose for Emily by William Faulkner about how Emily was of high economic and social class but this highness in society was not enough to make her happy. I honestly only choose to do a Marxist reading of A Rose for Emily because it seemed the easiest to write. It was between A Rose for Emily or Perfume: The Story of a Murderer by Patrick Suskind and honestly I love the novel, but I felt like I did not have enough time to reread a novel and write an essay based on a literary theory. Plus A Rose for Emily seemed more clear cut and much more manageable to work with. The short story had a lot to do with Emily’s socio-economic background and that is a crucial element for any Marxist reading.

In all honesty if I had performed a Reader-Response analysis on A Rose for Emily I would not have included quotations that obviously point out Emily’s high status in society because it would not have applied to Reader-Response. If I had done a Reader-Response analysis on A Rose for Emily I would have focused on how the reader felt about Emily’s inter turmoil about liking Homer Baron but also being raised in a way where she would have to abide by her father’s ways of life. Her father believed anyone of lower class could not marry his daughter. I would elaborate on how as a reader that I would feel with those conflicting emotions and how I view Emily. For my quotations I would focus on parts of the short story where Emily’s thoughts were guessed from the fellow town’s people and based upon her actions.

If I had done a New Historical/Cultural theory I would have focused on the time period that A Rose for Emily takes place and talk about how that impacts the story. A Rose for Emily takes place at during the turn of the 19^th century into the 20^th century and a large portion of Emily’s life. She was born into a time when family names and statuses were respected and during her life she saw the downfall of this prestige and nobility. I would talk about the normalcies of the time period and use them to explain Emily’s actions. I would use quotations of historical dates and behaviors and I would also use examples within the text of common practices of culture within the story.

I did not like the other two school of theories for A Rose for Emily so I choose a Marxist reading. Plus it was the first idea that had come into my head and I just went for it because I just usually go off my first thoughts. I did not not usually writing a Marxist theory for A Rose for Emily but I think it was just because of the complexity of the actual paper’s requirements. I am not sure I would have enjoyed writing this paper no matter what school of theory it was. If I could not have written a Marxist reading of A Rose for Emily, I would have definitely written a New Historical/Cultural reading of A Rose for Emily because of all three theories, it sounds like it would be the most fun and interesting to research. If I had given more time to logically think all three options through, I would have probably done this approach but since it came to me while I had already started my topic within Marxism I did not change it. I would have dreaded writing a Reader-Response reading because I hate Reader-Response theories. The hardest part about writing this paper was the lack of specific secondary sources. 

Rough draft from before

Marxism and A Rose for Emily

A Rose for Emily is a short story published in 1930 by American author William Faulkner. Marxist criticism is a type of criticism in which literary works are viewed as the product of work and whose practitioners emphasize the role of class and ideology as they reflect, propagate, and even challenge the prevailing social order. Rather than viewing texts as repositories for hidden meanings, Marxist critics view texts as material products to be understood in broadly historical terms. In short, literary works are viewed as a product of work (and hence of the realm of production and consumption we call economics) (1). Marxist criticism started with Karl Marx and Karl Marx believed that literature shows how that particular society’s economic system is responsible for everything and everything in society. Karl Marx also believed that the history of a society is also a history of class clashes and struggles. Soon this was developed into Marxist Literary Theory. A Rose for Emily is a perfect short story to interrupt using Marxism because the story is pretty much entirely all about class.

Emily Grierson used to teach china painting and this represents that Emily is finically well off because only middle and upper class individuals do because china painting is rather consuming and quite expensive, most people would not be spending money of china-painting. ”A deputation waited upon her, Knocked at the door through which no visitor had passed since she ceased giving china painting lessons eight or ten years earlier”

Emily was treated as a commodity within her town. “When Miss Emily Grierson died, our whole town went to her funeral: the men through a sort of respectful affection for a fallen monument…”. (1). “Alive, Miss Emily had been a tradition, a duty, and a care; a sort of hereditary obligation upon the town, dating from that day in 1864 when Colonel Sartoris, the mayor-he who fathered the edict that no Negro woman should appear on the streets without an apron—remitted her taxes, the dispensation dating from the death of her father onto perpetuity. Not that Miss’ Emily would have accepted charity” (1).This shows that the other town’s people viewed Emily and her father as people who were high and mighty, almost royalty in their town and that Miss Emily viewed herself in the same sort of way when it says she would never have accepted charity from someone. This stresses to the reader that Emily is of higher status.

