CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

We know for the fact that short stories and one-act plays were the fully developed

forms of Literature during the Colonial Period (American Occupation). The short story

was to be the showcase for the skill and art of Filipino writers using English. One of the

finest short story writers during this period was Manuel E. Arguilla (1910-1944) who also

covered a broad range of subject matters and themes drawn from the experiences of

Filipinos living in the 1930s. The sarsuwela was replaced by one-act plays in 1930s. One-

act plays which were written by the students were staged. Amador T. Daguio was a poet,

novelist and teacher during the pre-war. He was best known for his fictions and poems.

He had published two volumes of poetry, “Bataan Harvest” and”The Flaming Lyre”. He

served as chief editor for the Philippine House of Representatives before he died in 1966.

In this period, the English language was used as the medium of instruction in all

Philippine schools because of the imposition brought by the Americans. English opened

the floodgates of colonial values through phonograph records, textbooks, and magazines

originally intended for American children which influenced young Filipinos. There was

an establishment of public school system which marked the beginning of Philippine

writing in English. It is said that the University of the Philippines was founded in 1908 in

order to train young Filipinos for tasks in colonial bureaucracy. Indeed, there was a

spread of American culture happened during this period. The American style of writing

and its subject matters were incorporated, adapted, and imitated by the Filipino writers.

As a result, Philippine literature became international.

 This paper will discuss the works of the two author named Manuel Arguilla and

Amador T. Daguio. The researcher distinguished what are the similarities and differences

of the two Filipino writers in terms of creating short stories.

Thesis Statement:

There are many short stories made my Filipino writers as such the wedding dance, Rice

that give us a lesson like Honour and dignity is signatures of men and respect and accept

one's life.

Statement of the Problem

This study conducted to discuss the following question:

1. Why do Filipino authors illustrate or treat women as being oppressed always in their

works?

2. Why the stories of Filipino authors always tend about economic status of Filipinos?

Objectives of the Study

This study is an attempt to provide the following objectives:

1. To discover why the Filipino authors treat women as being oppressed in their works.

2. To know why Filipino authors always tend about economic status of Filipinos

3. To know why Filipino authors used the different approached in literary criticism and

lastly;

4. To know the differences between the two Filipino writers.

Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study is limited to the three selected short stories written by Filipino writers. This

study tends to answer the entire statement problem mentioned. It examined if the critical

theory as such formalistic, Marxism and reader response theory applied was true or not.

The focus of the story is all about the social economic of the Filipinos before and now.
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Biography of the Authors

Amador T. Daguio

Amador T. Daguio was a poet, novelist and teacher during the pre-war. He was best

known for his fictions and poems. He had published two volumes of poetry, “Bataan

Harvest” and”The Flaming Lyre”. He served as chief editor for the Philippine House of

Representatives before he died in 1966.

Daguio was born 8 January 1912 in Laoag, Ilocos Norte, but grew up in Lubuagan,

Mountain Province, where his father, an officer in the Philippine Constabulary, was

assigned. He was class valedictorian in 1924 at the Lubuagan Elementary School. Then

he stayed with his uncle at Fort William McKinley to study at Rizal High School in

Pasig. Those four years in high school were, according to Daguio, the most critical in his

life. «I spent them literally in poverty, extreme loneliness, and adolescent pains …In my

loneliness, I began to compose verses in earnest.”8 He was in third year high when he

broke into print in a national weekly, The Sunday Tribune Magazine (11 July 1926), with

a poem, “She Came to Me.” He was going to be valedictorian or salutatorian, but his

teacher in “utter lack of justice …put down my marks in history—my favorite subject.

That just about broke my heart because then I would have had free tuition at the U.P.

Thus out of school for the first semester in 1928, he earned his tuition (P60.00) by

serving as houseboy, waiter, and caddy to officers at Fort McKinley. He enrolled for the
second semester with only P2.50 left for books and other expenses. He commuted

between the Fort and Padre Faura, Manila, walking about two kilometers from Paco

station twice daily. He would eat his lunch alone on Dewey Blvd. and arrive at the Fort

about 9 o’clock in the evening. This continued for three years. Then an uncle arrived

from Honolulu who paid his tuition during his third year; before this, he worked Saturday

and Sunday as printer’s devil at the U.P. and served as Philippine Collegian reporter.

During all this time, he learned the craft of writing from Tom Inglis Moore, an Australian

professor at U.P., and was especially grateful to A.V.H. Hartendorp of Philippine

Magazine. His stories and poems appeared in practically all the Manila papers.

One of ten honor graduates at U.P. in 1932, he returned to teach at his boyhood school in

Lubuagan; in 1938, he taught at Zamboanga Normal School where he met his wife

Estela. They transferred to Normal Leyte School in 1941 before the Second World War.

During the Japanese Occupation, he joined the resistance and wrote poems in secret, later

collected as Bataan Harvest.1 0 He was a bosom-friend of another writer in the

resistance, Manuel E. Arguilla.

In 1952, he obtained his M.A. in English at Stanford U. as a Fulbright scholar. His thesis

was a study and translation of Hudhud hi Aliguyon (Ifugao Harvest Song). In 1954, he

obtained his Law degree from Romualdez Law College in Leyte. Daguio was editor and

public relations officer in various offices in government and the military. He also taught

for twenty-six years at the University of the East, U.P., and Philippine Women’s

University. In 1973, six years after his death, Daguio was conferred the Republic Cultural

Heritage Award
Amador T. Daguio is a Filipino writer and poet during pre-war Philippines. He published

two books in his lifetime and three more posthumously. He is a Republic Cultural

Heritage awardee for his works.

