Crítica(pràctica(de(la(literatura(anglesa!(35334)!Name:!______________________________________________________________!Date:!!

1.!Explain!the!critical!approach(es)!used!in!an!essay!on!Hamlet!summarized!as!follows:![15%]

This!essay!explores!"cultural!resonances!between!the!politically!unstable!time!of!Judges!in!Israel's!history,!the!political!

confusion!in!Hamlet's!Denmark,!and!the!anxiety!over!succession!in!lateOElizabethan!England"!(133).!While!Jephthah's!

daughter!and!Ophelia!share!similarities,!they!also!differ!in!an!important!way:!the!unnamed!daughter!is!an!obedient!

sacrifice,!and!Ophelia!"develops!from!her!status!as!a!victim"!to!"an!author!of!a!potentially!different!story,!a!woman's!

story"!(133O34).!Ophelia!comes!to!realize!her!subversive!potential!and,!in!a!commanding!oration!about!the!weakening!

of!Hamlet's!"noble!mind,"!laments!the!lose!of!her!own!political!ambitions!(135).!But!her!madness!empowers!her!with!

liberties,!such!as!demanding!a!meeting!with!Gertrude.!Once!granted!entrance,!"she,!like!a!wandering!player,!comes!to!

hold!a!mirror!up!to!the!court"!(136).!Gone!is!her!submissive!voice,!replaced!by!"a!range!of!voices"!(137).!Ophelia!now!

"commands!attention"!(137).!Interestingly,!her!invasion!of!the!court!parallels!Laertes'!rebellious!entrance:!they!have!

"competing!political!claims,!his!assertive!and!explicit,!hers!subversive!and!encoded!in!mad!woman's!language"!(137).!

Because!her!songs!"introduce!the!protesting!voice!of!oppressed!women!in!society"!through!the!veils!of!a!ballad!culture,!

Ophelia!is!not!understood!by!her!male!audience;!but!her!"rebellion!against!the!double!standard!and!its!oppression!of!

women!arouses!fear!in!Gertrude,!who!understands"!(138).!When!the!Queen!reports!Ophelia's!drowning,!she!insists!"on!

her!time!and!the!attention!of!the!plotting!men"!(138).!Her!description!portrays!"a!woman!who!draws!her!

understanding!of!her!world!from!women's!culture"!(139).!The!Queen,!"perhaps!like!Jephthah's!daughter's!maiden!

friends,!returned!from!temporary!exile!to!interpret!the!meaning!of!the!sacrificed!daughter's!life"!(140).

The essay combines a feminist and a new historicist (or cultural) approach. The

latter is clearly seen right from the outset when the abstract points out that the

essay examines “cultural resonances” between different political times and

concerns. A historicist critic studies a literary work in the context of social,

political and cultural history, assuming the cultural presuppositions and ideas

of the period being studied and avoiding being influenced by those of her or his

own time. While the “old” historicism sees a literary work as an expression or

reflection of the “spirit” and prevalent ideas of the age, and seeks to discover the

interconnections (“resonances”) between the fictional world of the literary work

and the larger culture, the new historicism argues that a literary work not only

reflects the context but is also an agent producing meanings (“resonances”)

among many other products of culture , an agent of power in the interplay of

ideas , either supporting or questioning the dominant ideologies. Thus, the essay

views Ophelia’s actions in terms of power relations with the other characters, and

sees them as manoeuvres that are a “rebellion against” what was expected of her

social and familial position . The essay is also a piece of feminist criticism, not

only because it focuses on the female characters of Shakespeare’s tragedy (in

comparison with the biblical daughter of Jephthah), but also (and mainly)

because it analyzes the role of these women in the context of the prevalent

patriarchal culture whose ideology fosters male dominance, in the case of

Jephthah’s daughter as an “obedient sacrifice”, in the case of Ophelia as moving

from a “victim” to a more “subversive” role , with her songs introducing “the

protesting voice of oppressed women in society”; and in the case of Gertrude, as a

character that shows an understanding for Ophelia precisely because she is a

woman . This essay is an example of how feminist criticism re-reads women in

works by male writers and questions the cultural stereotypes that a male-

dominated ideology has imposed on women: in the case of Ophelia, as a

daughter with a “submissive voice”.

