“Science” of Grammatology
This is Derrida’s scientific approach to language in opposition to the belief that language cannot be studied scientifically. Here, he brings in the concept on sign which is divided into the signifier (written or spoken mark) and signified (a concept/meaning). A much known example to this is the traffic light. The colors green, yellow, and red are signifiers, and the concepts “go, ready, and stop” are signifieds. When one sees the green (signifier), he gets the idea that he has to “go” (signified). This kind of approach to language is systematic; however, not all written and spoken marks (especially the abstract ones, like “emotion” and “feeling”) have definite and distinct concept. The signifieds to these signifiers are most likely to be similar or the same. Thus, the relationship of signifier and signified is conventional and arbitrary. Also, signifiers don not remain to be signifiers. Sometimes, they become signifieds. An example given by Charles Bressler in Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice is the sentence I have filled the glass with milk. The word “glass” (signifier) means a container (signified). But in the sentence The container was filled with milk, the word “container,” which in the previous sentence is a signified, now becomes a signifier, which means a thing that can be filled.
Logocentrism
This refers to the belief that the center is “logos” (or the Word which is so much related to God). For Derrida, this is the “belief that there is an ultimate reality or center of truth that can serve as the basis for all our thoughts and actions”—the logos. A signified can only be valid if it parallels the thought of God. Logocentrism believes that the signified to a particular signifier can only be considered “truth” if and only if the signified is also the thought of God. As a Christian, I do agree on this.
Phonocentrism
This is also related to Logocentrisim and the metaphysics of presence. This believes that speech is superior to and privilege over writing. There are a number of reasons: (1) speech is closer to thought than writing; (2) in relation to sign, speech is the original signifier, writing, the signifier of the signifier; and (3) speech does not need validation for it has the direct presence of the speaker, writing has none (thus, absence). Thus, the self (the speaker/presence from which one gets direct meaning) becomes the “being (existence).” For me, although speech has the presence and validity, one should still not make writing inferior because writing supplements speech. With this view, writing gives meaning to speech. I am not saying, however, that one must view writing as superior to speech. The point is: Both have truth in them.
Supplement
Derrida believes that there is such an unstable and problematic relationship between the binary oppositions of the Western thought, so he reverses the opposition. This is what he calls supplement. Through this, one may get new meaningful truth. This concept of Derrida truly gives a different and another meaning to a particular text. I was discussing “Lord Randal” with my students in English 4. There is already an establish binary opposition in the poem: Love (Lord Randal) and Betrayal (the lover). However, if Lord Randal was really betrayed by his lover, why was he not that angry? He is supposed to be outraged. Why does he seem to be calm and “just wanted to lie down”? Apparently, he accepts the negative act by his lover. My friend, who studied psychology, told me that a “non-guilty person when punished is outraged.” If this is true then Lord Randal is guilty. He must have been the one who betrayed his lover. So the binary opposition is reversed: Betrayal (Lord Randal) and Love (the lover).
Differance
This is a word coined by Derrida comes from the French word differer that means to defer and to differ. Basically, this idea stands for “Derrida’s what-if questions.” In this view, he believes that “all human knowledge…must spring from difference, not sameness, from absence, not presence.” Charles Bressler then gives two results of differance: (1) on the differ-side: all knowledge should be based on differance (one knows something because it differs from others); and (2) on the defer-side: one must forgo closure (all interpretations are possible). I could not agree more. What else can I say? Derrida is such a great critic and philosopher!
Saturday, December 19, 2009
from "Work to Text" by Roland Barthes
Discuss Barthes’s poststructuralist notion of intertextuality. What, for Barthes, differentiates or distinguishes “text” from [literary] “work”?
For Roland Barthes, intertextuality refers to the interrelatedness of a text with other texts. In his essay From Work to Text, he states that a text is “itself being the text-between of another text.” No text is original (it is how I get it). A text is but a composition with citations from other texts which, according to him, “are anonymous, untraceable, and yet already read: they are quotations without inverted commas.” The author does not only cite other texts but also picks up meaning/message from other existing texts and expresses such meaning/message in his own way. Strictly speaking, then, a text has no author—he is not the text’s source. The author is merely an instrument to bring out the meaning which has already existed long before the author exists. After the text is born, the author is no longer that important. This implies: if one wants to find out the meaning of the text, one must not “find the ‘sources’, the ‘influences’” of the author (a belief which falls “under the myth of filiation”) because the author is not the text’s source. As Barthes clearly declares the death of the author, anyone can read and find the meaning of the text without the author (or the father). This idea supports the principle that there is no one meaning of a text (not even the author’s) but there are as many interpretations as there are readers.
