DECONSTRUCTION:
Deconstruction is a philosophy applied to literary
criticism, as well as to criticism of the other arts, which began to gain
popularity in the 1980s. The field of deconstruction arose partially in
reaction to the literary theories of structuralism. Structuralism posited that
when words could be understood within the context of a society of readers, then
one could point to the specific meaning of a text.
Deconstruction eschewed the concept of one possible meaning
for a text, and instead suggested that meanings of a text are multiple and
contradictory. Underlying a text is the subtext, a set of values that must be
evaluated to see if the text is really contrary in nature and hence somewhat without
meaning. Deconstruction also evaluates the way in which texts in the
traditional literary canon are taught to students, suggesting that traditional
“readings” of a text often ignore underlying value structures in direct
opposition to what is taught.
Deconstruction, in linguistics, philosophy, and literary
theory, the exposure and undermining of the metaphysical assumptions involved
in systematic attempts to ground knowledge, especially in academic disciplines
such as structuralism and semiotics. The term "deconstruction" was
coined by French philosopher Jacques Derrida in the 1960s. In general,
deconstruction is a philosophy of meaning, which deals with the ways that
meaning is constructed by writers, texts, and readers.
Extending the philosophical excursions of Nietzsche and
Heidegger, Derrida criticized the entire tradition of Western philosophy's
search to discover the essential structure of knowledge and reality, ultimately
confronting the limits of human thought. As an extension of his theory of
logocentrism, Derrida posited that all texts are based on hierarchical dualisms
(e.g., being/nonbeing, reality/appearance, male/female), where the first
element is regarded as stronger and thus essentially true and that all systems
of thought have an assumed center, or Archimedean point, upon which they are
based. In a deconstructionist reading, this unconscious and unarticulated point
is revealed, and in this revelation the binary structure upon which the text
rests is imploded. Thus what appears stable and logical is revealed to be
illogical and paradoxical, and interpretation is by its very nature
misinterpretation.
To a deconstructionist, meaning includes what is left out of
the text or ignored or silenced by it. Because deconstruction is an attack on
the very existence of theories and conceptual systems, its exposition by
Derrida and others purposely resists logical definitions and explanations,
opting instead for alinear presentations based on extensive wordplay and puns.
Deconstructionists tend to concentrate on close readings of particular texts,
focusing on how these texts refer to other texts. Certain scholars have
severely criticized this movement on this basic point.
Nevertheless, deconstruction, especially as articulated in
Derrida's writings and as promoted by Paul de Man and others, has had a
profound effect on many fields of knowledge in American universities,
particularly during the 1970s and 80s. In addition to philosophy and literary
theory, the techniques and ideas of deconstruction have been employed by
scholars in history, sociology, educational theory, linguistics, art, and architecture.
While the theory has lost much of its intellectual currency, the general
acceptance and popularity of interdisciplinary scholarship in the 1980s and 90s
are regarded by many as an outgrowth of deconstruction.
SYNOPSIS:
In the story "So Much Water So Close To Home" a young girl is raped, killed and found in a river where four men are fishing. What makes this story interesting is that after discovering the body they did not report it until after they left, three days later. When one of the men who discovered her, the husband of the narrator, Stuart returns home he doesn't tell his wife about the incident until the following morning. Because of this, Claire believes that all men are responsible for the murder of the girl. Due to these facts she acts irrationally, suspiciously, and with distrust not only towards her husband, but also to all men in general.
Claire's thought process though out the story shows her suspicion. This suspicion causes Claire to notice minuet details, which would usually be overlooked by the common person. At the dinner table she watches his every move, "he seems tired, edgy.... He looks at me and looks away again"(Carver, 278). These are usually the mannerisms of some one who has done something wrong, acting out of the norm and having shifty eyes is an unconscious way of showing guilt, but in this instance it could be Claire imagining these things. When someone needs to believe something so drastically, they can make things up to justify their thoughts. It is quite possible that Stuart was acting fine but Claire's suspicion took hold of her perspective causing her to see these characteristic ways of a guilty person. While on a drive with Stuart Claire thinks "so much water so close to home, why did he have to go miles away to fish?" (282) She believes the men went to the lake so far away so that no one would see them murder the girl. Even the husband notices his wife's suspicion, saying "don't look at me like that. Be careful now. I mean it. Take it easy, Claire"(280). Stuart says this because he can feel the distrust Claire has in him. Yet again, this is another instance that Claire is acting in suspicion.
