literary criticism.pdf

RHANDELL M. GUIRRE, LPT, Ph.D.
Dean, College of Teacher Education
LITERARY CRITICISM
Lecture 1

Literary criticism (or literary studies) is the
study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature.
Modern literary criticism is often influenced by
literary theory, which is the philosophical
discussion of literature's goals and methods.
Though the two activities are closely related,
literary critics are not always, and have not always
been, theorists.

Literary criticism is the comparison, analysis,
interpretation, and/or evaluation of works of literature.
Literary criticism is essentially an opinion, supported by
evidence, relating to theme, style, setting or historical or
political context. It usually includes discussion of the
work’s content and integrates your ideas with other
insights gained from research. Literary criticism may
have a positive or a negative bias and may be a study of
an individual piece of literature or an author’s body of
work.

Literary criticism is often published in essay or book
form. Academic literary critics teach in literature
departments and publish in academic journals, and more
popular critics publish their reviews in broadly circulating
periodicals such as The Times Literary Supplement, The
New York Times Book Review, The New York Review of
Books, the London Review of Books, the Dublin Review of
Books, The Nation, Bookforum, and The New Yorker.

Although criticism may include some of the following
elements in order to support an idea, literary criticism is
NOT a plot summary, a biography of the author, or
simply finding fault with the literature.
Researching, reading, and writing works of literary
criticism will help you to make better sense of the work,
form judgments about literature, study ideas from
different points of view, and determine on an individual
level whether a literary work is worth reading.

Importance of Literary
Criticism

Importance of Literary Criticism
Literary criticism is an interpretive process used to weigh the social
value of a written idea. Critics have reviewed and debated the value of
literary works since before the Italian Renaissance.
Function
Critical reviews can assist you personally by supporting points you may
make in your own literary interpretation. Referencing another
legitimate literary review often enhances the quality of your reading
of a text.
Effects
Literary critics may sometimes challenge the ideas and values of
literature. For example, some feminist critics review and challenge
what they believe to be sexist attitudes in widely accepted literature
written by men or from an exclusively male perspective.

Benefits
Empathy is a necessary tool when criticizing a text. When reading another
critic's textual interpretation that conflicts with your own values, you
experience the reading through someone else's perspective and hence have
the opportunity to increase your own tolerance for differing ideas.
Career Enhancement
Published authors and poets work as literary critics. Some professors also
publish extensively in the field of literary criticism, typically focusing on one
area of expertise.
Considerations
An understanding of historical literary criticism may also provide insight on
past cultures. Readers often assume that what's true today was true in the
past, but certain forms of literary criticism place writings in their proper
context.

Approaches to Literary
Criticism

Approaches to Literary Criticism
The work itself (literary piece) is in the center of the map because all approaches must deal,
to some extent or another, with the text itself. To critique a piece of work, one must read first
the text. After which, one may utilize any of the following literary approaches below:
1.Formalist criticism
2.Deconstructionist criticism
3.Historical criticism
4.Inter-textual criticism
5.Reader-response criticism
6.Mimetic criticism
7.Symbolic/Archetypal criticism
8.Psychological criticism
9.Marxist criticism
10.Feminist criticism

▪Formalist criticism is placed at the center because it deals
primarily with the text and not with any of the outside
considerations such as author, the real world, audience, or
other literature. Meaning, formalists argue, is inherent in the
text. Because meaning is determinant, all other considerations
are irrelevant.
Example:
Think of "Twinkle Twinkle" as an example. With formalist criticism the
reader would notice the repetition of the word twinkle and consider
connotation and denotation of the word. It would notice the first
person speaker of the poem. He would note the use of simile in the
4th line (like a diamond in the sky). He would note the refrain of the
first two lines in lines 5 and 6, and he would mark the meter and the
ryhme scheme. Once the poem was literarily dissected, then the
reader can consider how those elements work together to create the
meaning of the poem as a whole.

▪ Deconstructionist criticism also subject texts to careful, formal analysis;
however, they reach an opposite conclusion: there is no meaning in
language. They believe that a piece of writing does not have one meaning
and the meaning itself is dependent on the reader.
Example:
For example, in “Plato’s Pharmacy,” Derrida deconstructs Socrates’ criticism
of the written word, arguing that it not only suffers from internal
inconsistencies because of the analogy Socrates himself makes between
memory and writing, but also stands in stark contrast to the fact that his
ideas come to us only through the written word he disparaged (D 61-171).
The double movement here is one of tracing this tension in Plato’s text, and
in the traditional reading of that text, while at the same time acknowledging
the fundamental ways in which our understanding of the world is dependent
on Socrates’ attitude toward the written word. Derrida points out similar
contradictions in philosophical discussions of a preface (by G. W. F. Hegel, D
1-69) and a picture frame (by Immanuel Kant, TP 17-147), which are
simultaneously inside and outside the respective works under consideration.