In Barthes two essays From Work to Text and The Death of the Author, he gives vivid distinctions between Work and Text: (1) the work is displayed, while the text is demonstrated; (2) work is held in hand, text, in language; (3) work is the “book”, text, the “content”; (4) work is close to signifier, text, to signified; (5) work gives pleasure, text, enjoyment; and (6) work has an author, text, a dead author (only a “scriptor”). I would like to focus on the “author/scriptor” issue. For Barthes, a text has no author but a sciptor. He explains that the author is just the past of the text. The author exists as he tells the story, and he ceases to exist as the text is produced. On the other hand, the scriptor exists to produce but not to explain the text. Unlike the author, the scriptor “is born simultaneously with the text, [it] is in no way equipped with a being preceding or exceeding the writing, [and it] is not the subject with the book as predicate.” The scriptor is aware that “his hand [is] cut off from any voice.” This creates a difference between a work and a text.
For Roland Barthes, intertextuality refers to the interrelatedness of a text with other texts. In his essay From Work to Text, he states that a text is “itself being the text-between of another text.” No text is original (it is how I get it). A text is but a composition with citations from other texts which, according to him, “are anonymous, untraceable, and yet already read: they are quotations without inverted commas.” The author does not only cite other texts but also picks up meaning/message from other existing texts and expresses such meaning/message in his own way. Strictly speaking, then, a text has no author—he is not the text’s source. The author is merely an instrument to bring out the meaning which has already existed long before the author exists. After the text is born, the author is no longer that important. This implies: if one wants to find out the meaning of the text, one must not “find the ‘sources’, the ‘influences’” of the author (a belief which falls “under the myth of filiation”) because the author is not the text’s source. As Barthes clearly declares the death of the author, anyone can read and find the meaning of the text without the author (or the father). This idea supports the principle that there is no one meaning of a text (not even the author’s) but there are as many interpretations as there are readers.
In Barthes two essays From Work to Text and The Death of the Author, he gives vivid distinctions between Work and Text: (1) the work is displayed, while the text is demonstrated; (2) work is held in hand, text, in language; (3) work is the “book”, text, the “content”; (4) work is close to signifier, text, to signified; (5) work gives pleasure, text, enjoyment; and (6) work has an author, text, a dead author (only a “scriptor”). I would like to focus on the “author/scriptor” issue. For Barthes, a text has no author but a sciptor. He explains that the author is just the past of the text. The author exists as he tells the story, and he ceases to exist as the text is produced. On the other hand, the scriptor exists to produce but not to explain the text. Unlike the author, the scriptor “is born simultaneously with the text, [it] is in no way equipped with a being preceding or exceeding the writing, [and it] is not the subject with the book as predicate.” The scriptor is aware that “his hand [is] cut off from any voice.” This creates a difference between a work and a text.
Adrienne Rich, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and the Lesbian Experience”
Discuss “compulsory heterosexuality” and “lesbian continuum”
In what ways can literature and culture play important roles in overcoming the tradition of compulsory heterosexuality?
Compulsory heterosexuality, according to Rich in her essay “Compulsory Heterosexuality and the Lesbian Experience,” is a term for the society-based notion that only a man can satisfy a woman. Such concept denies a lesbian woman of her own sexuality and comfort in exploring her body and her partner’s. She claims that compulsory heterosexuality produces such myths as that of the vaginal orgasm that serves to imply that only a man can sexually satisfy a woman (by delivering a vaginal orgasm). Hence this serves to prevent a woman from having a relationship with other woman.