Through out the story Claire acts very irrational, especially towards men. These irrational acts are caused by the fact that she believes that men are the reason for this girl's death and the murder of women in general, and she shows this by the way she reacts to what Stuart says and towards the men in the story. When unable to deal with what her husband tells her about what happened to the girl, she reacts by "[Raking her] arm across the drain board and sending the dishes and glasses smashing and scattering across the floor"(278). No person in the right state of mind would randomly smash glasses and break dishes for no reason. It is evident that the actions Claire takes are in relation to the fact she feels her husband is some how responsible for the murder of the girl. While at the gas station she is very rude to the man trying to help her, not letting him check her tiers to make sure her trip to the girls funeral is safe "I said no. No! They look fine to me. I have to go now"(287). This portrays how she doesn't trust any man she meets, even men who are clearly not involved with the girls murder or the death of any other girl. Even though the man is trying to do Claire a favor all she can do is act irrationally and refuse the help. This is the first time the reader sees not only her clear distrust towards her husband but in all men in general. On the way through the mountains a man in a green truck offers to follow her to make sure she drives safely. When he offers she refuses to roll down her window for him and says "please, I have to go" (288). This is another example of how Claire not only has suspicions about her husband but all men in general. Another man has offered to do something kind for Claire and she yet again refuses to accept it. It is clear that no matter what the circumstances are, due to the murder of the girl, Claire has lost all trust in the male race. Her irrational behavior continues in the story when she decides to sleep on the couch instead of with her husband "‘I need to be by myself tonight' [she says] ‘I need time to think'"(285). It is easy to see that Claire does not trust her husband enough to sleep with him in the same bed because he is a man.
Claire focuses on her husband's hands a lot during this story because she is convinced that these hands are capable of killing a woman, just as any other mans hands are. "(He) rubbed his hands up and down my back, the same hands he'd left with two days before, I thought" (280). His hands are an issue because she connects them to the hands of the man who killed the girl at the lake. "...Stuart comes up behind me and touches my arm. His fingers burn" (284). Usually evil is associated with a burning touch. She can't deal with the idea of being touched by him, especially in a sexual manner. When he goes to unbutton her blouse she explodes, "‘Stop, stop, stop,' [she says]. I stamp on his toes."(290). She reacts like this because since they are the hands of a man, they are just like the hands that killed the girl at the lake. These points directly correspond to the fact that Claire is constantly in suspicion of her husband, since even in the smallest instances, such as him touching her, all she can do is think about how he being a man makes him responsible for the girls death.
Claire's thinking also becomes very irrational when she connects the murder of the girl with one that happened near her hometown when she was in high school. While riding in the car with Stuart she says, with out any provocation "they said they were innocent"(282). She goes on to explain how men who killed her cut off her head and threw her in the river, but claimed they were innocent. She makes this connection because in both murders men were responsible. The connection she made is important because it shows that she believes no man is innocent. She believes that every man, in one way or another is responsible for the murder of women. Her thoughts translate into the idea that every man has "blood" on their hands.
Claire believes that all men are responsible for the murder of the girl, which causes her to act irrationally, suspiciously, and with distrust to all men regardless of how they have affected her in her past. Through out the story Claire constantly tries to find ways to prove her husbands guilt, like imagining suspicious behavior and over analyzing situations, like questioning the reason behind the trip to the lake, not taking into account that the men have gone to that same lake year after year. She also acts in anger towards all the men that she meets, despite the good intentions they have. Her husbands' hands play a key roll in the story, representing how she feels every man is capable of killing a woman with their hands. Finally, she makes the connection between the Maddox brothers' murder and the one at the lake, representing how even though men can say that they are innocent of the murder, they are still somehow guilty. These points not only show Claire's distrust and suspicion in men, but also the fact she feels all men are responsible for the murder of women.
SOURCE: http://www.123helpme.com/so-much-water-so-close-to-home-by-raymond-carver-view.asp?id=162298
ANALYSIS:
%089478,-4:9,701041$9:,7948,99025939413/4:90,.907:8-,3/,3/97002,01703/8/8.4;070/903909070/90/0,/-4/41,4:37949084704190,.08#;07,3/.4393:0/9071834/,14780;07,/,8-01470,079390,:947908%03,77,9;0817895078431742,708543941;0$070.,3982:.41 ,9$9:,79,8411070/-,4105,3,943-:998002894,709,9$9:,79889288390543941,90//477,907//39/4
The story is about Claire, wife of Stuart, who is attempting to find out why exactly her husband and his friends tethered the dead body of a young girl to the shore of Naches river and reported just it to the authorities after several days. Through the doubts of Claire we also asks why? What exactly happened? So Much Water So Close To Home foregrounds expectations of what it really means.
No comments:
Post a Comment