Emily’s father viewed that since they were financially well off and high class that suitors for his daughter would have to be of very high class as well. “believed that the Griersons held themselves a little too high for what they really were. None of the young men were quite good enough for Miss Emily and such. We had long thought of them as tableau; Miss Emily a slender figure in white in the background, her father a spraddled silhouette in the foreground, his back to her and clutching a horsewhip, the two of them framed by the back-flung front door. So when she got to be thirty and was still single, we were not pleased exactly, but vindicated; even with insanity in the family she wouldn’t have turned down all of her chances id they has really materialized” (2). Emily’s father would drive away any man that was in any class longer than him and his daughter.

When Emily’s father died, the town’s people view on Emily soured because she was not as financially stable as she had once been and she was in the same class as the rest of the town. “When her father died, it got about that the house was all that was left to her; and in a way, people were glad. At least they could pity Miss Emily. Being left alone, and a pauper, she had become humanized. Now she too would know the old thrill and the old despair of a penny more or less” (2). People were happy that Emily no longer had her high class status. Despite their lack of respect toward Emily, they still tried to preserve the illusion of her formerly high status and her perceived greatness. Even when Emily had the corpse of her father in their house and tried to claim to the other town’s people that her father was not dead. The town’s people did not blame her. “We did not say she was crazy then. We believed she had to do that. We remembered all the young men her father had driven away, and we knew that with nothing left, she would have to cling to that which had robbed her, as people will” (3). They tried to reason excuses with themselves to show that she was alright.

Just because one’s social and class is high it does not nessecraily make them an happy individual. A Rose for Emily proves this because Emily was not happy despite her high class. Although, after she had lost her financial stability, she still tried to get up with the façade of having a high class while she was shut away in her house. Also when she was conflicted about Homer Baron.

Final Essay Reflection

Good Afternoon All,

I just finished typing up my reflection for our final paper and wanted to share it with you all. Happy Studying!

Choosing The Last American Vampire as my novel to write a Reader-Response criticism about had its perks. Since the novel itself is very historical I was able to focus on the historical aspect as well as the Reader-Response aspect. If I were to write this paper as a New Historical paper it would include many different things. For starters, I would have a large focus on the time period. For this novel it would be very difficult to do so since it takes place over the course of five centuries dating back as early as the 1500s. It would be difficult to determine what was popular at the time, what outside sources I should use to benefit my analysis, and my paper would greatly exceed the seven page requirement. I would use more quotations about America (although my paper does have a lot of those already there is still a massive amount that I did not use). This version of the essay would not necessarily care about the life of Henry Sturges. It would, however, want to focus on why his life was so important to each historical period which I only briefly touched on in the Reader-Response version.

            If my paper was focused on a cultural perspective I would run into many of the same issues. I would have to pull out all of the political views of each president of the United States since its creation and how that connects to the novel as a whole. I would then apply each individual political theory back onto the novel and analysis how that effects it. This would be extremely difficult when it came to finding credible sources for a novel that was just published in January of 2015. There is no criticism of the novel as it is and this would make it ten times harder to write. A New Historical or Cultural version of this paper would be too hard to write and would more than likely be frustrating and it would not be anywhere close to my writing abilities.

            This is why I chose to write a Reader-Response paper on The Last American Vampire. As a reader of the novel I was greatly impacted on the way it rewrote history using vampiredom. I am very big in reading fantasy novels and when given the chance to write an essay about fantasy and history I jumped on it. Using Reader-Response did cause me to run into some problems. Since there is no criticism of this novel in the MLA Bibliography I resorted to using the genre in my paper which ultimately helped me decipher my thesis. Having such a complex thesis made it so I paid extra attention to that was going on in each paragraph. Although this is one of the most complex papers I have ever written, I found that my writing skills do not only exist in the creative sense. I can also write professionally and I cannot wait to expand that ability. 