Rich claims that a woman may not have a preference toward heterosexuality (that is to look for a man to satisfy her), but she may find it imposed, managed, organized, propagandized, and maintained by the society. Everyday, a woman is either consciously or unconsciously promoted with heteronormativity (heterosexuality as normal activity) in the form of concepts and norms perpetuated by the society. These concepts have been accepted because of the historical lack of exposure that lesbians are either stigmatized or non-existent. In fact, Rich objects to the term “lesbianism” (because she sees it as a stigmatized term). Instead, she advocates at least two terms: (1) “lesbian existence” for the historical and contemporary presence of lesbian creation, and (2) “lesbian continuum” to include the entire range of a woman-identified experience (the lesbian existence among women). She feels that new understanding and language must be created to counter the limited and biased terms that society has historically used to describe a woman with a relationship to another woman. She claims that once a woman sees lesbian existence more than mere sexuality (sexual activity), it is likely to happen that relationships between and among women will be embraced and accepted by the society.
Furthermore, Rich writes that lesbians have been deprived of their right of personal and political history. When included in history, they have been simply described as the female versions of male homosexuals, with no distinctiveness. (At certain points in history, homosexual men and lesbians have shared a social existence, and acknowledged a common fight against society.) Rich, however, writes that to treat the lesbian experience as a version of male homosexuality is to discard it: denying the female experience and the realities it brings and falsifying lesbian history.
The role then of literature and culture in overcoming compulsory heterosexuality is to make the society (both men and women) recognize and accept lesbian experience—the lesbian existence and lesbian continuum. The society has to realize that women are suffering from the patriarchy (the male right and dominance to women). Role-playing, self-hatred, breakdown, suicide, and “intrawoman violence”—these are just some of the sufferings women experience from rejecting compulsory heterosexuality. May literature and culture do the change for change always comes bearing gifts.
In what ways can literature and culture play important roles in overcoming the tradition of compulsory heterosexuality?
Compulsory heterosexuality, according to Rich in her essay “Compulsory Heterosexuality and the Lesbian Experience,” is a term for the society-based notion that only a man can satisfy a woman. Such concept denies a lesbian woman of her own sexuality and comfort in exploring her body and her partner’s. She claims that compulsory heterosexuality produces such myths as that of the vaginal orgasm that serves to imply that only a man can sexually satisfy a woman (by delivering a vaginal orgasm). Hence this serves to prevent a woman from having a relationship with other woman.
Rich claims that a woman may not have a preference toward heterosexuality (that is to look for a man to satisfy her), but she may find it imposed, managed, organized, propagandized, and maintained by the society. Everyday, a woman is either consciously or unconsciously promoted with heteronormativity (heterosexuality as normal activity) in the form of concepts and norms perpetuated by the society. These concepts have been accepted because of the historical lack of exposure that lesbians are either stigmatized or non-existent. In fact, Rich objects to the term “lesbianism” (because she sees it as a stigmatized term). Instead, she advocates at least two terms: (1) “lesbian existence” for the historical and contemporary presence of lesbian creation, and (2) “lesbian continuum” to include the entire range of a woman-identified experience (the lesbian existence among women). She feels that new understanding and language must be created to counter the limited and biased terms that society has historically used to describe a woman with a relationship to another woman. She claims that once a woman sees lesbian existence more than mere sexuality (sexual activity), it is likely to happen that relationships between and among women will be embraced and accepted by the society.
Furthermore, Rich writes that lesbians have been deprived of their right of personal and political history. When included in history, they have been simply described as the female versions of male homosexuals, with no distinctiveness. (At certain points in history, homosexual men and lesbians have shared a social existence, and acknowledged a common fight against society.) Rich, however, writes that to treat the lesbian experience as a version of male homosexuality is to discard it: denying the female experience and the realities it brings and falsifying lesbian history.
The role then of literature and culture in overcoming compulsory heterosexuality is to make the society (both men and women) recognize and accept lesbian experience—the lesbian existence and lesbian continuum. The society has to realize that women are suffering from the patriarchy (the male right and dominance to women). Role-playing, self-hatred, breakdown, suicide, and “intrawoman violence”—these are just some of the sufferings women experience from rejecting compulsory heterosexuality. May literature and culture do the change for change always comes bearing gifts.
Jean-Paul Sartre, “Why Write?” From What is Literature?
What are the answers to Sartre’s questions on why write? What is the role of the reader when reading literature?