Vista previa parcial del texto

¡Descarga Exam answers y más Apuntes en PDF de Literatura inglesa solo en Docsity!

1. Explain the critical approach(es) used in an essay on Hamlet summarized as follows: [15%]

This essay explores "cultural resonances between the politically unstable time of Judges in Israel's history, the political confusion in Hamlet's Denmark, and the anxiety over succession in late-‐Elizabethan England" (133). While Jephthah's daughter and Ophelia share similarities, they also differ in an important way: the unnamed daughter is an obedient sacrifice, and Ophelia "develops from her status as a victim" to "an author of a potentially different story, a woman's story" (133-‐34). Ophelia comes to realize her subversive potential and, in a commanding oration about the weakening of Hamlet's "noble mind," laments the lose of her own political ambitions (135). But her madness empowers her with liberties, such as demanding a meeting with Gertrude. Once granted entrance, "she, like a wandering player, comes to hold a mirror up to the court" (136). Gone is her submissive voice, replaced by "a range of voices" (137). Ophelia now "commands attention" (137). Interestingly, her invasion of the court parallels Laertes' rebellious entrance: they have "competing political claims, his assertive and explicit, hers subversive and encoded in mad woman's language" (137). Because her songs "introduce the protesting voice of oppressed women in society" through the veils of a ballad culture, Ophelia is not understood by her male audience; but her "rebellion against the double standard and its oppression of women arouses fear in Gertrude, who understands" (138). When the Queen reports Ophelia's drowning, she insists "on her time and the attention of the plotting men" (138). Her description portrays "a woman who draws her understanding of her world from women's culture" (139). The Queen, "perhaps like Jephthah's daughter's maiden friends, returned from temporary exile to interpret the meaning of the sacrificed daughter's life" (140).

The essay combines a feminist and a new historicist (or cultural) approach. The latter is clearly seen right from the outset when the abstract points out that the essay examines “cultural resonances” between different political times and concerns. A historicist critic studies a literary work in the context of social, political and cultural history, assuming the cultural presuppositions and ideas of the period being studied and avoiding being influenced by those of her or his own time. While the “old” historicism sees a literary work as an expression or reflection of the “spirit” and prevalent ideas of the age, and seeks to discover the interconnections (“resonances”) between the fictional world of the literary work and the larger culture, the new historicism argues that a literary work not only reflects the context but is also an agent producing meanings (“resonances”) among many other products of culture , an agent of power in the interplay of ideas , either supporting or questioning the dominant ideologies. Thus, the essay views Ophelia’s actions in terms of power relations with the other characters, and sees them as manoeuvres that are a “rebellion against” what was expected of her social and familial position. The essay is also a piece of feminist criticism, not only because it focuses on the female characters of Shakespeare’s tragedy (in comparison with the biblical daughter of Jephthah), but also (and mainly) because it analyzes the role of these women in the context of the prevalent patriarchal culture whose ideology fosters male dominance, in the case of Jephthah’s daughter as an “obedient sacrifice”, in the case of Ophelia as moving from a “victim” to a more “subversive” role , with her songs introducing “the protesting voice of oppressed women in society”; and in the case of Gertrude, as a character that shows an understanding for Ophelia precisely because she is a woman. This essay is an example of how feminist criticism re-reads women in works by male writers and questions the cultural stereotypes that a male- dominated ideology has imposed on women: in the case of Ophelia, as a daughter with a “submissive voice”.

