compensatory tasks

Practical Course in English, Theory and Practice of the Language and of the Text, II Minors, 20112, II Term

1

Compensatory Tasks for Seminar 6

I. 1. In M. Drabble’s „The Industrial Scene’, task 1 Literary Exercises (p 74), match the following

topic sentences to the corresponding paragraph, giving reasons:

(a) Lawrence‟s region was an inseparable blend of the rural and industrial, and this is a central image in his

work.

(b) Bennett is akin to modern environmentalists and to poets with an ambivalent attitude to suburban and

provincial life.

(c) Lawrence is from a similar background but is more aggressive and critical of the effects of industrial

progress (than Bennett).

(d) Industry‟s other face, the spoiled area of the potteries in which Bennett saw beauty after leaving.

(e) Lawrence, like is characters, has a love-hate relationship with the surrounding landscape.

(f) When successful, Bennett disliked living in such ugliness though he appreciated attempts to improve the

scars made by industry.

(g) Lawrence also found beauty in the industrial landscape an his feelings for his home region are more

heartfelt than Bennett‟s.

2. Your (critical) response to the following (beginning of) sample „essay‟ on the topic of contrasting the two

writers‟(contradictory) attitude/s to their „industrialized areas‟.

„Born in neighboring boroughs – Staffordshire and Nottinghamshire, respectively – while living during

the full sway of the Victorian industrialization, both Bennett and Lawrence witnessed the process with its

„distorting‟ impact on the landscape, registering its two sides, which get reflected in their literary works in

distinctive ways.

What they share is a perception of the equal beauty and ugliness, arousing either mixed feelings or

emotional oscillations in them;

„England can shown nothing more beautiful and nothing uglier than the works of nature and the works

of man to be seen within the limits of the country’(Bennett); „That’s the country of my heart’ (Lawrence, 1926,

letter).

Yet there are differences in their registering and representing such attitudes.

Bennett for one accepts minimal improvements even if they are not aesthetically pleasant, as better than none,

for several reasons - long familiarity, new aesthetic sense of beauty, practical/pragmatic reasons - ; yet he

experiences mixed feelings of shame and pride.

In his literary representations such as The Old Wives‟ Tales, Clayhanger, Helen with High Hand, or his Journal,

he opts for exhaustively evocative accounts, narrowing the panoramic view, retrieving traces of a „brighter,

cleaner‟ past (pot work, building canals) to be admired, yet simultaneously registering the 2-sided aspects –

lofty dignity and waste ground-ness -; the latter, a negative one, is getting retrospectively perceived as

„interesting an appealing‟, as his character Edward Clayhanger is (relevant quote here). A further contradictory

response is manifest in the way Bennett refuses in his later years to live in this „unredeemed ugliness‟ although

he remains conscious of the need for improvements and sympathetic about for instance „green belts‟ even if

unlovely; (relevant quote here). He registers and records both the „romance of manufacture and machinery‟ and

its price on the level of life-style of workers. Significantly, on a return to his place/s, he experiences mingled

horror and affection, yet remains akin to the modern environmentalists and poets with ambivalent attitude to

provincial suburban life; that is, he was willing to accept lack of beauty even if it meant low artistic standards.


2

Born relatively later and from relatively similar background, Lawrence is less scientific and more

impassioned, with a different option about the „ontological‟ status of the novel, as „criticism of misery‟; like

Bennett, he experiences a similar disgust or recoil, yet he deems that minor improvements are only window-

dressing done by employers without sufficient care so as to ease their conscience. Nevertheless from a temporal

distance (an absence of some years), Lawrence‟s appreciation of the place grows, although in his literary

representations such as - Sons and Lovers, Lady Chatterly‟s Lover, Women in Love or Correspondence – the

dominant tonality of „painful love‟ registers modulations ranking from his early responsiveness (to hillsides,

workers, the pleasures for instance of Paul Morel) to its dissolution – as for instance with a character in Lady

Chatterly‟s Lover -, including depiction of the disfiguring elements (mines, housing), all becoming part of a

strange interweaving, as reflected in his figurative discourse and character delineation (relevant quotes here).