▪Historical criticism relies heavily on the author and his world. In
the historical view, it is important to understand the author
and his world in order to understand his intent and to make
sense of his work. In this view, the work is informed by the
author’s beliefs, prejudices, time, and history, and to fully
understand the work, we must understand the author and his
age.
▪Things to consider for your historical critique
a. Author's biography and social background
when the work was written
b. Ideas circulating at the time of writing
c. Events occurring at the time of writing
d. What the work meant to the people who first read it

Example:
An example is that modern biblical scholarship has attempted to understand the
Book of Revelation in its 1st-century historical context by identifying its literary
genre with Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature.
In regard to the Gospels, higher criticism deals with the synoptic problem, the
relations among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In some cases, such as with several
Pauline epistles, higher criticism can confirm or challenge the traditional or received
understanding of authorship.[citation needed] Higher criticism understands the New
Testament texts within a historical context: that is, that they are not adamantine
but writings that express the traditio (what is handed down). The truth lies in the
historical context.
In classical studies, the 19th century approach to higher criticism set aside
"efforts to fill ancient religion with direct meaning and relevance and devoted itself
instead to the critical collection and chronological ordering of the source
material."[6] Thus, higher criticism, whether biblical, classical, Byzantine or
medieval, focuses on the source documents to determine who wrote it and where
and when it was written.

▪Inter-textual criticism is concerned with comparing the work in
question to other literature, to get a broader picture. One may
compare a piece of work to another of the same author, same
literary movement or same historical background.
Example:
A Tempest (By Aime Cesaire)
Aime Cesaire’s play A Tempest is an adaptation of The
Tempest by William Shakespeare. The author parodies
Shakespeare’s play from a post-colonial point of view. Cesaire
also changes the occupations and races of his characters. For
example, he transforms the occupation of Prospero, who was a
magician, into a slave-owner, and also changes Ariel into a
Mulatto, though he was a spirit. Cesaire, like Rhys, makes use of
a famous work of literature, and put a spin on it in order to
express the themes of power, slavery, and colonialism.

▪ Reader-response criticism is concerned with how the work is viewed by the audience. In
this approach, the reader creates meaning, not the author or the work. Once the work is
published, the author is no longer relevant. Reader-response suggests that the role of the
reader is essential to the meaning of a text, for only in the reading experience does the
literary work come alive. For example, in Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s Frankenstein
(1818), the monster doesn’t exist, so to speak, until the reader reads Frankenstein and
reanimates it to life, becoming a co-creator of the text.
▪ Thus, the purpose of a reading response is examining, explaining, and defending your
personal reaction to a text.
▪ Your critical reading of a text asks you to explore:
▪ why you like or dislike the text;
▪ explain whether you agree or disagree with the author;
▪ identify the text’s purpose; and
▪ critique the text.
▪ There is no right or wrong answer to a reading response. Nonetheless, it is important that
you demonstrate an understanding of the reading and clearly explain and support your
reactions. Do not use the standard approach of just writing: “I liked this text because it is so
cool and the ending made me feel happy,” or “I hated it because it was stupid, and had
nothing at all to do with my life, and was too negative and boring.” In writing a response
you may assume the reader has already read the text. Thus, do not summarize the
contents of the text at length. Instead, take a systematic, analytical approach to the text.

▪Mimetic criticism seeks to see how well a work accords with
the real world. How does a piece of literature accurately
portrays the truth is the main contention of this literary
approach. The word "mimetic" comes from the Greek word
"mimesis," the act of imitation. The mimetic theory of literary
criticism places primary importance on how well a literary work
imitates life. In practice, mimetic critical theory often asks how
well the literary work conveys universal truths and teaches the
reader positive moral values and modes of personal conduct.
While few would argue with positive moral values, the theory
can be misused, such as justifying violence against those in
disagreement.