2. Compare interpretations of Hamlet from a Marxist and a reader-‐oriented perspective. (Do not

comment on one approach and then the other one, but use contrastive paragraphs) [One page] [10%]

One of the Marxist readings of Hamlet applies Raymond Williams’ dynamic model of ideology that traces in aspects of every text (or cultural product) three stages or phases of ideological developement: “dominant”, “residual” (representing the discourse that was dominant in the past), and “emergent” (the discourse that may become dominant in the future). Thus, Pope suggests that in Hamlet we can see a residual model of a feudal society (as represented by Hamlet’s father, the former king) that is challenged by emergent forms of individualism (as represented by Hamlet, the prince), both set against the dominant ideology of absolutist monarchy and the nation-state (embodied in the king, in Hamlet’s uncle). The focus here is on meanings as conditioned by historical (ideological) factors. By contrast, reader-oriented criticism argues that meanings lie in the act of reading, in the negotiation between the work and the reader. Thus, one of the reader-oriented approaches to Hamlet , as practised by Stephen Booth, centres on what happens to spectators and readers of this tragedy as they find its focus being always changed and therefore in need of constant readjustment. In particular, Booth explains how the first scenes work upon the audience. In another Marxist analysis of Hamlet, Bristol uses Bakhtin’s dialogic criticism that sees literary works as the site of a dialectic relationship between voices expressing ideologies, that of the authority on the one hand, and on the other, the popular and unofficial ideology that questions and subverts the former (what Bakhtin calls the Carnival). In the carnivalesque tradition, a common ritual was the grotesque crowning and decrowning of a mock king or Lord of Misrule. Bristol sees in Hamlet’s uncle a kind of Lord of Misrule, who had uncrowned a legitimate king (Hamlet’s father) to crown himself as new king of Denmark. When this king mixes celebration and mourning in his first speech (1.2), we can see the grotesque element of the Carnival. Yet, the “uncrowning” effect is carried out by the clowns digging the grave for Ophelia in 5.1: they represent the voice of the underprivileged, are fully aware of how social differences are important in how people are treated, and make a joke of it all. By contrast, a reader-response critic such as Norman Holland, from a psychoanalytic perspective, reads Hamlet as his personal creation (the title of his article is very telling: “Hamlet: My Greatest Creation”) and explores the language of the play gives readers a chance to create their own alternate meanings. What both Marxist and reader-response approaches have in common is that they pay attention to language: Marxist critics analyze the language as evidence for the ideological undercurrents going through a literary work (how the ideological tensions give form to the work’s use of language, images, etc.); reader-oriented critics examine language as either guiding or manipulating the reader’s response (as in Booth) or constituting a potential space for readers to make their own interpretive possibilities (Holland).

Write a "practical criticism" essay of the following excerpt (including a translation of lines 59-‐74)

[20%]

Thanks, dear my lord. —

Exit [Polonius].

Oh, my offence is rank, it smells to heaven, 39 / rank: foul-smelling, offensive

It hath the primal eldest curse upon’t,

A brother’s murder. Pray can I not,

Though inclination be as sharp as will;

My stronger guilt defeats my strong intent,

And, like a man to double business bound, 44 / bound : directed ; tied ; sworn ; obliged

I stand in pause where I shall first begin 45

And both neglect. What if this cursed hand 46 / neglect: omit

Were thicker than itself with brother’s blood?

Is there not rain enough in the sweet heavens

To wash it white as snow? Whereto serves mercy

But to confront the visage of offence? 50 if it does not confront guilt (visage: face)

And what’s in prayer but this twofold force, 51 what’s in a prayer: what is the use of prayer

To be forestallèd ere we come to fall 52 / forestallèd: prevented / ere: before

Or pardoned being down? Then I’ll look up. 53 / pardoned: to be pardoned

My fault is past, but oh, what form of prayer 54/ past: already committed (too late to be prevented)

Can serve my turn? “Forgive me my foul murder?” 55 / turn: purpose, need

That cannot be since I am still possessed

Of those effects for which I did the murder: 57 / effects: benefits, acquisitions

My crown, mine own ambition and my Queen.

