LITR 4326 Early American Literature         Model Assignments

Final Exam Essays 2016 assignment Sample answers for 2e. Teaching multiple texts through intertextuality and historicism . . .

Michelle Liaw

Intertextuality: It’s all Relative

As far as I can remember in my undergraduate experience, I have always been exposed to the familiarity of single text study. Literature classes have always gone through novels or stories one at a time, stimulating the idea of books as singular chunks of stone that were plastered together to form a yellow brick road pavement. Even in honors literature classes, where the oral examinations were the height of student stress, materials covered were always thrust under an intense microscope of analyzing and poring over miniscule details. But I have never before encountered the idea that each text interlaces with one another to create the mixture that is literature. Another thought that I had always had in the back of my mind but never really touched on was the idea that history and literature shape each other. The concepts of Historicism and New Historicism where history is not just quantitative data, but a complex account of human reality and a chronicle of how human ideas change over time.

Immediately, the first example that comes to mind is John Smith’s A General History of Virginia. As I touched on Smith’s flowery first-hand accounts on my first research post, I come back to it now to discover the intricate links between history and literature. Smith’s accounts area prime example of empiricism in which his experiences are the only source of knowledge in which readers must make conclusions. His written word becomes morphed throughout popular culture hundreds of years later as the Disney-fied version hopelessly romanticizes his primary accounts. While the accumulation of Smith’s work symbolizes a romantic nation-building ideology, it reveals not only the factual aspects of Virginian culture, but also how the prevailing thought of that culture has expanded to become a part of popular culture today. What can be acknowledged from this text is that literature works as a map of the interactions between traditional discourses of the dominant culture at the time and of the culture in which the work has been interpreted. In this endless circle between history and literature, each discipline shapes one another to not only bring to light colonist ideals, but to illuminate our present history and how we have reacted to Smith’s tales.

Similarly, pairing Smith’s accounts with Cabeza de Vaca’s La Relacion provides a closer look at the complexity of reading multiple texts at the same time. While Smith’s primary records seem to embody colonial ideals, for better or worse, Cabeza de Vaca’s accounts of respect for the natives delivers a factual account. What is interesting to note is that while the Relacion is not regarded in sociocultural context with as explosive popularity as John Smith, it reflects a unique portrayal that condemns Spanish expansion as greed. The question comes to mind is that why is Smith so hallowed throughout history, yet Cabeza de Vaca is left in the dust? The value of reading these texts side by side shows just how extensive the popular belief was at the time that European domination was justified and praised, no matter the context. It illuminates the human tendency to sort of ignore injustices to the natives throughout both history and literature. The stark differences between both explorers also works to establish the black and white part of American history that is essentially part of the fabric of our nation. Literature works to reflect historical and societal values of the time period in a way that continues to become intricately complex and entangled to society today.

The idea of intertextuality continues as differing literary works of separate genres are often paired together to highlight the universal language of literature. Taking into consideration the immense differences between the rhetoric of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and the somnambulist narrative of Edgar Huntly, they are both works that have sparked innovative ideas of the time. While Paine’s loud cry for the separation of England and America reads like a pamphlet with supported evidence is a far comparison to Brown’s gothic aesthetic that transports the reader to a rugged landscape, the similar notion between the two works is that they inflamed the minds of early Americans who were constantly debating the ideas of freedom and independence. As Huntly trifles with the physical images of conscious and unconscious as a mirror to the consciousness of the American frontier and early American History, Paine argues that religion and common sense are foundational to all beings. While the historical background of each is set in slightly different times, they both have the same underlying theme of calling on the passive to become active. Both also work as a cohesive entity in marking the Enlightenment and the movement towards light and knowledge. Instead of interpreting each text as a separate entity in literature, to evaluate them together provides an illumination of how literature has a mutualistic relationship with history.

Just as Brown’s sleepwalking characters can act upon their desires without having to take responsibility on them, Paine argues that the British government has been protecting America under false pretenses of economic safety. Both ideas of civil rights, whether in the form of narrative or revolutionary argument, prove that the burgeoning new ideas of independence at the time created new platforms in literature for expression. In interpreting Paine by itself, it marks a significant moment in time where sentiments were inflamed towards the British monarchy. However, by incorporating it into the sphere of literature, it becomes connected to texts such as Edgar Huntly through its representation of the evolution of human beliefs through time. Paine paints the notion of individual liberties and freedoms that is consistent with modern beliefs, proving just how the combination of literature and history becomes embedded in the founding of our nation. In addition, both texts show how religious allusions have traveled through time and text. Biblical references in Paine are used to accentuate the anti-monarchist beliefs in the Bible, while the religious polarization of the light and dark in Huntly alludes to Heaven and Hell. The significance of the biblical allusions suggests that the audience during the 1700s would be able to relate and become persuaded or personally connected to these references. Paine used the Bible as further evidence to support his arguments, while Brown used the parallels to allow the reader to connect with Huntly’s spiritual journey for the right choice. While both works are vastly different, they both exemplify historicism as a culmination of ideas within the spectrum of literature. By reading both works together, it aids in creating a labyrinth of meaning where both work together to produce both literary and historical meaning.

The greatest challenge of reading so many texts simultaneously in order to make history relevant now is also the most powerful facet of historicism. For students, the ability to see texts as interchangeable between history and literature allows them to view the progression of ideas from varying times through a looking glass. Throughout this semester, the notion of making past literature and history matter in current times has been emphasized through the readings of various periods. Historicism and intertextuality underscores the way literature reflects and is reflected by historical contexts, and the lessons that I have gained from this course will be invaluable as I hope to engage my future students with the same passion for seeking knowledge of great literary works. Moving forward, making the connection that the literary world and history comes full circle is something that I believe will allow students to peel back the multi-layered complexity of early American literature.