Sorry to upload this so late! My writing process for this paper is unconventional because I'm actually interested in my topic. I tried to put together the ideas I have so far in a way that is easy to follow.

Since it’s publication in 1955, Vladimir Nabokov’s “Lolita” has garnered praise, criticism, controversy, and notoriety. As a polarizing work, Lolita cannot be discussed without paying considerable attention to the way readers interact with it. Although the novel contains more controversial subject matter, it is, at it’s core, a study of the power of language. As the narrator, Humbert Humbert uses language to guide and sway the reader. How the reader responds to his manipulation is dependent on the information they possess prior to reading the novel, and ultimately, their willingness to humor his efforts. 

The plot of Lolita is driven by Humbert’s attraction to his 12 year old stepdaughter Dolores. After his wife’s death, Humbert is free to pursue a relationship with the girl, whom he nicknames Lolita. Aware of the risks he is taking, Humbert beings to isolate himself and Lo with constant traveling. While the hard facts about what takes place in the novel are enough to condemn Humbert as a pedophile and emotional abuser, the reader must search through Humbert’s attempts at self-delusion in order to find them. As a charismatic but unreliable narrator, Humbert wastes no time in seducing his audience. In the novel’s first chapter, he confesses his crime, addresses us as “his jury” and proceeds to act as his own defense. 

The information that we as readers are given about Humbert works to make him appealing. He is European, refined, educated, and handsome. An ongoing theme in the novel is the stark contrast between the European and the American. Humbert frequently criticizes the brashness and vulgarity of his American hosts. In doing so, he paints himself as a sophisticated English intellectual who is being drawn into the loose morals of the states. Humbert’s tendency to play the victim also appears in his account of his relationship with Lo. Although Lolita is the eponymous character, we as readers never get her perspective. Her story is told through Humbert, and therefore, is subject to his manipulation. Always eager to play the victim, Humbert assures the reader that his stepdaughter seduced him. He wants the reader to be drawn into his words so that they forget he is the adult with the responsibility to put a stop to any inappropriate behavior. 

Many readers have preconceived notions of Lolita far before they ever pick up the novel. Our culture and media are rife with references and allusions to the work. “Lolita” has become a popular term to refer to a sexually precocious young girl. Participants of the Lolita fashion scene in Harajuku wear frilly childlike outfits inspired by the character. The Police’s lyric referencing “that book by Nabokov” is one of the many examples of how the novel has inspired music. Moving images and captioned screencaps from Adrian Lyne’s 1997 film adaptation can be found all over blogging platforms. For these reasons, a reader’s choice to pick up Lolita is often driven by a kind of embarrassed curiosity. Many are surprised to be greeted by a charming Englishman rather than a lecherous predator. When our assumptions are challenged, we are forced accept that we do not have all the answers. For readers of Lolita, this means allowing Humbert to present his case. 

Final addition to the Outline

Let the writing begin !!! This is SPARTAAAAA !!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lines to angle:

“But sadly, the Maria he knows and loves cannot survive his death, for she was from the first nothing but a projection of his fantasies,” (215 Eby)

“She adores him, lives only to serve him, longs for nothing but to learn his desires so that she can do for him what he wants, talks of her identity as completely merged in his.” (Edmund Wilson, The New Republic)  

“the amoeba-like little Spanish girl” (Edmund Wilson, The Wound and the Bow)

“…Hemingway’s sometimes public disagreements helped to create his popular image as woman-hater,” (Nolan 14)

“…the portrayal of Maria, who has unjustly been stereotype as being without individual personality, as submissive, and as unimportant to the overall theme of the novel,” (Rudat 8)

“Pilar exemplifies the emancipated behavior endorsed by the Mujeres Libres” (my emphasis, Guill 10) yet she restricts Maria to domestic chores and forces her upon RJ (“contradictory”-Lil B voice).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would've probably been done with this portion and most of the essay last night had my 'do not disturb'--for a group chat (ugh)--not (somehow) undermined my phone's alarm. 

Outline !!

