Sunday, November 21, 2010

I am still planning on writing my essay about the nature of disability, but I have narrowed the focus so I am solely discussing Hope Leslie and Rappaccini's Daughter, and further, Magawisca and Beatrice. The primary theme I will be examining is "otherness;" how the notions of family, tribe and nation affect how these characters' notions of self and how they project these onto their personal relationships. Both characters have strong, omniprescent relationships with their fathers, and I will examine and compare how and if these are directly related to their supposed "disabilities," and how their relationships with their fathers are very causally and symbolically related to their physical shortcomings. Certainly in Rappacini's Daughter, Beatrice's father has not only created her disability, but is her disability. I found the essay "Allegory and Incest in Rappacini's Daughter" by Oliver Evans very illuminating. I will also examine both characters' notions of "womanhood," and how they are affected or stunted by their disabilities. I have found Judith Fetterly's "My Sister! My Sister! The Rhetoric of ... Hope Leslie" helpful, in that she analyzes very effectively Sedgewick's careful construction of the text, and how womanhood is portrayed therein. I will (perhaps finally) discuss the notion of "freedom" and how, though each respective character is held back by some other factor other than their disability (the garden, her race, etc), their self becomes the true barrier between them and the outside world.

1 comment:

  1. Ok, I'm going to unpack what I see here, so that hopefully that will illuminate what you've got going on. Disabilities -- ok. But then you shift to talking about otherness...which is also ok, because disabilities can definitely engender the sense of otherness [using the firmly-grounded-in-literary-criticism definitions] and you could follow that outward to an argument of some sort.
    But the detour (as I see it) into the father thing -- I don't know how valuable or useful that will actually be. You only have two fathers to discuss there; if you took out the fathers, would you still have an argument to make about disability and otherness? You would -- and trying to make a a causal isn't really necessary to what I think is the stronger (and more easily made in this short amount of space) argument.

    So if you take out the fathers and go with disabilities, otherness, then what you say at the end about freedom...aren't you contradicting yourself? I mean, if you're making an argument about disabilities and otherness but then point out that hey there are all these other things holding them back, what's the ultimate point?

    My ultimate point here is that you have at least two, if not four, interesting paths, but that's what they are -- a bunch of interesting paths. You definitely shouldn't try to make them all fit together, especially in such a short paper, but instead pick one to follow through to the end.

    I’ll leave you to your thoughts; if you want to bounce more ideas around, e-mail or come to office hours.

    ReplyDelete