Freedom is the answer to the question: Why Write? In the essay, Sartre asserts that an author, just like anyone, has a freedom. Through writing, the author is able to animate and penetrate his freedom. As a writer though, he must be aware that he cannot escape from history. His history includes an implicit recourse to institutions, customs, certain forms of implicit recourse to institutions, customs, certain forms of oppression and conflict, to the wisdom and the folly of the day, to lasting passions and passing stubbornness, to superstitions and recent victories of commonsense, to evidence and ignorance, to particular modes of reasoning which the sciences have made fashionable and which are applied in all domains, to hopes to fears, to habits of sensibility, imagination, and even perception, and finally, to customs and values. All these (history and ideology) are inevitably included in the author’s text. Hence, as he writes, he unconsciously freely expresses these (representing himself).
So in reading, what is the role of the reader? Just like the author, the reader has freedom—freedom to interpret the text according to his history and ideology. For this reason, the interpretation of a text differs from one reader to another. Phenomenology believes that an object exist because it is registered in the mind of the reader. If that appeals to the consciousness of the reader, then it exists—it has a meaning. Because different people have different backgrounds (consciousness), there will also be differences in the interpretation. Still, there is no one correct interpretation.
The reading process (or the interaction between the author and text), in Phenomenology, can be summarized through the proceeding sentences. When the reader reads, he brings with him his worldview (or theme identity) to see the text. As he brings his worldview with him, he interacts with the text. While interacting with the text, the author is able to express himself (his purpose, intention, history, ideology, among others) to the reader. This process further implies that there are as many interpretations of the text as there are readers.
Therefore, Sartre states that the writer must write for a public which has the freedom of changing everything.
Freedom is the answer to the question: Why Write? In the essay, Sartre asserts that an author, just like anyone, has a freedom. Through writing, the author is able to animate and penetrate his freedom. As a writer though, he must be aware that he cannot escape from history. His history includes an implicit recourse to institutions, customs, certain forms of implicit recourse to institutions, customs, certain forms of oppression and conflict, to the wisdom and the folly of the day, to lasting passions and passing stubbornness, to superstitions and recent victories of commonsense, to evidence and ignorance, to particular modes of reasoning which the sciences have made fashionable and which are applied in all domains, to hopes to fears, to habits of sensibility, imagination, and even perception, and finally, to customs and values. All these (history and ideology) are inevitably included in the author’s text. Hence, as he writes, he unconsciously freely expresses these (representing himself).
So in reading, what is the role of the reader? Just like the author, the reader has freedom—freedom to interpret the text according to his history and ideology. For this reason, the interpretation of a text differs from one reader to another. Phenomenology believes that an object exist because it is registered in the mind of the reader. If that appeals to the consciousness of the reader, then it exists—it has a meaning. Because different people have different backgrounds (consciousness), there will also be differences in the interpretation. Still, there is no one correct interpretation.
The reading process (or the interaction between the author and text), in Phenomenology, can be summarized through the proceeding sentences. When the reader reads, he brings with him his worldview (or theme identity) to see the text. As he brings his worldview with him, he interacts with the text. While interacting with the text, the author is able to express himself (his purpose, intention, history, ideology, among others) to the reader. This process further implies that there are as many interpretations of the text as there are readers.
Therefore, Sartre states that the writer must write for a public which has the freedom of changing everything.
Chinua Achebe’s “An Image of Africa”
Discuss the arguments and conclusions of Achebe’s article. Do you agree with them? Achebe is known to teach Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness.” He believes it should be taught by addressing racism and colonialism. Please comment.
In An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, Achebe attacks Joseph Conrad’s text as racist. According to Achebe, this novel should be taught in schools, colleges, and universities addressing racism and colonialism. One has to use Postcolonial Criticism to interpret the novel.
He argues that Conrad intends not to give human attributes on Africans—he even deprives them of language. Africa, as the representation of the Blacks, is rendered as the direct opposite of Europe. Since it is the opposite of Europe, it is therefore not civilized. Congo is merely “a foil to Europe.” In the essay, Achebe presents instances in the novel where Conrad (1) in terms of description, the Blacks are “non-humans” and (2) in terms of language, the Blacks seem to not have any (if there is, then it is alien-like). Achebe, furthermore, goes beyond the novel. He attacks Conrad’s personal experiences—that he has a problem with Blacks and that he personally despises them.
