Refocalization as a Strategy of Apocryphal Rewriting

• Authors: Dynkowska Julia
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The paper discusses refocalization as a strategy of rewriting in the literary apocrypha (D. Szajnert). Refocalization, that is based on G. Genette and H. Jenkins’ conclusions, refers to the shift from the perspective and narrative that dominates canonical works into perspective and narrative predominant in the literary apocrypha of the canonical works. As the subject of research I chose the apocrypha of the Homeric epics (M. Atwood’s The Penelopiad and Ch. Wolf’s Cassandra) in which patriarchal, omniscient narrative is replaced by perspective and narrative of women marginalized in the epic.

Keywords

EN

apocryphon; transfocalization; refocalization; rewriting; feminism

• Publisher: Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Stowarzyszenie
• Journal: Zagadnienia Rodzajów Literackich
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 59/117 z.1
• Pages: 63-79

Dates

published

2016

Contributors

author

Dynkowska Julia

• Katedra Teorii Literatury Instytut Kultury Współczesnej Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego

References

• Atwood Margaret (2005), The Penelopiad: The Myth of Penelope and Odysseus, Canongate, Edinburgh.
• Auerbach Erich (1953), Odysseus’ scar [in:] Mimesis. The representation of reality in Western Literature, trans. W. R. Trask, Princeton UP, Princeton.
• Bachtin Michaił (1970), Epos a powieść (o metodologii badania powieści), trans. J. Baluch, “Pamiętnik Literacki”, nr 3.
• Bal Mieke (2009), Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, trans. Ch. Van Boheemen, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
• Braund Susanna (2012), “We’re here too, the ones without names”. A study of female voices as imagined by Margaret Atwood, Carol Ann Duffy, and Marguerite Yourcenar, “Classical Receptions Journal” vol. 4, no. 2 [online:] http://crj.oxfordjournals.org/content/4/2/190.abstract [access: 26. 02. 2016].
• Buchbinder David (1988), Weaving her Version: The Homeric Model and Gender Politics in Selected Poems [in:] Margaret Atwood: Visions and Forms, eds. K. VanSpanckeren, J. G. Castro, Southern Illinois UP, Carbondale.
• Butler Judith (1997), Excitable speech. A Politics of the Performative, Routledge, New York.
• Clayton Barbara (2004), A Penelopean Poetics: Reweaving the Feminine in Homer’s Odyssey, Lexington Books, Lanham.
• Czarnecka Mirosława (2004), Re-lektura mitów albo kobiece figury pamięci [in:] Wieszczki. Rekonstrukcja kobiecej genealogii w historii niemieckiej literatury kobiecej od połowy XIX wieku do końca XX wieku, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, Wrocław.
• Doherty Lilian E. (2011), Gender [in:] The Homer Encyclopedia [online:] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444350302.wbhe0443/full [access: 25. 07. 2015].
• Domańska Ewa (1999), Mikrohistorie: spotkania w międzyświatach, Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, Poznań.
• Genette Gérard (1972), Discours du récit [in:] Figures III, Éditions du Seuil, Paris.
• Genette Gérard (1997), Palimpsests. Literature in the Second Degree, trans. Ch. Newman, C. Doubinsky, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
• Hogeland Lisa Maria (1994), “Men Can’t Be That Bad”: Realism and Feminist Fiction in the 1970s, “American Literary History” vol. 6, no. 2 [online:] http://www.jstor.org/stable/489871 [access: 25. 02. 2016].
• Iwasiów Inga (1998), Płeć jako niewyrażalne, niewypowiadalne, niedefiniowalne [in:] Literatura wobec niewyrażalnego, eds. W. Bolecki, E. Kuźma, Wydawnictwo IBL PAN, Warszawa.
• Iwasiów Inga (2008), Kobieca saga i potrzeba genealogii [in:] Gender dla średnio zaawansowanych, W.A.B., Warszawa.
• Jenkins Henry (2013), Ten Ways to Rewrite a Television Show [in:] Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture, Routledge, New York.