May one be pardoned and retain th’offence? 59 / th’offence: i.e. profits gained from committing the offence

In the corrupted currents of this world 60 / currents: courses, practices, procedures

Offence’s guilded hand may shove by justice, 61 / gilded: golden; bearing bribes / shove: push / by: to one side

And oft ’tis seen the wicked prize itself 62 / oft: often / wicked prize: rewards of vice

Buys out the law; but ’tis not so above,

There is no shuffling, there the action lies 64 / There : i.e., in heaven / shuffling: evasion, deceit, trickery

In his true nature, and we ourselves compelled 65 / his: its

Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults 66 / to … forehead: in the very face / faults: sins

To give in evidence. What then? What rests? 67 / give in: give, submit / evidence: ‘of our faults’ / rests: remains

Try what repentance can. What can it not? 68 / can: that is, can achieve

Yet what can it, when one cannot repent?

O wretched state, O bosom black as death, 70 / bosom: the front of the human chest

O limèd soul, that, struggling to be free,

Art more engaged! Help, angels, make assay. 72 / engaged: entangled / assay: a great effort ; an attempt

Bow, stubborn knees, and heart with strings of steel 73 Bow: ( imperative) bend forward the upper part of the body

[ Kneels? ]

Be soft as sinews of the new-born babe. 74 / sinews : tendons

All may be well.

40 primal eldest curse: God’s biblical curse on Cain, the first murderer, who killed his brother Abel (Genesis 4.11-12) 42 inclination … will: my desire and determination to pray are equally strong 49 Whereto … offence? : What is the point of mercy if not to confront sin face to face? ; What function has mercy except whem there has been sin 64 the action lies: the sin is laid bare ; the case is admissible (legal metaphor, continued with evidence) 71 / limèd: caught as a bird is trapped by bird-lime (sticky substance spread on branches)

This excerpt takes place in Act 3, scene 3, of Shakespeare’s revenge tragedy Hamlet, prince of Denmark. It shows a soliloquy spoken by the King, a little after he has interrupted the performance of the play prepared by Hamlet for the court as it was re-enacting the details of the King’s murder of his brother (the former king, and Hamlet’s father). In this thirty-seven-line speech, the King expresses his inner struggle between his desire for mercy and his guilt, between his willingness to repent and his wish to “retain th’offence” [59], that is, to keep on enjoying the results of his crime: “My crown, mine own ambition and my Queen” (line 58). He finishes his speech with a praying attitude (perhaps kneeling), leaving spectators (and readers) in suspense as to whether or not he will certainly repent. In the context of the play’s story, it is important to know that this speech confirms Hamlet’s inference that his uncle murdered his father but only to spectators, not to Hamlet or the rest of the characters. Spectators are no longer in doubt about the Ghost’s story. But interestingly, the fact that this is a soliloquy (without any other character hearing what the King confesses) has two effects: 1) it keeps the murder a secret, thus making it difficult for Hamlet to justify an open challenge against his uncle; 2) it turns the King’s into a more sympathetic character as spectators see him struggling to obtain mercy from Heaven (there was a previous moment in 3.1, before the “To be, or not to be” monologue when the King acknowledged that Polonius’ moralising comment on how evil can be masked by a pious appearance was punishing his (the King’s) conscience [3.1.50]). That the King is seen confronting his conscience partly contradicts Hamlet’s accusation of his uncle as a “remorseless villain” (2.2.) The speech can be seen as articulated around the oppositions of “guilt”, “offence” versus “repentance”, “pardon”, “mercy”; and is structured in such a way that follows the impulses and ups-and-downs of the King’s thoughts and emotions. First (lines 39-41a), he frankly confesses his fratricidal crime (“offence”), Secondly (lines 41b-46a), he recognizes that the weight of his guilt is stronger than his willingness to pray, leaving him in a situation in which he cannot make any progress. Then (lines 46b-53), he wonders about the possibility of divine mercy for himself. After a brief moment in which he imagines himself as pardoned (“Then I’ll look up. / My fault is past”, 53b-54a), he confronts the reality that he cannot repent, that one cannot cheat heavenly justice (lines 54b- 67a). In lines 67b-69 he impatiently revisits the above-mentioned phases, only to plunge into the concluding desperate attempt at praying. The soliloquy uses the dominant verse form in Hamlet and in Elizabethan drama: blank verse (an unlimited sequence of iambic pentameters). I will point out those moments in the excerpt that deviate from this expected pattern. The first part (lines 39-41a) begins with an exclamation (with a common inversion of the first metrical foot into a trochee) and refers to the biblical story of fratricide and the curse of Cain, the murderer of his “brother” Abel. The second part (lines 41b-46a) starts again with another inversion to the trochaic rhythm (“Práy can”), leaving the negative adverb “not” in the emphatic position at the end of the line; and sets up one of the oppositions in which the soliloquy is articulated: the tension between “guilt” (43) and “intent” to pray and be pardoned (perhaps between “will” to sin, and “inclination” [42]).