II. E. Hemingway’s short story;

1. Have a look over section 4 from the annexed/attached Primer on Hemingway, as well as over his Nobel

Prize acceptance Speech;

2. After having (a) summed up R. Scholes‟(semiotic & narratologic) or S. Mills‟(feminist discourse

stylistics) critical demonstration on „A Very Short Story’(already available on handouts through the

Section Librarians), try to (b) compare/contrast their critical strategies, or (c) single out some

differences between their arguments, or (d) identify (any) vulnerability in their interpretation or

theoretical assumptions; and/or (e) refer to illustrations of cohesion and coherence types/markers (after

having checked on the notion in the entries from Key Terms in Stylistics (Course-pack);

III. Nadine Gordimer’s - ‘Town and Country Lovers’

1. Postcolonial Criticism: Concerns

To reject the claims to universalism made on behalf of canonical Western literature and to seek to show its

limitations of outlook, especially its general inability to empathize across boundaries of cultural and ethnic

difference;

To examine the representation of other cultures in literature as a way of achieving this end;

to show how such literature is often evasively and crucially silent on matters concerned with colonization

and imperialism;

to foreground questions of cultural difference and diversity, and examine their treatment in relevant

literary works;

to celebrate hybridity and „cultural polyvalency’, that is, the situation whereby individuals and groups

belong simultaneously to more than one culture (for instance that of the colonizer, through a colonial school

system, and that of the colonized, though local and oral traditions);

to develop a perspective, not just applicable to postcolonial literatures, whereby states of marginality,

plurality and perceived ‘Otherness’ are seen as sources of energy and potential change;

2. Selective Survey of Postcolonial Literatures: Postcolonialism and Feminism

Women from numerous societies have been demoted to the position of „Other‟, marginalized, and,

metaphorically speaking, „colonized.‟ The political medium of oppression and repression associates them to the

colonized races and peoples; like them, they have been forced to articulate their experiences using the language

of the oppressor, and the only „tools‟ they have for constructing a language of their own are those of the latter‟s.

Language, „voice‟, concepts of speech and silence, and concepts of mimicry make Feminism and

Postcolonialism intersect. Feminist critics decline the universalism of aesthetic value which does not reside in

the text, but is historically and culturally determined; moreover, they seek to subvert the patriarchal bases of

literary theory and criticism by disclosing their relativity. The evolution of feminism criticism from the

essentialist positions of the early 1970s (often rooted in biologic stances) towards more complex subversive

positions has increased awareness towards the fact that the principle of „difference‟ which is the very foundation

of their construction as „Other,‟ is the basis of any feminist theory.


3

According to Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin, feminist theory parallels the postcolonial history and concerns

in that „both seek to reinstate the marginalized in the face of the dominant.‟ (Op cit, 175). There is also a

similitude in their evolution, in the sense that early feminist theory, like early nationalist postcolonialism,

sought to reverse the structures of domination (e.g., by substituting a female tradition or traditions in place of a

male-dominated canon), whereas now it has turned away „towards a questioning of forms and modes, to

unmasking the assumptions upon which such canonical constructions are founded, moving first to make their

cryptic bases visible and then to destabilize them.‟ (Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin 176).Another instance of their

similarity rests on their re-reading of the classical texts, in their attempt to demonstrate that a canon is not

axiomatic and that it can be rebuilt not by simply replacing it in an „exchange of texts‟ but by changing the

conditions in which the reading occurs. Furthermore, the subversion of the patriarchal literary forms themselves

is a part of the feminist project, which, as in the postcolonial texts, may not be a conscious aim of the authors

because it may be generated, unavoidably, by the ideological clash within the text itself. Moreover, to a larger

extent there has also been „a radical questioning of the basic assumptions of dominant systems of language and

thought.‟ (Ibid. 176) In this respect, feminist theory has drawn on deconstruction in order to challenge polarized

concepts (or binary oppositions) in the dominant language, such as Black and White, which install a false

hierarchy within the women‟s collective. This practice, however, has been far from uncontroversial, although

feminist theorists like Julia Kristeva claim its viability as a means of producing a break with tradition and

developing new forms of discourse, a practice which is in total agreement with the women‟s cause. In this

respect G.C. Spivak urges caution though, because the practice as such cannot promote a feminist future or put

an end to sexism. Therefore, deconstruction and politics should go hand in hand, in order that an „audible‟

feminist voice should be constructed. The feminist projects are oriented towards the future, positing societies in

which social and political hegemonic shifts have occurred. Feminism has not in general provided postcolonial

criticism with a model or models because its development has been rather as a coincident and parallel discourse.

However, the intersections between the two are crucial, for instance in the work of writers such as Jean Rhys,

Alice Walker, Margaret Atwood and so on. At the same time, critics like G.C. Spivak are beginning to draw the

two discourses together.

