Uncategorized

Alfred Romero 

10/17/2022

Professor Frank

Introduction to Literary Theory & Criticism

QCQ#5

From her poem “The Hill We Climb”, American poet and activist Amanda Gorman states that “quiet isn’t always peace, and the norms and notions of what ‘just’ is isn’t always justice” (Gorman lines 5-6). 

This quote from Gorman makes me think of not only political scenarios, but in really any conflict that could involve bystanders, like bullying. I agree that in certain cases, silence isn’t the best answer and it would be our jobs as human beings to stand up for what we believe is morally right. This can be reflected, in a political sense, throughout different social movements that push for this concept of equality being applied within modern society. Conflict such as this doesn’t come as a surprise to me and I feel like it shouldn’t to anyone, considering that we as humans should know how other humans can be. 

I might’ve missed the answer to this within the poem, but towards the end, Gorman seems to be rather optimistic about the future of these conflicts being put to rest within the future society of America. Now, I’d like to think of myself as an optimistic person for the most part, but with a situation such as this, how could you see a happy ending?

Alfred Romero

10/14/2022

Professor Frank

Introduction to Literary Theory & Criticism 

“Feminism and Visual Texts 10/14” Part 2

From a discussion of her essay, Laura Mulvey goes on to call her text “a document of its time” (9:20). 

Immediately when I hear this, I think of how art can reflect history through a perception of that certain time period, but can later be interpreted and analyzed in a variety of different ways as new insight comes along through time. This concept makes sense and oddly enough, I think of the ode from Keats’s poem in terms of art and legacy. I can see this being interpreted through an art perspective, but also maybe through political means as well. 

A question I’d pose for Mulvey is how well she thinks her alternative method of fragmented film would work. Not in the sense of any political means, but through a business standpoint for film creators.

From the opening scene of Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window (1954), the concept of the masculinization of spectators can be applied through the conventions of how the scene is directed. The camera angles use the man’s point of view as a reference point and through that perception the audience steps into the shoes of this man. By the way the scene is oriented and through some of the dialogue, there becomes this sense of objectification present. For one, this can be seen through the point of view of the man looking at his female neighbor dancing, but this gaze towards that woman seems to be of sexual desire. Another example can be seen through other female neighbors of the man, where they are treated as this concept of being an “other”, and in this specific case, they’re stereotypical wives. From this gaze of the man that the audience is stepping into, this “abusive version of masculine heterosexuality” can be applied as the man can be seen essentially objectifying his female neighbors, not just through sexual perception, but also in the sense of ignoring their individuality and perceiving them for a stereotypical societal role that they’re supposed to play. And by stepping into the perception of this man’s gaze through the camera, the audience unknowingly commits the same act.

Alfred Romero

10/13/2022

Professor Frank

Introduction to Literary Theory & Criticism 

QCQ#1

From John Keats’s poem “Ode on a Grecian Urn”, the urn speaks out of nowhere at the end of the poem to say that “Beauty is truth, truth beauty, – that is all Ye know on Earth, and all ye need to know” (5th stanza, lines 9-10). 

From a thematic point of view, I can think of numerous different ways this could be interpreted. One example could refer to how art leaves a legacy that remains for eternity that would eventually outlive the lives of the humans around at that time period. Another could refer to the concept of humans only being attracted to what they would want to perceive. Either way, the variety of interpretations that could be derived from this ending questions what the true meaning behind the ending actually is. This could relate back to the concept of viewing literary works as an organic whole and perceiving it for the bigger picture rather than being so fixated on one spot of the art. The ending does come as a bit of a surprise, but from Cleanth Brooks’s “Keats’s Sylvan Historian: History without Footnotes”, I later learned that the ending isn’t as “off” as some literary critics made it out to be. 

The one question I’d have would be directly towards Keats. I’d like to know his thought process behind the ending he created for this poem. Why end it this way? What message were you trying to convey by ending the poem in this fashion?

Alfred Romero

10/4/2022

Professor Frank

Introduction to Literary Theory and Criticism

QCQ#4 

From her short story “The Lady in the Looking-Glass: A Reflection”, Virginia Woolf ends on an isolated sentence serving as the last body paragraph: “people should not leave looking-glasses hanging in their rooms” (Woolf 219). 

I can’t help but admire when stories end like this. There’s just something about an independent sentence serving as its own body paragraph that makes an ending seem so abrupt, for lack of a better word. When I read texts that include these, I immediately relate it to seemingly abrupt endings found in movies or TV shows. The types of endings that would leave the audience either wanting more or just have them basking in their own thoughts about which interpretation of the story would make the most sense. After the whole story and the revelation of Isabella Tyson’s character, I’d say that I agree with the statement. The fact that this last statement acts as a call back to reflect off of the first line within the story makes it so much more interesting as well. While it’s not exactly surprising, it does provide a shift in the story’s structure. 

I guess my question would be what Woolf’s thoughts were when finalizing this piece. Why end this that way? What may have been inspiration for not just the last line, but the whole ending segment when Tyson’s character gets exposed to light?