• Jung Susanne (2014), “A Chorus Line”: Margaret Atwood’s Penelopiad at the Crossroads of Narrative, Poetic and Dramatic Genres, “Connotations” vol. 24, no 1 [online:] http://www.connotations.uni-tuebingen.de/jung0241.htm [access: 25. 02. 2016].
• Kapuscinski Kiley (2007), Ways of Sentencing: Female Violence and Narrative Justice in Margaret Atwood’s “The Penelopiad”, “Essex Human Rights Review” vol. 4, no. 2 [online:] http://projects.essex.ac.uk/ehrr/V4N2/kapuscinski.pdf [access: 28. 02. 2016].
• Krzywy Roman (2012), Epos [in:] Słownik rodzajów i gatunków literackich, ed. G. Gazda, PWN, Warszawa.
• Łebkowska Anna (2004), Pojęcie focus w narratologii — problemy i inspiracje [in:] Punkt widzenia w tekście i w dyskursie, eds. J. Bartmiński, S. Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska, R. Nycz, Wydawnictwo UMCS, Lublin.
• Looser Devoney (2000), Reading Jane Austen and Rewriting [in:] British Women Writers and the Writing of History, 1670−1820, John Hopkins UP, Baltimore.
• Mills Jane (1992), Womanwords: A Dictionary of Words about Women, Free Press: Maxwell Macmillan International, New York.
• Omari Kifah (Moh’d Khair) Ali Al, Jum’ah Hala Abdel Razzaq A. (2014), Language Stratification: A Critical Reading of Margaret Atwood’s The Penelopiad According to Mikhail Bachtin’s Concept of “Heteroglossia”, “Theory and Practice in Language Studies”, vol. 4, no. 12 [online:] http://ojs.academypublisher.com/index.php/tpls/article/view/tpls041225552563/10481 [access: 25. 02. 2016].
• Ortner Sherry Beth (1974) Is female to male as nature is to culture? [in:] Woman, culture, and society, eds. M. Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere, Stanford UP, Stanford.
• Rembowska-Płuciennik Magdalena (2007), W cudzej skórze. Fokalizacja zmysłowa a literackie reprezentacje doświadczeń sensualnych [in:] Literackie reprezentacje doświadczenia, eds. W. Bolecki, E. Nawrocka, Wydawnictwo IBL PAN, Warszawa.
• Rich Adrianne (1972), When We Dead Awaken: Writing as Re-Vision, “College English” vol. 34, no. 1 [online:] http://www.jstor.org/stable/375215 [access: 10. 02. 2015].
• Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory (2005), eds. D. Herman, M. Ahn, M.-L. Ryan, Routledge, New York.
• Shklovsky Victor (1990), Art as Device [in:] Theory of Prose, trans. B. Sher, Dalkey Archive Press, Elmwood Park, IL.
• Skwarczyńska Stefania (1947), Epos a powieść [in:] Z teorii literatury. Cztery rozprawy, Wydawnictwo Poligrafika, Łódź.
• Stanford William Bedell (1992), The Ulysses Theme: A Study in the Adaptability of a Traditional Hero, Spring Publications, Dallas.
• Storey John (2006), The Cultural Field [in:] Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, Pearson Education Limited, Essex.
• Szajnert Danuta (2000), Mutacje apokryfu [in:] Genologia dzisiaj, eds. W. Bolecki, I. Opacki, Wydawnictwo IBL, Warszawa.
• Szajnert Danuta (2014), The Subversive Potential of an Apocryphon, trans. M. Świerkocki [in:] Critical Theory and Critical Genres. Contemporary Perspectives from Poland, eds. Ch. Russel, A. Melberg, J. Płuciennik, M. Wróblewski, Peter Lang Edition, Frankfurt am Main.
• Szybowicz Eliza (2008), Apokryfy w polskiej prozie współczesnej, Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, Poznań.
• Wilson Jean (1999), Identity Politics in Atwood, Kogawa and Wolf, “CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture” 1.3 [online:] http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.1331 [access: 25. 02. 2016].
• Wolf Christa (1988a), A Work Diary, abort the Stuff Life and Dreams Are Made Of [in:] Cassandra. A Novel and four essays, trans. J. van Heurck, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.
• Wolf Christa (1988b), Cassandra [in:] Cassandra. A Novel and four essays, trans. J. van Heurck, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.
• Wolf Christa (1988c), Travel Report, about the Accidental Surfacing and Gradual Fabrication of a Literary Personage [in:] Cassandra. A Novel and four essays, trans. J. van Heurck, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.

Identifiers

ISSN

0084-4446