|
LITR 4326 Early American Literature Model Assignments |
Final Exam Essays 2017 Sample answers for 2e. Teaching multiple texts through intertextuality and historicism . . . |
 |
John Silverio
To What
Extent Does Background Information Matter in Literature?
The professors of my literature courses as UHCL all had similar standards
in terms of academic rigor. For the most part, classes were similarly
structured. First, we would read a text significant because of its literary
merit. Then we would discuss and question the literary merit of the text as a
class. At some point there would be an exam that would pull from the conclusions
of three to five of these discussion. To this day, there remains one item of
great variance among all my professors. They all valued historicism and
intertextuality to a different degree. This course emphasized those qualities of
the text most compared to all my previous literature classes. The effect this
had on my understanding of the texts was, overall, positive. Past professors
particularly discouraged relying on historical context and author background;
their rationale was because it prevented the text from having agency of its own.
To an extent I agree: without considering who the writer was as a person or
probably motivations for writing, one can still analyze and derive meaning from
literature. Nevertheless, within early American literature, I found the use of
historicism and intertextuality to enhance my learning.
If all I ever knew of Charlottle
Temple’s author was her name, I would still be able to recognize the
archetypes within the story and analyze the protagonist’s change over time.
Access to who the author was and what was going on when she lived helps me
contextualize the story more than just an isolated text, but as reflection and
response to what was going on in the world at the time. The novel was published
in the 1790s, placing it at the genesis of early Romanticism. Immediately I
understand that the Romantic Movement includes the intense emotional musings of
Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata and art that often presented human tragedy and
pain. When I read of Charlotte and “the miseries that must rend the heart of
[her] doting parent[s]” (Chapter 6, Paragraph 11), I see that though Rowson was
a female novelist (an oddity for the time), she was aware of and contributed to
the intellectual movements of the time.
Intertextuality states that texts are not written in a vacuum, but
in response to, and as a development of one another. Understanding through the
lens of historicism can be aided by intertextuality. Imagine if I were to
compare Rowson, an American novelist, to Charlottle Brontë, an English novelist.
Intertextuality naturally lends itself to teaching texts in tandem, and
comparing and contrasting them. We did as a class during the semester, looking
at how the coming of age story at work within
Charlotte Temple resembled modern
novels due to how the story was romantic in nature: a grand quest with trials
that must be overcome in the name of self-improvement. In my own class one day,
I would love to compare Brontë’s Jane
Eyre and Rowson’s Charlotte Temple.
Both texts centralize around a young girl who rebels against societal norms.
Both texts demonstrate male attraction as a temptation related to the pain and
growth of a female heroine. These are Romantic Movement concepts; valuing
emotion and impulse. Though the two authors may never have spoken in person,
their texts speak to each other in how they reflect the progression of the
Romantic Movement. Brontë’s characters question the moral implications of
following religion without question and disregard parental authority. This is
expected as it was written 50 years after Rowson’s text, during the full swing
of the romantic music. Charlotte Temple
directly refers the reader to religious values, beseeching readers to “listen
not to the voice of love, unless sanctioned by paternal approbation.” It follows
then that Charlotte Temple’s writer
had not fully embraced the swing of the Romantic Movement, though she was aware
of it. Such analysis is only possible through intertextuality.
Though I believe most texts can benefit from some sort of intertextual
analysis, with some I encountered difficulty in making meaningful comparisons.
The Declaration of Independence was difficult to parallel to any other text just
because it was so unique. In 1776, the thirteen original colonies were united in
open rebellion against their mother country and published a list of grievances
and the resulting actions they decided upon. Though revolutions have occurred
before (documents such as the Magna Carta come to mind), the Declaration of
Independence was a unique document due strength of the language used, and the
relative weakness of the colonies who used it. King George and his military had
significant power (enough to successfully tax the distant Americas for many
years!), and the colonies were viewed as a disjointed collection of citizens.
Comparing the Declaration to other texts is only possible by looking at
descriptive qualities of the diction, which begins with the familiar “We hold
these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. The religious
reference and appeal to the equality of all mankind is a fantastic or “sublime”
idea, which can be found in other texts written around the same time period.
A tangential comparison can be done with the 1776 Declaration of
Independence and Charles Brockden Brown’s
Edgar Huntly. While not watertight as my first comparison between Brontë and
Rowson, some parallels still exist—which is interesting considering how the
Declaration and the novel Edgar Huntly
vary greatly in purpose. Both stories begin with inclusive diction. The
Declaration is quick to use the word “we” in the preamble with aim to unite many
readers towards a common cause. In a similar fashion, Edgar Huntly starts off
with the narrator calling the reader “my friend.” Brown and the writers of the
Declaration saw value in connecting with their audience. Further similarities
may be called “a stretch”. Throughout Edgar Huntly, the diction is suspenseful
and subtle. Indeed, the first chapter begins by describing how the writer will
“disengage [his] senses from the scene that was passing or approaching; to
forbear to grasp at futurity…” Such vague description has no place in a document
as vigilant as the Declaration. Historicism has its limits. There is still value
in the creative thought stimulated by attempting to compare two distant texts!
Historicism and intertextuality are not the “be all, end all” methods of
literary analysis. Nevertheless, when examining texts within a singular culture,
branching out and considering the influence of other writings and the writer’s
biographical information can yield some interesting insight. These two methods
have been added to my analytical tool kit, and I am thankful for to this course
for providing them to me. Just as it is my pleasure to have them, it is also a
responsibility to make sure they do not become a crutch.
|
|
|
|