Example:
Odyssey 10-12 Acts 20:5-12
Odysseus and his crew left Troy and sailed back to Achaea.
Paul and his crew arrive at Troas en route to Jerusalem from
Achaea.
The account is narrated in the first-person plural. The account is narrated in the first-person plural.
After a sojourn, Odysseus and his crew ate a meal. After a sojourn, Paul and the believers there ate a meal.
Disaster came at night. Disaster came at midnight.
The crew slept in Circe's "darkened halls."
"There were many lamps in the room upstairs where they were
meeting."
The narrator switches to the third person. The narrator switches to the third person.
"There was a man, Elpenor, the youngest..." "A young man named Eutychus, who was sitting in the window."
Elpenor fell into "sweet sleep." Eutychus fell into a "deep sleep."
"[He] fell down from the roof. His neck / broke from the spine,
and his soul went down to the house of Hades."
"He fell to the ground three floors below and was picked up dead.
But Paul went down,...and said, 'Do not be alarmed, for his soul is
in him.'"
Associates fetched the body, dead. Associates took up the body, alive.
Elpenor was not buried until dawn. Eutychus was not raised alive until dawn.
Luke's imitation of Homer's Odyssey 10-12 in Acts 20.[2]

▪Psychological criticism attempts to explain the behavioral
underpinnings of the characters within the selection, analyzing
the actions and thoughts committed fall under any of the
identifiable neuroses, whether a psychological disorder is
evident among them. Aside from the characters, the author
and even the reader may be criticized as why they exhibit
certain behavior during the actual writing and reading
experience.

There’s a Certain Slant of Light (Emily Dickinson)
There’s a certain slant of light,
On winter afternoons,
That oppresses, like the weight
Of cathedral tunes.
Heavenly hurt it gives us;
We can find no scar,
But internal difference
Where the meanings are.
None may teach it anything,
‘Tis the seal, despair,-
An imperial affliction
Sent us of the air.
When it comes, the landscape listens,
Shadows hold their breath;
When it goes, ‘t is like the distance
On the look of death.

The psychoanalytic critic would look of the unconscious
desires sublimated by Dickinson in her poem. In the
psychoanalyst’s mind everyone’s actions are governed by
sexual/pleasure seeking motives. Dickinson would have these
desires and since they cannot be expressed in society she must
sublimate them in her creative outlet, poetry. For example, with
Freud’s theories in mind, we might draw the conclusion that
Dickinson got a sexual pleasure from pain.

▪ Archetypal criticism assumes that there is a collection of symbols,
images, characters, and motifs (i.e. archetypes) that evokes basically
the same response in all people which seem to bind all people
regardless of culture and race worldwide. This can also be labelled as
Mythological and Symbolic criticisms. Their critics identify these
archetypal patterns and discuss how they function in the works.
▪ An archetype is a literary device in which a character is created
based on a set of qualities or traits that are specific and identifiable
for readers. The term archetype is derived from the studies and
writings of psychologist Carl Jung who believed that archetypes are
part of humanity’s collective unconscious or memory of universal
experiences. In a literary context, characters (and sometimes images
or themes) that symbolically embody universal meanings and basic
human experiences, independent of time or place, are considered
archetypes.

Common Examples and Descriptions of Literary Archetypes
As a rule, there are twelve primary character types that symbolize basic human
motivations and represent literary archetypes. Here is a list of these example literary
archetypes and their general descriptions:
Lover: character guided by emotion and passion of the heart
Hero: protagonist that rises to a challenge
Outlaw: character that is rebellious or outside societal conventions or demands
Magician: powerful character that understands and uses universal forces
Explorer: character that is driven to explore the unknown and beyond boundaries
Sage: character with wisdom, knowledge, or mentor qualities
Creator: visionary character that creates something significant
Innocent: “pure” character in terms of morality or intentions
Caregiver: supportive character that often sacrifices for others
Jester: Character that provides humor and comic relief with occasional wisdom
Everyman: Character recognized as average, relatable, found in everyday life
Ruler: Character with power of others, whether in terms of law or emotion