3. Life under Apartheid; Nadine Gordimer

‘Six Feet of the Country’

In The Empire Writes Back, Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin discuss the problem of the apartheid literature

of South Africa; in their opinion, the racist politics of the South African apartheid created a „political vortex into

which much of the literature of the area, both Black and white, were drawn‟. As a result, the common themes

„of the literatures of settler colonies – exile, the problem of finding and defining „home‟, physical and emotional

confrontations with the new land and its ancient and established meanings – are still present in literature by

white South Africans, but are muted by an immediate involvement in race politics.‟ The same goes, they assert,

for the Black South African writing: while retaining the themes which are pervasive in the Kenyan or Nigerian

literature – dispossession, cultural fragmentation, colonial and neo-colonial domination, postcolonial corruption

and the crisis of identity – these are nevertheless overshadowed by the prominence of more specific problems of

race and personal and communal freedom under an intransigent and repressive white regime.‟

Nadine Gordimer‟s short story is a touching and interesting expression of the relationship between whites

and blacks in the tense social environment created by apartheid politics. Told from a white narrator‟s

perspective, the story outlines the cruel reality of a 20th

century country in which the relations among humans

still forefront the skin-colour criterion. Two subsequent races are thus created: „the masters and the

slaves‟(Hélène Cixous). It would be superfluous to say „which is which‟. Attempting to escape from the

„tension‟ of the city, the narrator and his wife, Lerice (a former actress), buy a farm ten miles out of

Johannesburg, the narrator still keeping his job as partner in a travel agency in the city. Given the place and the

political situation, however, we are told what „tension‟ means in the South African context: „When

Johannesburg people speak of “tension”, they don‟t mean hurrying people in crowded streets, the struggle for


4

money, or the general competitive character of city life. They mean the guns under the white men‟s pillows and

the burglar bars on the white men‟s windows. They mean those strange moments on city pavements when a

black won‟t stand aside for a white man.‟ (Gordimer, op cit.) This is why life in the country is considered to be

better, even though the relationship between whites and blacks „is almost feudal‟, „more comfortable‟ though.

Nevertheless, it is hard to overlook the narrator‟s sympathetic tone towards his black farm boys who enjoy a

somewhat safe atmosphere under the couple‟s care. Where does the couple‟s attitude towards the „poor devils‟

arise from, one might enquire? Is it from a feeling of pity, superiority, or simply from perceiving their worker‟s

humanness? Perhaps it is all of them. It is Lerice, after all, who sees after the workers‟ and their children‟s

health. During one night, the couple is woken up by one of their boys – Albert – who lets them know that one of

the boys is very sick. Later on the narrator discovers with some degree of irritation that the (now dead) sufferer

was in fact Petrus‟s (one of his workers) brother, who had walked down all the way from Rhodesia to look for

work in Johannesburg. In this way, „he had caught a chill from sleeping out along the way and had lain ill in his

brother Petrus‟s hut since his arrival three days before.‟ (Gordimer, op cit). As an illegal immigrant, Petrus‟s

brother was following all the other Rhodesian illegal immigrants‟ dream of reaching the „paradise‟ of „zoot

suits, police raids, and black slum townships‟ that Johannesburg was. It is at this point that the narrator realises

the responsibility he has for his workers. Consequently, he is the one who takes care of the „bureaucratic‟ aspect

of the body disposal. The autopsy confirms the narrator‟s supposition that the young man‟s death was caused by

pneumonia. But phoning to the Health Department a few days later, he finds out that the authorities have also

buried the body without inquiring whether the deceased had any relative to take care of this or not. At the point

one question might arise: would the authorities have proceeded in the same manner if the young man were

white? And, after all, doesn‟t this attitude display lack of respect towards the natives‟ culture and tradition?

However, given the political and social context, this is viewed as disconcertingly „normal‟ and it is the narrator

who has to accept his own „stupidity‟ for showing concern towards his black workers in the face of those

possessed by the master-race theory. And since Petrus is determined to find his brother and bury him properly,

the narrator will become the intermediate link between his worker and the authorities. This situation discloses

another troubling facet of apartheid: the racist politics sends its tentacles towards the act of communication as

well; in other words, the natives are (literally and metaphorically) silenced by the colonial authority either

through the imposition of English in their world, or simply by not allowing the natives the freedom of speech.