I have read the novel at least three times. What Achebe has discussed in the essay is true. Conrad’s seemingly biased and unfair description and treatment on the events, descriptions, and the characters are noticeable. All these are good elements for Postcolonial studies. The approach concerns with the colonizers and the colonized.
Although this may be a good approach for the novel (if meaning or interpretation is concerned), however, one has to note that Conrad has no intention to hurt nor to discriminate the Africans (or the Blacks). Conrad describes them the way he observes them and the way his people do. I don’t believe Conrad intentionally describes the Blacks that way to embarrass them. Conrad is one fine artist, if one must know. He just presents them that way because his work demands that kind of art for a creative and artistic effect. If one would just use Postcolonialism to the novel, does this mean that he would then dismiss the artistic element of the novel? I believe this is also unfair to Conrad.
On the one hand, it is good to study the novel using Postcolonial Approach to emphasize the element on colonization and the discrimination of the Blacks. On the other hand, it is better not to use just one approach to the novel for justice sakes. It is always better to combine some approaches to arrive at the meaning of the novel (for “two is better than one”). If one does this, he will have a broader understanding and a deeper insight on the darkness in each person’s heart. To Achebe: If bias is your point, then reflect on every side of the novel.
In An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, Achebe attacks Joseph Conrad’s text as racist. According to Achebe, this novel should be taught in schools, colleges, and universities addressing racism and colonialism. One has to use Postcolonial Criticism to interpret the novel.
He argues that Conrad intends not to give human attributes on Africans—he even deprives them of language. Africa, as the representation of the Blacks, is rendered as the direct opposite of Europe. Since it is the opposite of Europe, it is therefore not civilized. Congo is merely “a foil to Europe.” In the essay, Achebe presents instances in the novel where Conrad (1) in terms of description, the Blacks are “non-humans” and (2) in terms of language, the Blacks seem to not have any (if there is, then it is alien-like). Achebe, furthermore, goes beyond the novel. He attacks Conrad’s personal experiences—that he has a problem with Blacks and that he personally despises them.
I have read the novel at least three times. What Achebe has discussed in the essay is true. Conrad’s seemingly biased and unfair description and treatment on the events, descriptions, and the characters are noticeable. All these are good elements for Postcolonial studies. The approach concerns with the colonizers and the colonized.
Although this may be a good approach for the novel (if meaning or interpretation is concerned), however, one has to note that Conrad has no intention to hurt nor to discriminate the Africans (or the Blacks). Conrad describes them the way he observes them and the way his people do. I don’t believe Conrad intentionally describes the Blacks that way to embarrass them. Conrad is one fine artist, if one must know. He just presents them that way because his work demands that kind of art for a creative and artistic effect. If one would just use Postcolonialism to the novel, does this mean that he would then dismiss the artistic element of the novel? I believe this is also unfair to Conrad.
On the one hand, it is good to study the novel using Postcolonial Approach to emphasize the element on colonization and the discrimination of the Blacks. On the other hand, it is better not to use just one approach to the novel for justice sakes. It is always better to combine some approaches to arrive at the meaning of the novel (for “two is better than one”). If one does this, he will have a broader understanding and a deeper insight on the darkness in each person’s heart. To Achebe: If bias is your point, then reflect on every side of the novel.
“On National Culture” from The Wretched of the Earth
What is the role of nationalism and national culture in the fight against colonial domination according to Fanon? Discuss.
To aid me in my discussion and to make my discussion clearer, I have come up with a concept map. I call this chart “Fanon’s Concept on National Culture.”
For Fanon, colonial domination is an enemy to the nation. Culture is the first expression of the nation, yet this culture “falls and dies away” under colonization. Culture brings along nationalism and if these two are gone, the nation will lose its consciousness. If national consciousness is killed, then the nation will eventually lose its national identity, which will bring the nation to a place in the globe. This is how serious colonial domination is to a nation.