After I take a decent nap,  Im going throw some more secondary source quotes in here that will allow me to angle my arguments off other(s) (should be very easy). The interesting primary sources you see here are all the possible things I could ever want to use in this essay, but realistically I will probably narrow it down further (as well as paraphrase). Now that I have all my evidence and argument and have a decent idea of how I want to structure the essay, I think the rest should be easy. Everything thus far has been the 70% of the iceberg (so I hope).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pilar is admirable:

“He is very much flaccid. He is very much afraid to die,” (26)

“….you should see his woman…A hundred times braver than Pablo,” (26)

“And do not try to frighten me, coward,” (54)

“Here I command. No one commands but me. Here I command” (60)

Welcomes in RJ and is curious to know his opinions on her comrade “returned her strong hand grip” (31)

“To me the bridge means nothing…I am for the mujer of Pablo” (53) others in agreement

“…watched her blush proudly and soundly and healthily,” (53)

Sent Maria to Robert Jordan (72-73)

“An intelligent woman” (183)

“…believe[s] in the Republic” (100)

“’brags of mak[ing] love in Valencia’” (10 of Guill; 94 & 108 of FWTBT)

initially referred to as “mujer of Pablo” or “wife of Pablo”  is italicized as if to emphasis that indeed, it is a woman making commands—“Go now…”

Pilar is a complete jerk:

Commands people: “Sit down” (32)

Insults Pablo and others: “Drunkard” (32)

“She treats me as a time waster” (Rafael, 28)

 “With this tongue she takes the hide from anyone,” (28)

“But I give you back our rabbit…that’s a good name for her” (156) rabbit=conejo=cono=cunt (probably intentional)

“I am only jealous that you are nineteen. It is not a jealousy which lasts. You will not be nineteen always” (157)

“But the old woman tied a rope to her and…beat her with the end of the rope to make her go,” (28)

“AS…” bottom of pg. 12 on how Pilar coached Maria on how to kill herself w/ blade

Pilar likes Robert Jordan:

Both Pablo and Robert Jordan like Maria. Pilar keeps Maria away from Pablo and encourages her closeness with Robert Jordan…living vicariously

“ran her hand over [Robert Jordan’s] shoulder, feeling the muscle….’I am very content that you have come” (31)

Pilar on Pablo: “she shook her head. ‘He was a very good man,” (32)

“Now if I could take the rabbit from thee and take thee from the rabbit,” (156)

“I could eat a banana now… Go on, Ingles. Keep on talking largely,” (156) 

Maria is revolutionary:

‘teach her to shoot’ (Guill 13, FWTBT 32)

“…are bad people and I would like to kill some of them if I could”

149, 290, 381 of FWTBT

“But will we kill the Falangists? It was they who did it,” (FWTBT 353; “AH…” pg. 17)

“…I hoped they would have shot me too…Viva la Republica y vivan mis padres (FWTBT 350; “AS…” pg. 30)

my own kinda unique little analyzation twist would be that all of her revolutionary changes  were self-made, had nothing to do with Robert Jordan.

Maria is strong:

“Shut thy mouth, Pilar…You speak grossly,” (156)

“Never did I submit to any one. Always I fought…to do me harm” (350)

“That’s the way I comb it…Don’t stare at me,” (22)

I second what was said at the bottom of the first paragraph on pg. 14 of “AS…” and middle of first paragraph on pg. 18

Maria has grown:

“AS…” Pgs. 10-11 on the change in Maria’s clothes (dresses to trousers)

“Where do the noses go?” (FWTBT 71)

“She would not speak and she cried all the time…” (28)

Maria is commanded.

“No, little rabbit.” “Yes. Yes. Everything as you.” (158-159) shows two things: she grew assertively generally and is not “ashamed” (?) anymore.

  

My closer should deal with the victory of Maria over Pilar as far as RJ is concerned, how there is a reversal of whose head is down. Pilar and Maria both physically lose Jordan, but Maria…

Or something along the lines of what I marked on pg. 22 Nolan

Questionable lines: “But sadly, the Maria he knows and loves cannot survive his death, for she was from the first nothing but a projection of his fantasies,” (215 Eby)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If anyone can detect anything blaringly wrong or perhaps missing from either more outline, or more specially my note above this outline, please let me know !! Thanks..