Nevertheless, even though the native speaks the colonizer‟s language, the fact that his skin is not the right

„colour‟ puts him in an inferior position. So the narrator will function as an agent of the system of power that

silenced that individual in the first place. The price Petrus has to pay for retrieving his brother‟s body is twenty

pounds – his four months‟ wages. However, he decides to pay them without any hesitation, even though this

money is „more than he spent to clothe his whole family in a year.‟ (Gordimer, op cit). It is a gesture whose

utility the narrator fails to grasp. As member of a culture in which life is regarded as „something to be spent

extravagantly‟ while death „as the final bankruptcy‟ he cannot realize perhaps that the natives‟ culture is deeply

rooted in respect for their dead which they express through the rituals accompanying the burial ceremony; thus

the soul will find its peace.

The powerful social contrast determined by racial criteria is revealed in the scene in which Petrus handles

the money to the narrator: „Please baas, he said, awkwardly handling me a bundle of notes. They‟re so seldom

on the giving rather than on the receiving side, poor devils, they don‟t really know how to hand the money to a

white man. There it was, the twenty pounds, in ones and in halves, some creased and folded until they were soft

as dirty rags, others smooth and fairly new – Franz‟s money, I suppose, and Albert‟s, and Dara the cook‟s and

Jacob the gardener‟s, and God knows who else‟s besides, from all the farms and small holdings round about.‟

(Gordimer, op cit). Petrus‟s father receives a special permit to come from Rhodesia to South Africa, and so he

attends the funeral as well. In the day in which the burial is supposed to take place, it is by pure chance that the

narrator witnesses and later on is involved in what is supposed to be the accomplishment of his and Petrus‟s

efforts. When the procession passes by him, a dramatic incident occurs: the coffin placed in a cart pulled by two

donkeys (Biblical symbol of meekness) „peculiarly suited (…) to the group of men and women who came along


5

slowly behind‟ (Gordimer, op cit), is raised by four men on their shoulders (one of them being Petrus‟s father)

to be put it into the grave. Overwhelmed by the coffin‟s weight, Petrus‟s father pulls himself out from under it

while muttering something which apparently makes the attendants of the procession feel embarrassed and

confused; they cannot ignore his voice and they listen to it as if „the mumblings of a prophet, though not clear at

first, arrest the mind.‟ (Gordimer, oit, p 102). He goes directly to the narrator uttering words the latter cannot

understand, yet he perceives from the tone of the old man‟s voice that what he says is „shocking and

extraordinary.‟ Through Petrus‟s intermediation he learns that the coffin is too heavy for such a thin boy that the

old man‟s son was. Eventually, they decide to remove its lid and what they discover inside is outrageous: the

body they struggled for weeks to recover belongs to a complete stranger: „a heavy built, rather light-skinned

native with a neatly stitched scar on his forehead – perhaps from a blow in a brawl that had also dealt him some

other, slower-working injury that had killed him.‟ (Gordimer, op cit,103).

Questioned over the matter, the authorities seem to be „shocked, in a laconic fashion, by their own

mistake, but in the confusion of their anonymous dead they were helpless to put it right.‟ (Gordimer, op cit.

103). Petrus will retrieve neither his brother‟s body nor his money, because nobody really knew where he was

buried. And with every day that passes, it is even more certain that a young man, who walked the seven or eight

hundred miles from poverty to the „paradise‟ of South Africa, is bound to remain six feet of the country for

ever, anonymous. It is the narrator, after all, who concludes with bitter irony that „he had no identity in this

world anyway.‟ The same ironic function is evinced in the last paragraph of the short story - „The old man from

Rhodesia was about Lerice‟s father size, so she gave him one of her father‟s suits, and he went back home

rather better off for the winter, than he had come‟ – only to emphasize the futility of the natives‟ struggle to

retain their identity and dignity in a society whose pyramidal „apex‟ does its best to keep them away from the

human status.

4. Assignment; choose 1 from the following: (a) find evidence about postcolonial tenets and (postcolonial)

feminist discourse in „Town and Country Lovers’; (b) trace out similarities between the 2 parts of the same short

story; (c) single out some key quotes in both parts and do stylistic analysis; (d) by what strategies are the

endings foreshadowed (theoretical survey on handout attached) ? (e) distinguish between narrator-type/s,

focalizer-type/s (Key Terms in Stylistics, or chart attached) with effects in the same text;

IV. 2 -3 oral presentations in plenary (a remedial one on M Drabble‟s, & 2 on N Gordimer‟s text), with

an outline/plan, preliminarily submitted to the Instructor’s attention (in person, on this Friday, 7

p m).

compensatory tasks

Documents