To resolve the problem or to bring back national identity, Fanon suggests a basic philosophical, psychological concept. This concept can be summarized in the chart presented above. This shows how important nationalism and national culture are against national domination for national identity.
If the colonizers begin with the culture, national identity begins with it, too. It is implied in the essay that the national culture can be restored through encouraging the people to continue expressing themselves through literature and other forms of arts and crafts. These arts will then relive the culture they had and this will inscribe nationalism (a sense of one nation) in them. Once they have the sense of nationalism, they will fight against the colonizers. This struggle is necessary so that their culture won’t be eradicated again. For Fanon, such struggle and fight are normal for the nation to regain its national consciousness. Eventually, this consciousness will lead the nation to its identity, putting it as a part of history and an acknowledge nation in the globe.
Thus, the national culture and nationalism in the fight against colonial domination function as indispensable primary steps to achieve national identity.
To aid me in my discussion and to make my discussion clearer, I have come up with a concept map. I call this chart “Fanon’s Concept on National Culture.”
For Fanon, colonial domination is an enemy to the nation. Culture is the first expression of the nation, yet this culture “falls and dies away” under colonization. Culture brings along nationalism and if these two are gone, the nation will lose its consciousness. If national consciousness is killed, then the nation will eventually lose its national identity, which will bring the nation to a place in the globe. This is how serious colonial domination is to a nation.
To resolve the problem or to bring back national identity, Fanon suggests a basic philosophical, psychological concept. This concept can be summarized in the chart presented above. This shows how important nationalism and national culture are against national domination for national identity.
If the colonizers begin with the culture, national identity begins with it, too. It is implied in the essay that the national culture can be restored through encouraging the people to continue expressing themselves through literature and other forms of arts and crafts. These arts will then relive the culture they had and this will inscribe nationalism (a sense of one nation) in them. Once they have the sense of nationalism, they will fight against the colonizers. This struggle is necessary so that their culture won’t be eradicated again. For Fanon, such struggle and fight are normal for the nation to regain its national consciousness. Eventually, this consciousness will lead the nation to its identity, putting it as a part of history and an acknowledge nation in the globe.
Thus, the national culture and nationalism in the fight against colonial domination function as indispensable primary steps to achieve national identity.
Analysis on The Snake by D.H. Lawrence
Structure and Style
1. Write the human characteristics Lawrence uses to describe the snake? Sometimes Lawrence uses nouns to personify the snake; the other times he uses verbs or parts of sentences.
It is very interesting that Lawrence gave human characteristics to the snake. The lines: “He sipped with his straight mouth,/Softly drank through his straight gums, into his slack long body,/Silently./Someone was before me at my water-trough,” suggest that the snake seems to have etiquette of its own just like a human being. Lawrence used the verbs sipped and drank, the adverbs softly and silently, and the personal pronouns he, his, and someone to create an image of the snake having an equal manner and conduct with that of a human being. I would like to explain briefly on his use of pronouns. The personal pronouns are used either for humans or for pets. Snakes are not humans, of course; and in the poem, the snake is not the persona’s pet—it is a stranger. Lawrence, however, still used the personal pronouns he, his, and someone all referring to the snake. Purposely, the persona in the poem described the snake by giving it human attributes to act (through verbs), behave (through adverb), and appear (through pronouns) in order that it would become worthy of admiration and honor “to be crowned” like “a king.”
2. Suppose you wanted to describe a human being as if he or she were a snake. Which characteristics of a snake would you use to do this? Think about shape; think about the way snakes moves; think about eyes, tongue, and body temperature; think about the sound that snakes make with their mouths.
I had a girlfriend whom I cannot really forget. I can best describe her as a snake. I first saw her at Jollibee Tibanga with her friends. I can’t forget the way she walks with her voluptuous body. As she turned her head, I glanced at her wild eyes. Later, I learned that she’s a friend of my best friend. To make the story short, we then got to know each other until we went out to see each other thrice a week. Whenever we went out together, she would always wear a silky dress, shiny and dazzling. Her curvaceous body in her silky dress perfectly paints a snake-picture. But like a snake, she got a poison. Because she’s totally attractive, a lot of guys would flirt with her yet she seemed to welcome them. Like me, after a conversation with her, they couldn’t get enough. She somehow had venom: once one has got it, he’s become the prey. I’ve never held a snake, but I think she’s as hot as it (hot to devour her prey). As a snake, she also had a two-forked tongue—she told me one story but a different one to her and my friends. How can I forget that tempting snake?