Examples of Archetype in Shakespearean Works
William Shakespeare utilized archetype frequently as a literary device in his plays. Here
are some examples of archetype in Shakespearean works:
Lover: Romeo (“Romeo and Juliet”), Juliet (“Romeo and Juliet”), Antony (“Antony and
Cleopatra”)
Hero: Othello (“Othello”), Hamlet (“Hamlet”), Macduff (“Macbeth”)
Outlaw: Prince Hal (“Henry IV”), Edmund (“King Lear”), Falstaff (“Henry IV”)
Magician: Prospero (“The Tempest”), The Witches (“Macbeth”), Soothsayer (“Julius Caesar”)
Sage: Polonius (“Hamlet”), Friar Laurence (“Romeo and Juliet”), Gonzalo (“The Tempest”)
Innocent: Viola (“Twelfth Night”), Ophelia (“Hamlet”), Hero (“Much Ado about Nothing”)
Caregiver: Nurse (“Romeo and Juliet”), Mercutio (“Romeo and Juliet”), Ursula (“Much Ado
about Nothing”)
Jester: Touchstone (“As You Like It’), Feste (“Twelfth Night”), Fool (“King Lear”)
Everyman: Lucentio (“The Taming of the Shrew”), Valentine (“The Two Gentelmen of
Verona”), Florizel (“The Winter’s Tale”)
Ruler: King Lear (“King Lear”), Claudius (“Hamlet”), Alonso (“The Tempest”)

Example 1: Nick Carraway: Everyman (The Great Gatsby, F. Scott
Fitzgerald)
In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some
advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since. “Whenever
you feel like criticizing any one,” he told me, “just remember that all
the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.”
In this passage, Fitzgerald establishes for the reader that Nick
Carraway’s character is not just the narrator of the novel, but an
“everyman” archetype as well. Though Nick’s father reminds him of
“advantages” that he’s had, Nick is nevertheless considered the
novel’s most relatable and “average” character. Therefore, as an
everyman archetype, the reader is able to identify with Nick and
consequently trust his observations and narration of the events of the
story. This allows Nick’s character to influence the way in which the
reader engages with the novel’s characters and events, as his
everyman actions and interactions become vicarious experiences for
Fitzgerald’s audience as well.

Example 2: Sancho Panza: Jester (Don Quixote, Miguel de Cervantes)
The most perceptive character in a play is the fool, because the man
who wishes to seem simple cannot possibly be a simpleton.
In Miguel de Cervantes’ novel, Sancho Panza reflects the
complexity and importance of the “jester” archetype. As Don
Quixote’s sidekick, Sancho Panza provides humor and comic relief as a
contrast to the title character’s idealism. However, as Sancho Panza’s
character becomes more developed in the novel, his jester archetype
develops as well into a voice of reason and example of empathy and
loyalty. This is beneficial for the reader in that, though they are
contrasting characters, Sancho Panza as a jester beside Don Quixote
becomes a more legitimate and influential character. In turn, the
jester archetype legitimizes the protagonist as well, making the
novel’s fool the “most perceptive character.”

▪Marxist criticism concerns with the analysis of the clash of
opposing social classes in society, namely; the ruling class
(bourgeoisie) and the working class (proletariat) as it shaped
the events that transpired in the story.

Example:
*The Lottery
Shirley Jackson
As a tyrannical government is allowed to rule freely over the
ignorant masses, yearly tradition becomes etched into the minds
of the working class, as the old wonder with a pessimistic eye
where society is going, and reminisce about lost days of youth
spent hurling stones at their society’s helpless sacrifice. Shirley
Jackson’s “The Lottery” is a horrifying example of what happens
when society can only distinguish two classes, specifically the
downtrodden working class and the wealthy leader class. This is
made clear through the characterization of the higher class, as
well as the lower class, and the effects on social change due to
the class differences.

In this story, two main characters make up the leader class:
Mr. Summers and Mr. Graves. As part of the upper class, they
control all that surrounds them, including the minds of the
working class. Mr. Summers is the more obvious example: “The
lottery was conducted – as were the square dances, the teen
club, the Halloween program – by Mr. Summers, who had time
and energy to devote to civic activities” (1). In stating that only
Mr. Summers has the time and energy for these activities,
Jackson insinuates that he is not part of the proletariat; like most
dictators, he is extremely wealthy and has probably never
worked a day in his life, making him unable to relate to the
people’s needs and struggles.

Despite his lack of empathy, he is given absolute power over
the working class, controlling all community activities, and, in
effect, their minds. Though not as outwardly controlling as Mr.
Summers, Mr. Graves is entrusted with several powers over the
lives of the proletariat. He is Mr. Summers’s second in command:
“Mr. Summers and Mr. Graves made up the slips of paper…” (2).
With this, he is essentially given power over life and death.
Furthermore, as postmaster, he controls all mail in and out of
the village; with control over communication, Mr. Graves also
holds control over the minds and free expression of the villagers.
Over all, the upper class establishes control through fear, this
being the entire point of the lottery.

