Even though Lotman remains committed to a dualistic system (from one semiosphere to another, from the semiospheric periphery to the centre), he subverts the monolithic character of his structuralist model by opening it to multiple heterogeneous influences. According to Lotman, the semiospheric contour can be mapped into the literary text by virtue of an aesthetic characteristic of literature that realises the mechanisms of division and hybridisation, fixation and deterritorialisation. In brief, it is obvious that, the hybrid contours of space drawn by Lotman and Bakhtin, despite their different approaches, converge on a hybrid contact zone which gives rise to the “sujet” or the plot on the basis of movement, spatial transgression of the boundaries …show more content…
For Genette, the metaphorical contour of literary space is expressed in three senses of spatiality: “spatiality of language”, “spatiality of text”, and “semantic space”. The first sense shows that “each element is qualified by the place which it occupies in a total picture and by the vertical and horizontal relations which it maintains with the related and adjoining elements” (qtd in Kestner 1978: 113). The second sense of spatiality “does not resides only in horizontal relationships of proximity and succession, but also in those relationships called vertical, or transverse, of those effects of expectation, recollection, response, symmetry, perspective” ( qtd in Kestner 1978: 113). The third sense entails that each word takes on literary and figurative meanings, creating in this way “the semantic space between the apparent signified and the real signified abolishing the linearity of discourse” (qtd in Ubersfeld 1999: 99). Therefore, the polysemic multiplicity of the metaphorical contour of space in Genette can establish the tropes of parody and intertextuality as spatial devices. In this respect, Genette defines intertextuality as "a relationship of co-presence between two texts or among several texts," as in quotations, allusion, or plagiarism (Genette 1997: 5; Emphasis added). In brief, Frank and Genette deny any sense of referentiality between fiction and reality. For them, the text becomes a hermetic autonomous entity purged of any extra-textual reference. Pavel calls this “textolatry,” (Pavel 1986: 9) which has its origins in the Saussurian semiotic model advocating the self-referentiality of language. This “textolatry” is practiced by the structuralists and founded in principle by Derrida for whom “there is nothing outside the text” (Derrida 1974:
In Alejo Carpentier’s The Kingdom of this World, many examples of recurring themes, images and symbols occur. In particular, the themes of hybridization and African versus European culture appear multiple times throughout the novel. However, it is not enough to simply look at these themes as trends occurring throughout the novel. Instead, these themes must be analyzed closely in order to provide possible insight into the author’s reasons for incorporating them so frequently in his text. For example, the aforementioned themes both relate closely to one another, and their presence alongside each other may indicate an underlying cultural or historic motive of the author. In essence, in order to truly understand The Kingdom of this World, one
...." Studies In The Literary Imagination 36.2 (2003): 61-70. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 6 Dec. 2013.
Peter Barry says of the cultural materialist approach to literature that “it is difficult to know how to ‘place’ writing of this kind” (189). By “writing” Barry refers to cultural materialist criticism itself—not the work being criticized—but it is probably safe to assume that the analysis properly reflects the analyzed in this respect. It is certainly arguable that Thomas Pynchon’s THE CRYING OF LOT 49 qualifies as “difficult to place,” and this may be its only legitimate connection offered to a cultural materialist reading. Yet similarities arise between the text and the theory that suggest, at least on some level, a harmonious ideal. Of course, should such a comparison exist, it is only by the theory’s compatibility to the text, it being the work critiqued and, besides that, having originated much earlier than the theory. But there is value in contrasting the two as if they are more than just analysis and analyzed, but two products of a literary history whose similarities point toward or influence ongoing likenesses. Such a likeness is their contribution to an overall theme of almost fairy tale-style escapism.
Genette, Gerard. "Order in Narrative". Literature in the Modern World. Dennis Walder, ed. Oxford University Press, N.Y. 1990. 142-151.