3. Once again, we find Lawrence using and, and as, and so, but and for to begin lines of poetry. Remove these connectors. (Sometimes you will have to replace them with a pronoun to make sense.) What happens to the rhythm and movement of the poem when you remove these words? Do the connectors give meaning or style to Lawrence’s poem?
Lawrence’s use of the connectors is with purpose. It gives meaning to the poem. After reading the poem for a couple of times, I notice that the poem follows an “action-reaction” pattern: The snake does something (action) and then the persona reacts to it (reaction). It is then the function of these connectors to relate the lines to the next. In other words, the connectors help in relating and linking the “actions” of the snake to the “reactions” of the persona. Had the connectors been removed, there might not be any changes on the rhythm and meter nor on the rhyme scheme (which the poem does not consistently observe; or which are not really present in the poem) but the pattern “action-reaction” or the logical pattern (cause and effect) would have been broken.
Aside from following the “action-reaction” pattern, the connectors function as a necessary element in narrating. The poem has a narrative element—the persona telling the readers his encounter with the snakes and his remorse for throwing the log at it. Because the poem has a narrative element, it is proper for the persona to use some techniques in recounting experiences: the use of connectors. Using connectors is a reader-friendly style; it is effective to properly guide and lead the readers as they experience and interact with the text to achieve meaning.
4. How does Lawrence describe “may snake” to make it seem beautiful? How does Lawrence describe his own meanness?
In the poem, Lawrence brings most of the readers, if not all, to a different perspective on the snake. Normally, if one reads about a snake, he is terrified. Lawrence, however, makes the readers see the snake differently. That is, the snake, although it looks scary, is not harmful; in fact, it is like a person from the noble class worthy of honor. Someone who visits the trough, a drinking cattle, an honored guest, a marvelous god, and a majestic king—these are the simile and metaphor used by Lawrence to create the impression on the readers that snakes are not fearsome.
The persona blames his education for making him done a remorseful act. This is very significant. Education is supposed to teach people to love, respect and appreciate nature. But his education is the very one which tells him “to finish him [snake] off.” Many times in the poem, his education bugs him to kill the snake. Education tells him that the snake is venomous or poisonous (dangerous) because it’s color is “gold.” After reading this, is can be expected that the snake would harm the speaker. Yet he is not harmed. With this, many may doubt the teachings and lessons education have offered us.
Another opposition that I notice is the behavior. The speaker, as a human being, is civilized; the snake, as an animal, is wild. However, the snake in the poem does not intervene the human world, it simply drinks water from the trough; it is the speaker (human) who intervenes the snake (an animal). The speaker is expected to respect the snake and the snake is anticipated to harm the speaker. This is not the case—the speaker throws a log at the snake which does not hurt the speaker. Human beings are so proud about civilization but after reading the poem, one cannot help but ask this question: So who is civilized?
Therefore, Lawrence describes the “may snake” by using simile and metaphor, and he describes his own meanness (education and civilization) by using irony and paradox.
1. Write the human characteristics Lawrence uses to describe the snake? Sometimes Lawrence uses nouns to personify the snake; the other times he uses verbs or parts of sentences.
It is very interesting that Lawrence gave human characteristics to the snake. The lines: “He sipped with his straight mouth,/Softly drank through his straight gums, into his slack long body,/Silently./Someone was before me at my water-trough,” suggest that the snake seems to have etiquette of its own just like a human being. Lawrence used the verbs sipped and drank, the adverbs softly and silently, and the personal pronouns he, his, and someone to create an image of the snake having an equal manner and conduct with that of a human being. I would like to explain briefly on his use of pronouns. The personal pronouns are used either for humans or for pets. Snakes are not humans, of course; and in the poem, the snake is not the persona’s pet—it is a stranger. Lawrence, however, still used the personal pronouns he, his, and someone all referring to the snake. Purposely, the persona in the poem described the snake by giving it human attributes to act (through verbs), behave (through adverb), and appear (through pronouns) in order that it would become worthy of admiration and honor “to be crowned” like “a king.”