The lower class, on the other hand, is composed of
downtrodden workers who are not allowed to think for sheer
lack of time and energy. It is clear that some in this working class
wish to rebel, to give up old rituals and loyalties, and overthrow
their oppressors. Mrs. Hutchinson is the first example of this:
“Just as Mr. Summers finally left off talking and turned to the
assembled villagers, Mrs. Hutchinson came hurriedly along the
path to the square, her sweater thrown over her shoulders, and
slid into place in the back of the crowd” (2).

In being late to the lottery, Mrs. Hutchinson subconsciously
communicates her distaste for the community leadership and
the lottery. She “slides into place” just as Mr. Summers has
finished speaking, showing her disrespect for his words and
ideas. Those who do not rebel against the lottery share a silent
fear of it: “A sudden hush fell through the crowd as Mr. Summers
cleared his throat and looked at the list” (3). Though not
explicitly stated, it is clear from the actions of the villagers that
they fear the lottery, and rightly so: they fear for their lives. Kept
tired and ignorant by their leaders, they do not realize the true
source of their problems, and do not push for rebellion.

Because of this large difference between the classes, social
change is made extremely difficult. This is expressed mainly
through subtle symbolism; first, Mr. Summers’s insistence that
the box be changed: “Every year after the lottery, Mr. Summers
began talking again about a new box, but every year the subject
was allowed to fade off without anything’s being done” (2). In
this case, the black box represents the old, decadent society,
while the lottery represents a sort of election. Every year after
his “election,” Mr. Summers insists for the people’s sake that
“society” must be changed; however, once he is secure in his
position, he is free to do nothing. The masses, kept ignorant and
downtrodden by their work, simply let go of this social change,
unable to see how it could benefit them. As the box deteriorates,
so does their society.

Another subtle hint is shown through Mrs. Hutchinson’s
reaction to the results of the lottery: “You didn’t give him time
enough to take any paper he wanted. I saw you. It wasn’t fair!”
(5). Mrs. Hutchinson is essentially stating that Mr. Summers kept
her husband busy and hurried in a ploy to prevent him from
thinking. This is a strong theme in a society where the wealthy
lord over the proletariat; without the ignorant masses, the
wealthy could not rule, and so Mr. Summers must keep them
unaware of the true workings of the lottery.

As a whole, this story was a great example of what happens
when society is radically divided between two classes. When the
wealthy are given absolute power, their nature is to lord over the
proletariat using tactics of fear and manipulation. The proletariat
is then left unable to think for itself, mindlessly carrying on with
its assigned duties. Through characterizing the upper and lower
classes as she did, as well as showing the extreme difficulties
faced in pursuing social change, Jackson has perfectly conveyed
this idea.
*Marxist Criticism Written by Andrew M. Silver, Oak Lawn, Illinois

▪Feminist criticism concerns with the woman’s role in society as
portrayed through texts. It typically analyzes the plight of
woman as depicted in the story. Generally, it criticizes the
notion of woman as a construct through literature.

▪Feminist criticism is concerned with "the ways in which
literature (and other cultural productions) reinforce or
undermine the economic, political, social, and psychological
oppression of women" (Tyson 83). This school of theory looks
at how aspects of our culture are inherently patriarchal (male
dominated) and aims to expose misogyny in writing about
women, which can take explicit and implicit forms. This
misogyny, Tyson reminds us, can extend into diverse areas of
our culture: "Perhaps the most chilling example...is found in
the world of modern medicine, where drugs prescribed for
both sexes often have been tested on male subjects only" (85).
▪Feminist criticism is also concerned with less obvious forms of
marginalization such as the exclusion of women writers from
the traditional literary canon: "...unless the critical or historical
point of view is feminist, there is a tendency to underrepresent
the contribution of women writers" (Tyson 84).

Common Space in Feminist Theories
Though a number of different approaches exist in feminist criticism, there exist
some areas of commonality. This list is excerpted from Tyson (92):
1.Women are oppressed by patriarchy economically, politically, socially, and
psychologically; patriarchal ideology is the primary means by which women are
oppressed.
2.In every domain where patriarchy reigns, woman is other: she is marginalized,
defined only by her difference from male norms and values.
3.All of Western (Anglo-European) civilization is deeply rooted in patriarchal
ideology, for example, in the Biblical portrayal of Eve as the origin of sin and death
in the world.
4.While biology determines our sex (male or female), culture determines our
gender (scales of masculine and feminine).
5.All feminist activity, including feminist theory and literary criticism, has as its
ultimate goal to change the world by prompting gender equality.
6. Gender issues play a part in every aspect of human production and experience,
including the production and experience of literature, whether we are consciously
aware of these issues or not.