Alfred Romero

10/1/2022

Professor Frank

Introduction to Literary Theory & Criticism 

Applications #3 

This applications essay is centered around Canadian writer Graham Fraser from Mount Saint Vincent University, and his essay Solid Objects/Ghosts of Chairs: Virginia Woolf and the Afterlife of Things from the Journal of Modern Literature (Volume 43, Number 2). In his essay, Fraser describes the relationship between inanimate objects and the humans who are associated with these “inanimate souls” (Fraser 80). The question at hand revolves around how these objects may reflect what can be seen about the humans who are associated with them. From this relationship, Fraser claims that an object’s transformation from their human service to their phase in the afterlife is ultimately reflected back as they forget about the humans who had forgotten about them. Fraser concludes his essay with the perception of a lonesome kitchen table and through that perception, also comes the idea of “not only the remaining table, but also our own absence” (Fraser 94-95). 

Fraser approaches describing this relationship by analyzing its progress through three of English modernist writer Virginia Woolf’s texts, which are To the Lighthouse, “The Lady in the Looking Glass”, and “Solid Objects”. First, Fraser introduces the concept of inanimate objects essentially being alive by alluding to the first two texts. In “The Lady in the Looking Glass”, Fraser references the narrator’s perception of being in a “depopulated drawing room” (Fraser 81). Although the room doesn’t appear to be containing any living being, the narrator describes the experience as being like “one of those naturalists who, covered with grass and leaves, lie watching the shyest animals” (“Lady” 221). Transitioning from the inanimate object’s life stage, Fraser goes on to describe their phase of death. Just as objects have a life relative to their relationship with the people around them, they also go through the phase of death just as humans do. In To the Lighthouse, Woolf explores what happens to furniture “when human attention is fully withdrawn and domesticated objects are left to their own devices” (Fraser 84). Fraser exemplifies this concept by referring to the narrator’s remarks that what clothing people leave indicates “how once they were filled and animated” (Lighthouse 106). Fraser concludes his essay by discussing the afterlife phase of inanimate objects through “Solid Objects”. A specific example from the odd story comes from John, the main character, slipping beach glass into his pocket. John explains how the beach glass had pleased and puzzled him, how “it was so hard, so concentrated, so definite an object compared with the vague sea and the hazy shore” (“Solid” 103). 

Concluding from these three phases, Fraser finishes off his essay by explaining what all of this means for the perception of humans by answering Andrew Ramsey’s challenge. By humans always having the presence of their own race when discussing anything, such as how inanimate objects go through their phases of life, Fraser implies that everything humans think about has this underlying intent for their race’s prosperity. This gives the audience a chance to reflect about not only their own individuality in terms of their perception around themselves, but around how humans as a whole think about their race in contrast to their surroundings. By not observing this relationship between humans and inanimate objects within the texts, readers may miss out on being able to understand this bigger picture, which is that humans almost always put themselves before anything around them. By understanding this, readers may begin to realize their race’s role and impact towards the universe around them. 

Fraser’s analysis throughout Woolf’s three texts was very well put together. By having each text be the main focus of a body paragraph which would outline the phases of an inanimate object’s life, I thought the analysis was well supported in concluding the real meaning behind the relationship between humans and inanimate objects. However, I still have a slight reservation. Although I do believe in the argument that every action humankind makes is for their own race’s benefit, I just find it kind of hard to tie this all together by the phases of an inanimate object’s life. While what Fraser is discussing in his essay does make sense to me, I can’t help but find the concept to be sort of a stretch. I feel like to further support this underlying claim, analysis should be directed towards larger actions created by humans. One could possibly dissect actions created by humans that are supposed to benefit their surroundings and try to detect an underlying motive that may be present. 

Works Cited: 

Fraser, Graham. 2020.  “Solid Objects/Ghosts of Chairs: Virginia Woolf and the Afterlife of Things. Journal of Modern Literature. 43(2): 80-97.

Alfred Romero 

9/24/2022

Professor Frank 

Introduction to Literary Theory & Criticism

QCQ#3 

In her poem “First Death in Nova Scotia”, Elizabeth Bishop describes a stuffed loon within the scenery and how ever since her “Uncle Arthur fired a bullet into him, he hadn’t said a word” (Bishop lines 11-13). 

This quote, I feel, highlights the childlike perception of the narrator throughout the poem. The kid’s perception of the loon and her cousin Arthur shows the audience what death could look like through the lens of a child. This is particularly interesting because I feel like this could be tied to the concept of how early exposure to certain content on a child can shape the way they think about said concept in the future. It’s obvious that a child that may be exposed to the performing arts at a young age may have more of a “feel” for that subject than someone who hasn’t been exposed as early. But what about darker topics like death? When a child sees violence at a younger age, aren’t they more desensitized to such acts as they grow older? You can see it through the almost comedic tone of the child with the quote above. Well, it’s not exactly comedic (kind of just has a sprinkle of that tone), but I can also see this childlike curiosity embedded behind the words. While it’s not exactly something that I find surprising, I do find it interesting to see a concept, such as death, being viewed from the eyes of a child, who supposedly should have their innocence intact. 

