Literature, Structure, Representation

On my previous writing, the first one, one of the sources of my writing is from Horace and his Art of Poetry which on some of its sections states or imply that usability of a poetry, or maybe even literature in common, is very important and Horace seemingly gives his attention mainly for the readers or the consumers of literature in that matter.

On the second writing, I examined how women have been being represented so bad, to me, that what people see are not the real women, but rather a construction made by male writers through their works of literature. Using Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar’s The Madwoman in the Attic I found that problem faced by women.  

Now, in this new piece of writing, I will try to further examine both topic on my previous writings by adding the theme “Structure.”

The aim of the poet is to inform or delight, ²¹ or to combine together, in what he says, both pleasure and applicability to life. (Horace in Cultural Theory since Plato 2004, 83)

I used the same above quotation on my previous writing to explain that what Horace wanted people to understand is that a work of literature, or in this idea of his is poem, must be informative and delightful.

The structure is a simulacrum; it imitates a natural object in order to transform it. The purpose of this transformation is intelligibility, but in an interested, humanly useful manner. (Rowe  1995 , 35)

When Horace’s idea compared to Rowe’s interpretation on Barthes’ definition of structure, to me it makes sense, especially the “humanly useful manner” part. But, I realize this is not enough and decided to add more line from Rowe’s Structure.

Thus a “structure” is built upon a “foundation”, which is an essential part of the structure and compatible with all other elements, even in the case of a “foundation” that is perfectly natural… (Rowe  1995 ,24)

Horace’s “structure” of a literature must also be built upon a foundation, but what this foundation of his ideas be? Judging by his statement that literature must be delightful and informative, his foundation possibly is the consumer of literature, the readers or the people.

Fiction invented in order to please should remain close to reality. (Horace in Cultural Theory since Plato 2004, 83)

Back again to the previous examination, Horace’s statement also fit with Rowe’s, quoting Barthes, “it imitates natural object in order to transform it”, especially Horace’s statement I quoted above that seemingly insist that literature must be as close as possible to reality. All of this fitting comparison between Horace’s and Rowe’s, “humanly useful manner” with delightful and informative literature; and imitating a natural object with staying closely to reality, must be completed with the purpose Rowe’s suggest, after quoting Barthes, “intelligibility” which I will continue to examine it later on.

Move on to the next topic, and that is Representation, that I have already written about, in relation with structure.

At this point in our construction of a feminist poetics, then, we really must dissect in order to murder. And we must particularly do this in order to understand literature by women because, as we shall show, the images of “angel” and “monster” have been so ubiquitous throughout literature by men that they have also been pervade women’s writing to such an extent that few women have definitely “killed” either figure. (Gilbert and Gubar 1980, 812)

 “Structure” as a term increasingly referred to an activity of model building, which “dissected” what it imitates and reconstituted it in human terms. (Rowe 1995 , 35)

What interests me and also the similarity between the two quotations from two different writers and from two different ideas is the word “dissect.” In Gilbert and Gubar’s, women need to dissect literature so that they can escape the stereotype of being angelic and monstrous and become themselves.  The literature they must dissect is also not a random one, but literature works made by male writers who picture women as angelic or as monstrous. And, when I compare it to Rowe’s, interesting thing happened; both passages make sense. As Rowe’s quotation stated, this “dissecting” activity is needed to be done for women in Gilbert and Gubar’s context so that they can re-build their falsely-made image with the new, more correct ones.

I’d like to go back to the examination of the purpose of the transformation in Rowe’s “structure” that is “Intelligibility.” If I’m not mistakenly putting it, “Intelligibility” is more or less the same as “understanding”. Putting it that way, the transformation that happens in a structure (or structuring process?) has the purpose of giving or altering the understanding, the “intelligibility.” The example of this giving/altering the intelligibility can be seen in Gilbert and Gubar’s frequent use of example of male writers’ creation of angelic description and monstrous female creatures in their writing, The Madwoman in the Attic. While the intelligibility in Horace’s could be proved by referring to his statement that a poem, a work of literature, must be delightful and informative. “Fiction invented in order to please should remain close to reality,” “remain close to reality” doesn’t mean it must be exactly the same as in reality. For if it must be the same, there can be a possibility that the reality taken as an object of fiction doesn’t have the quality of delighting and informing, thus it must be altered, it must be transformed.

Works cited:

Horace. Art of Poetry. 2004. in Adams, Hazard and Searle, Leroy. Critical Theory since Plato (3rd edition). United States: Wadsworth Publishing.

Gilbert, Sandra and Gubar, Susan. 1979. “The Madwoman in the Attic” in Literary Theory: An Anthology ed. Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Michael (2004, 2nd edition; pg. 812-825). United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.

Rowe, John Carlos. 1995. “Structure” in Critical Terms for Literary Study ed. Lentricchia Frank and McLaughlin Thomas (1995, 2^nd edition; pg 23-37). United States: The University of Chicago Press.