justice. Again, body images inform the texture of these ideas and personify asbtract concepts: “gilded hand” (61) recalls “cursèd hand” (46) and, through phonetic similarity, “guilt” (43); “teeth” and “forehead” (66) emphasizes the notion that crimes (“faults”) have to be directly faced. It is also interesting to point out the legal metaphor in the phrase “the action lies”, the spondee in “true nature” (highlighting the adjective “true” in contrast to the idea of “shuffling” or deceit), and the lexical choice of the verb “shove by” (=push to one side) as it connotes an attitude of disrespect. With the next short questions, “What then? What rests?” (67b), disrupting the expected iambic rhythm and denoting anxiety, the King seems to go back to the impasse expressed in the simile of a man tied or obligated to “double business” (44). He tries repentance again (line 68a) in a short imperative sentence, which is immediately followed by a short question: “What can it not?”, that is, the King is back to wishful thinking, only to acknowledge (again) the impossibility of repentance (69) in the form of another rhetorical question. These two lines, 68 and 69, are constructed in a chiasmus: “Try ... repentance can ... one cannot repent” (A B ... B A ). This rhetorical device (the chiasmus) reflects the King’s struggle to balance his wish to repent against his willingness not to repent (to “retain th’offence”). The whole internal tension is finally released in a series of exclamations that show a parallel structure (70-72a). Again, “bosom” and, arguably, “soul” confirm the soliloquy’s penchant for body imagery, later reinforced by “knees” and “heart” (73). The choice of “black” associated with “death” (a common association in Western culture) sets up a contrast with “white” (49) associated with forgiveness. The image of the soul as a bird entangled by a sticky substance spread over the branches of trees so that the more it strives to free itself the more it is entangled (“engaged” [72a]), adequately represents the King’s inner struggle: the more he tries to repent, the more he realizes that he wants to “retain th’offence”. The three questions are followed by three imperative sentences (72b-74), each starting with spondees, expressing the King’s desperate and impatient last attempt to pray. Perhaps “Bow, stubborn knees” is a kind of implicit stage direction telling the actor to kneel down, a fitting gesture. Interestingly, this soliloquy does not end with a couplet, as is conventional in most set speeches. The King pronounces a couplet in his next speech (lines 100- 101). This may indicate that the soliloquy is unfinished. In fact, the couplet in lines 100-101 shows the conclusion to the King’s inner conflict: the recognition that he has failed to pray and therefore to be pardoned. To sum up, with predominant stylistic features such as rhetorical and fragmented questions, elaborate syntax, and body imagery, this soliloquy expresses the King’s inner struggle with his conscience.

Exam answers, Apuntes de Literatura inglesa

Documentos relacionados