From this point, I’d ask about the childlike perception regarding Arthur’s death. He was described with little emotion behind the words, similar in how she described the loon. Both were described by defining characteristics, but not by any emotion revolving around their deaths (at least I didn’t seem to pick up on any if they were present). I wonder why that is. Does the child think it’s okay because they’re in better places? Or does it all just not matter to the child in the sense that death is inevitable?

Alfred Romero

9/20/2022

Professor Frank 

Introduction to Literary Theory & Criticism 

Applications #2 

The central idea of this applications assignment stems from the work of Peter Brooks in his essay “Retrospective Prophecies: Legal Narrative Constructions”, which can be found in chapter 5 of the book “New Directions In Law And Literature” (edited by Elizabeth S. Anker and Bernadette Meyler). The main issue Brooks presents to his audience revolves around the concept of narrative analysis and its absence in the legal realm to coincide within the concept of legal analysis. People involved in the court process know about how “the particulars of how ‘the facts’ are told make all the difference” when ruling in court cases (Brooks 104). As narrative plays an important role in the world of law, one could ask why it isn’t “recognized as a construction” (Brooks 104). This is essentially Brooks’s proposition that he follows along throughout the essay, revealing in his conclusion that “narrative analysis needs to take a place within legal analysis” (Brooks 104). 

Brooks supports his claim by referring to works of fiction and real life cases. First, he alludes to the works of Arthur Conan Doyle, specifically his detective stories involving Sherlock Holmes. From an excerpt of Doyle’s work “Silver Blaze”, Brooks refers to a part of the story where Holmes finds a wax vesta match “buried in the mud at the crime scene” (Brooks 94). Holmes claims that he found the wax vesta match by “first hypothesizing that it had to be there” (Brooks 94). Brooks ties this “inferential process of abduction” and points out its connection to the concept of “inevitable discovery” (Brooks 94). Through Holmes’s searches comes a new concept reflected on by historian Carlo Ginzburg called the huntsman’s paradigm, which “may indicate in more general terms the use-value of narrative as a form of speech and condition” (Brooks 96). Brooks elaborates on this by providing insight from British literary scholar Terence Cave. Cave claims that the huntsman’s paradigm points an audience “toward that most basic and enduring and useful of plots” (Brooks 96). This could refer to the tracks/traces that could uncover a mystery within a detective story. In addition to the huntsman’s paradigm, or the “logic of narrative knowing”, comes retrospective prophecy (Brooks 98). Inevitable discovery claims that the quarry will end up being found. Retrospective prophecy asks “whether following the trail would inevitably have led to it”, where the trail alludes to the tracks/traces that would’ve led to an unraveling and the “it” referring to the quarry (Brooks 98). From these concepts, Brooks finalizes his argument (before the conclusion anyway) by providing his readers with some real life cases. One of these cases refers to Rusk v. Maryland and Maryland v. Rusk. This case involves a telling of a tale four times, where “there was a majority opinion and dissent: twice as consensual sex and twice as rape” (Brooks 103). This case came down to “the way the happening was told, with different narrative connectives, with a different understanding of how events fit together to make the chain of meeting” (Brooks 103). 

As the narrative behind the story remains a major underlying component of how a “happening” comes to be, it should become unpacked and analyzed. Opinions may sway and different conclusions may become the outcome of a story with the same facts, but just with a different narrative presented behind those facts. Being able to unpack and analyze different narratives behind a telling can provide insight towards the bigger picture of the story by informing the reader of the “why” a happening occurred from the way the tale was told. Missing out on this opportunity leaves room for questioning. Why did this outcome of this story win over the other even though both stories had the same basis of facts? Missing out on unpacking and analyzing narrative inhibits the reader to answer such a question. 

This argument makes sense. It’s hard to argue against the idea of narrative analysis not being considered as a factor within legal analysis, especially when Brooks provided real life cases to support his argument. But, this does bring me to a question, which is essentially what Brooks is trying to solve. If narrative is so obviously a factor into what makes a story believable, then why hasn’t it been officially addressed by the legal system? I’d want to take this analysis towards the idea of comparing narrative between concepts found in movies or TV shows. I feel as if this would more so visualize how important narrative is, supporting Brooks’s argument further. 

Works Cited: 

Brooks, Peter, ‘Retrospective Prophecies: Legal Narrative Constructions’, in Elizabeth S. Anker, and Bernadette Meyler (eds), New Directions in Law and Literature (New York, 2017; online edn, Oxford Academic, 22 June 2017), https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190456368.003.0006, accessed 21 Sept. 2022. 

Parker, Robert. How to Interpret Literature: Critical Theory for Literary and Cultural Studies. Oxford University Press, 2015.