Rice, Philip. and Patricia Waugh, eds. Modern Literary Theory. 4th ed. New York: Oxford UP,
Deep-seated in these practices is added universal investigative and enquiring of acquainted conflicts between philosophy and the art of speaking and/or effective writing. Most often we see the figurative and rhetorical elements of a text as purely complementary and marginal to the basic reasoning of its debate, closer exploration often exposes that metaphor and rhetoric play an important role in the readers understanding of a piece of literary art. Usually the figural and metaphorical foundations strongly back or it can destabilize the reasoning of the texts. Deconstruction however does not indicate that all works are meaningless, but rather that they are spilling over with numerous and sometimes contradictory meanings. Derrida, having his roots in philosophy brings up the question, “what is the meaning of the meaning?”
Some literary works exhibit structural irony, in that they show sustained irony. In such works the author, instead of using an occasional verbal irony, introduces a structural feature which serves to sustain a duplicity of meaning. One common device of this sort is the invention of a naïve hero, or else a naïve narrator or spokesman, whose invincible simplicity or obtuseness leads him to persist in putting an interpretation on affairs which the knowing reader—who penetrates to, and shares, the implicit point of view of the authorial presence behind the naïve persona—just as persistently is called on to alter and correct. (Abrams, 90)
Cuddon, J.A., Revised by C.E. Preston. The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. 4th ed. London /GB: Penguin Books Ltd, 2000. N. pag. Print.
Rewriting the Argument “position” sentence was necessary to demonstrate a stronger argument on why I agree with Moody’s opinion, as well as inform the reader right away to what specific extent my argument holds. In my Argument essay I agreed with Moody to a certain extent, but I needed to show the reader to what capacity my agreement stands. Literary texts, novels, even the Gospel are the type of writings that can be read in many ways. Euphemisms, metaphorical meanings, psychological and philosophical meanings exist in these type of texts and I agree that there is no ‘right or ‘wrong way” to read these particular kind. Continuing on with the idea of Umberto Echo’s concept of “open text,” the sentence was restructured, first because of mixed construction and second to provide a complete and well thought out idea. The Kafka’s Metamorphosis example of the “bug” was omitted, because in the original essay, I was forcing myself to make a point that the word “bug” could be interpreted in many ways. Though that is true, using Umberto Echo’s Role of the Reader and the concept of “open text”, already more that supported my argument. Revising the example made regarding Mr. Flanders’ influence was necessary to support my reason that there is more than one way to interpret a text like
Wheeler, Kip. "Literary Terms and Definitions M." Literary Terms and Definitions "M" Carson-Newman University, n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.
As a reader it is difficult to separate ones analysis of such a commanding piece of work from ones own constructed systems of meaning. Because of this, actual meaning is tricky to assert with certainty as it is subject to change as easily as reality is subject to influence. This may be beside the point, however; for it seems as though what matters in structuralism is the recognition that everyone, and everything everyone creates or does, is in some part connected to a system of meaning which informs and influences varying interpretations of what is real and true of the world and its diverse inhabitants.
In like manner, Gregory Fowler also uses allusions to prove his thesis. In the beginning of the essay, he alludes to mul...
The first theory to be discussed is structuralism, this theory is composed of many different branches. The branches that this paper will be looking into is archetypes. The definition of of archetype is typical images, characters, narrative designs and themes and other literary phenomena. Archetypes have their own form of criticism that is called archetypal criticism. Archetypal criticism means the generic, recurring and conventional elements in literature that cannot be explained through historical influence or tradition.
Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: an Anthology. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2004. 365-77. Print.
To counter balance Cartesianism Hirsch puts forward Vico’s argument of ‘sensory topics’ which places imagery of shared identities and interactions at the heart of the landscape. The relationship between the physical and the metaphorical whilst very separate can be united. Only when the physical place or subject oriented (‘indexical’) place can be examined then the metaphorical space, non-subject orientated (‘non-indexical’) can begin to be understood (Gell, 1985). Thus the development of the indexical (e.g. maps) can lead to the understanding of the non-dexical (e.g. images). Mutually related.