2. Suppose you wanted to describe a human being as if he or she were a snake. Which characteristics of a snake would you use to do this? Think about shape; think about the way snakes moves; think about eyes, tongue, and body temperature; think about the sound that snakes make with their mouths.
I had a girlfriend whom I cannot really forget. I can best describe her as a snake. I first saw her at Jollibee Tibanga with her friends. I can’t forget the way she walks with her voluptuous body. As she turned her head, I glanced at her wild eyes. Later, I learned that she’s a friend of my best friend. To make the story short, we then got to know each other until we went out to see each other thrice a week. Whenever we went out together, she would always wear a silky dress, shiny and dazzling. Her curvaceous body in her silky dress perfectly paints a snake-picture. But like a snake, she got a poison. Because she’s totally attractive, a lot of guys would flirt with her yet she seemed to welcome them. Like me, after a conversation with her, they couldn’t get enough. She somehow had venom: once one has got it, he’s become the prey. I’ve never held a snake, but I think she’s as hot as it (hot to devour her prey). As a snake, she also had a two-forked tongue—she told me one story but a different one to her and my friends. How can I forget that tempting snake?
3. Once again, we find Lawrence using and, and as, and so, but and for to begin lines of poetry. Remove these connectors. (Sometimes you will have to replace them with a pronoun to make sense.) What happens to the rhythm and movement of the poem when you remove these words? Do the connectors give meaning or style to Lawrence’s poem?
Lawrence’s use of the connectors is with purpose. It gives meaning to the poem. After reading the poem for a couple of times, I notice that the poem follows an “action-reaction” pattern: The snake does something (action) and then the persona reacts to it (reaction). It is then the function of these connectors to relate the lines to the next. In other words, the connectors help in relating and linking the “actions” of the snake to the “reactions” of the persona. Had the connectors been removed, there might not be any changes on the rhythm and meter nor on the rhyme scheme (which the poem does not consistently observe; or which are not really present in the poem) but the pattern “action-reaction” or the logical pattern (cause and effect) would have been broken.
Aside from following the “action-reaction” pattern, the connectors function as a necessary element in narrating. The poem has a narrative element—the persona telling the readers his encounter with the snakes and his remorse for throwing the log at it. Because the poem has a narrative element, it is proper for the persona to use some techniques in recounting experiences: the use of connectors. Using connectors is a reader-friendly style; it is effective to properly guide and lead the readers as they experience and interact with the text to achieve meaning.
4. How does Lawrence describe “may snake” to make it seem beautiful? How does Lawrence describe his own meanness?
In the poem, Lawrence brings most of the readers, if not all, to a different perspective on the snake. Normally, if one reads about a snake, he is terrified. Lawrence, however, makes the readers see the snake differently. That is, the snake, although it looks scary, is not harmful; in fact, it is like a person from the noble class worthy of honor. Someone who visits the trough, a drinking cattle, an honored guest, a marvelous god, and a majestic king—these are the simile and metaphor used by Lawrence to create the impression on the readers that snakes are not fearsome.
The persona blames his education for making him done a remorseful act. This is very significant. Education is supposed to teach people to love, respect and appreciate nature. But his education is the very one which tells him “to finish him [snake] off.” Many times in the poem, his education bugs him to kill the snake. Education tells him that the snake is venomous or poisonous (dangerous) because it’s color is “gold.” After reading this, is can be expected that the snake would harm the speaker. Yet he is not harmed. With this, many may doubt the teachings and lessons education have offered us.
Another opposition that I notice is the behavior. The speaker, as a human being, is civilized; the snake, as an animal, is wild. However, the snake in the poem does not intervene the human world, it simply drinks water from the trough; it is the speaker (human) who intervenes the snake (an animal). The speaker is expected to respect the snake and the snake is anticipated to harm the speaker. This is not the case—the speaker throws a log at the snake which does not hurt the speaker. Human beings are so proud about civilization but after reading the poem, one cannot help but ask this question: So who is civilized?
Therefore, Lawrence describes the “may snake” by using simile and metaphor, and he describes his own meanness (education and civilization) by using irony and paradox.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