▪ Feminist criticism has, in many ways, followed what some theorists
call the three waves of feminism:
a. First Wave Feminism - late 1700s-early 1900's: writers like Mary
Wollstonecraft (A Vindication of the Rights of Women, 1792) highlight
the inequalities between the sexes. Activists like Susan B. Anthony and
Victoria Woodhull contribute to the women's suffrage movement,
which leads to National Universal Suffrage in 1920 with the passing of
the Nineteenth Amendment.
b. Second Wave Feminism - early 1960s-late 1970s: building on more
equal working conditions necessary in America during World War II,
movements such as the National Organization for Women (NOW),
formed in 1966, cohere feminist political activism. Writers like Simone
de Beauvoir (Le Deuxième Sexe, 1949) and Elaine Showalter
established the groundwork for the dissemination of feminist theories
dove-tailed with the American Civil Rights movement.

c. Third Wave Feminism - early 1990s-present: resisting the
perceived essentialist (over generalized, over simplified)
ideologies and a white, heterosexual, middle class focus of
second wave feminism, third wave feminism borrows from
post-structural and contemporary gender and race theories (see
below) to expand on marginalized populations' experiences.
Writers like Alice Walker work to "...reconcile it [feminism] with
the concerns of the black community...[and] the survival and
wholeness of her people, men and women both, and for the
promotion of dialog and community as well as for the
valorization of women and of all the varieties of work women
perform" (Tyson 107).

Critical Methodology
A feminist literary critic resists traditional assumptions while
reading a text. In addition to challenging assumptions which were
thought to be universal, feminist literary criticism actively supports
including women's knowledge in literature and valuing women's
experiences. The basic methods of feminist literary criticism include:
1.Identifying with female characters: By examining the way female
characters are defined, critics challenge the male-centered outlook of
authors. Feminist literary criticism suggests that women in literature
have been historically presented as objects seen from a male
perspective.
2. Reevaluating literature and the world in which literature is read: By
revisiting the classic literature, the critic can question whether society
has predominantly valued male authors and their literary works
because it has valued males more than females.

Example:
*I’m Wife- I’ve Finished That
Emily Dickinson
I'm "wife"—I've finished that—
That other state—
I'm Czar—I'm "Woman" now—
It's safer so—
How odd the Girl's life looks
Behind this soft Eclipse—
I think that Earth feels so
To folks in Heaven—now—
This being comfort—then
That other kind—was pain—
But why compare?
I'm "Wife"! Stop there!

Analysis/ Interpretation
In the first stanza, Emily show that if she becomes a wife, she will finish
all of she had done. The labels and titles given to women (“Wife”) and to
contrast it to what a woman can never be and a man can (“Czar”)
demonstrates this with the sharp puncturing dashes, capital letters and
exclamation marks at the end. The inequality of man and woman is clearly
shown as well by the change the woman goes through from childhood:
“girl” to womanhood: “Wife” characterized by an “Eclipse” in the second
stanza. I guess, based on her, it is natural for “woman” to stop at “wife”
because as a wife the women must go along with her husband. It is not as
freedom as they are a woman that can do everything without interference
of others. A woman can become a “Czar”, but a “wife” just only becomes a
wife with the husband as her adoration. And often we see the intimidation
wife by her own husband in their household. Her life will be dominated by
her own husband.

Emily did not marry, but what perhaps is most poignant and
really more the issue is not her ignorance and bitterness towards
the married state but, after girlhood there is only marriage, and
since she is not married, then what is she? It is about identity.
The line “It’s safer so” shows that she believed that to have a
label, to be ‘typical’, ‘normal’, etc. is to be ‘safer’ and to be more
secure of her own identity. She is in flux having never been
married and never having a domineering male force in her life,
except from her constant issue with her religion/faith, of course
dominated by men then.

