Assignment 6

Paraphrases


Firstly, I want to offer a check-list of the kind of operations we perform when we tackle textuality without any particular resort to theory. - When interpreting a text in the traditional close reading, a reader usually has a couple of elements he carries out, without using any theory.

We will always need these ten elements of interpretation. Literary criticism can never grow out of them, and they can never be superseded. - Barry states that these ten basics are necessary but not quite enough to understand a text.

A third area for theory is that of the relationship between literature and gender. In the case of this poem, the gender issue is pretty stark. We might ask the question, what are the signs in this poem that it is written by a man rather than a woman? - Dealing with literature and gender the author points out that the choice of words based on cultural stereotypes tells us if the poem is written by a man or a woman.

What is working here, then, is a psychological process: often, the best way to conceal something is to reveal it, to hide it in the open, as is sometimes said. - Finally, the author explains the relationship between literature and psychoanalysis by pointing out how the writer of the poem uses a pre-emptive strategy to hide something by revealing it.

So the deconstructor looks for such things as, firstly, contradictions, secondly, linguistic quirks and aporia, thirdly, shifts or breaks (in tone, viewpoint, tense, person, attitude, etc.), and finally, absences or omissions. - The deconstructive reading elements pointed out by author are: contradiction, aporia, shifts and absences.

Quotation

Textuality

Literary theory

Literature and history

Literature and language

Literature and gender

Literature and psychoanalysis

Pre-emptive strategy

Deconstructive reading

A short review

I find Barry’s article very interesting. I agree with his main argument and his ideas which he points out and believe that it leads to better understanding of a text. His use of examples makes it easier to understand his views. Although, I had to read it over several times because his use of language made it somewhat difficult to follow. The last part about deconstructive reading, in particular, was a bit hard to follow. The analysis is a mighty task and not quite inspiring.