Emily Dickinson presents a very intricate approach towards
marriage. In the first stanza she writes “I’m ‘wife’ – I’ve finished
that / I’m ‘Woman’ now – It’s safer so,” what she means here is
that now since I am married, I have become complete woman. I
think the message that she is trying to convey is that every girl
ought to get married in order for her to become a ‘complete’
woman. In the first 3 line Dickinson seems to present a
pro-marriage opinion. But in the last line of stanza 1, she writes
“It’s safer so,” here is where the ironic messages is put forward.
In mid nineteenth century, it was a norm/expected for a girl to
get married, have a family, have children and have a typical
lifestyle. So in the last line she mocks the society for pressurizing
girls to get married.

In the second stanza, Emily called the marriage as an “eclipse”
of the woman, though a soft one because of her unsatisfied but
culturally obligated feeling on marriage. The inequality of man
and woman is clearly shown as well by the change the woman
goes through from childhood: “girl” to womanhood: “Wife”
characterized by an “Eclipse”. Dickinson is playing feminist. She is
saying it is better to be “Woman” rather than “Wife.” Once you
make this realization, you will see things as differently as the
dead see life on earth. But maybe, she is pointing out that the
natural progression of a girl’s life from willfulness to marriage in
“the soft eclipse”, almost like she see marriage as a shelter from
pain. In this stanza she compares the single-married issue to the
earth-heaven scenario. Being single is represented by the ‘harsh’
life and realities of the earth and a married woman’s life is
compare to being in ‘Heaven.’

In the other statement from Grace in United States, Emily
Dickinson is not finding security with becoming a woman, but
insecurities. She does not want to be a wife or a woman and puts
these words in quotes because they seem foreign when
compared to her. This relates to her family life also because her
father did not expect a woman to become of anything and Emily
rejected her mother’s identity insisting in her poems that she is
an orphan upon herself. In this poem she fantasizes that she did
enter in some kind of marriage, but she seems to almost be
mocking it.

The same, insecure status applied also to widows. They too
throughout history have been of unstable status. Certainly, ‘wife’
was really the only occupation for a woman out of girlhood, and
there is definitely a hint of bitterness and regret, but perhaps the
bitterness is well deserved. She has no social identity but that of
a spinster and no woman would willingly adopt that title that
was often the butt of pity or scorn.
And most definitely, I think she did not want to be a wife and I
guess she thought to preserve some sense of an identity she had
to become a recluse, but there is a sense of a lack of identity
when not a wife and not a girl. It is a shame she was not more of
an outgoing person challenging social ideals.

The final stanza describes the Emily’s feeling in marriage. She
said that the marriage at other side will being comfort as she is
pointing out that the natural progression of a girl’s life from
willfulness to marriage in “the soft eclipse”, almost like she see
marriage as a shelter from pain, but pain is the other kind. This
stanza begins with the lines “This being comfort-then/ That other
kind was pain,” these two lines transmit a mixed signal
suggesting that married life is finally painless or the complete
opposite of it
That pain is come from the reality of household. How the
couple, man and woman, will unite their want, their habit and
their purpose in a nation. And when they can not to unite that,
there will be a problem that threats their household.
Occasionally, the one will dominate the other. In this case, we
are always seeing that the woman is the oppressed side.

Basically, Emily is not satisfied with the marriage life; and
that’s why she keeps comparing herself as she says “why
compare?” from the beginning to the end of the poem, and the
last line “I’m “Wife”! Stop there!” almost sounds like a man’s
voice ordering her. However, she ends in a cynical tone: With
independence comes pain, so it is natural for women to stop at
“Wife.”
She ends the poem with a positive note towards marriage by
saying that there is no need to compare both the scenarios since
she is now a ‘Wife.’ Here again, she uses the word ‘Wife’ to
represent her status. That to me indicates that she is trying to
mock the sexist society of the middle nineteenth century.

As we analyze in the above section we know that in this poem Emily
Dickinson want to presents a very intricate approach towards marriage. At
the first 3 lines, she show her a pro-marriage opinion, but in the last she
writes the ironic messages that mocks the society norm in mid nineteenth
for pressurizing girls to get married.
She wants to show that the marriage for the girls is like “soft eclipse”.
Marriage will give the safer live for the girls that are demanded to them
and finally painless, or the complete opposite of it that will cause a pain for
them.
I think this poem is presented to mock the sexist society of the middle
nineteenth century for pressurizing girls to get married, have a family, have
children and have a typical lifestyle.
* Feminist Criticism Written by Ardika Rizky Saputri

literary criticism.pdf

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to literary criticism.pdf

Recently uploaded

literary criticism.pdf