Early life and education

Amador Daguio was born in January 8, 1912 in Laoag, Ilocos Norte. His family moved to

Lubuagan, Mountain Province where his father was an officer in the Philippine

Constabulary. He graduated with honors in 1924 at the Lubuagan Elementary School as

valedictorian. In elementary school, Daguio was already writing poems, according to his

own account he wrote a farewell verse on a chalkboard at least once for a departing

teacher when he was in grade 6. For his high school studies, he moved to Pasig to attend

Rizal High School while residing with his uncle at Fort William McKinley.]

Due to failing to meet academic requirements to qualify for a scholarship and poverty,

Daguio was not able to study college in the first semester of 1928. He worked as a

houseboy, waiter, and caddy at Fort McKinley to earn his tuition and later enrolled at

theUniversity of the Philippines on the second semester. He experience financial

difficulties in his studies until an uncle from Honolulu, Hawaii who funded his tuition on

his third year of study. Before his uncle's arrival, Daguio has worked as a printer's

devil in his college as well as a writer for the Philippine Collegian.

He was mentored in writing by Tom Inglis Moore, an Australian professor. In 1932, he

graduated from UP as one of the top ten honor graduates. After World War II, he went

to Stanford University to study his masterals in English which he obtained at 1952. And

in 1954 he obtained his Law degree from Romualdez Law College in Leyte.
Career

When Daguio was a third year high school student his poem "She Came to Me" got

published in the July 11, 1926 edition of theThe Sunday Tribune.

After he graduated from UP, he returned to Lubuagan to teach at his former alma matter.

He then taught at Zamboange Normal School in 1938 where he met his wife Estela.

During the Second World War, he was part of the resistance and wrote poems. These

poems were later published as his book Bataan Harvest.

He was the chief editor for the Philippine House of Representatives, as well as several

other government offices. He also taught at the University of the East, University of the

Philippines, and Philippine Women's University for 26 years. He died in 1967[1]from

liver cancer at the age of 55.

Published works

Huhud hi aliguyon (a translation of an Ifugao harvest song, Stanford, 1952)The Flaming

Lyre (a collection of poems, Craftsman House, 1959)The Thrilling Poetical Jousts of

Balagtasan(1960)Bataan Harvest (war poems, A.S Florentino, 1973)The Woman Who

Looked Out the Window(a collection of short stories, A.S Florentino, 1973)The Fall of

Bataan and Corregidor (1975).

Manuel E. Arguilla

Manuel Estabilla Arguilla (Nagrebcan, June 17, 1911 – beheaded, Manila Chinese

Cemetery, August 30, 1944) was an Ilokano writer in English, patriot, and martyr.

He is known for his widely anthologized short story "How My Brother Leon Brought

Home a Wife," the main story in the collection How My Brother Leon Brought Home a

Wife and Other Short Stories, which won first prize in the Commonwealth Literary

Contest in 1940.

His stories "Midsummer" and "Heat" were published in Tondo, Manila by the Prairie

Schooner.

Most of Arguilla's stories depict scenes in Barrio Nagrebcan, Bauang, La Union, where

he was born. His bond with his birthplace, forged by his dealings with the peasant folk of

Ilocos, remained strong even after he moved to Manila, where he studied at the

University of the Philippines, finished his BS in Education in 1933, and became a

member and later the president of the U.P. Writer's Club and editor of the university's

Literary Apprentice.

He married Lydia Villanueva, another talented writer in English, and they lived in

Ermita, Manila. Here, F. Sionil José, another seminal Filipino writer in English, recalls

often seeing him in the National Library, which was then in the basement of what is now

the National Museum. "You couldn't miss him", José describes Arguilla, "because he had

this black patch on his cheek, a birthmark or an overgrown mole. He was writing then

those famous short stories and essays which I admired."[1]

He became a creative writing teacher at the University of Manila and later worked at the

Bureau of Public Welfare as managing editor of the bureau's publication Welfare

Advocate until 1943. He was later appointed to the Board of Censors. He secretly

organized a guerrilla intelligence unit against the Japanese.

On August 5, 1944, he was captured and tortured by the Japanese army at Fort Santiago.

In one account, he was later transferred to the grounds of the Manila Chinese Cemetery.

Along with him were guerrilla leaders, along with more than 10 men. They were then

asked to dig their own graves, after which, they were immediately, one by one, beheaded

with swords. His remains, as well as the others', have never been recovered, as they were

dumped into one unmarked grave.

The remains of the executed men were said to be located and identified by their

compatriots after the war, after a Japanese-American officer (working in the Japanese

Army as a spy), revealed what he had seen and the location of the grave after the

executions of August 30 of 1944. At present, there remains lie within the Manila North

Cemetery.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

FEMINIST LITERARY CRITICISM

Feminist literary criticism is literary analysis that arises from the viewpoint of feminism,

feminist theory and/or feminist politics. Basic methods of feminist literary criticism

include:
Identifying with female characters: This is a way to challenge the male-centered outlook

of authors. Feminist literary criticism suggests that women in literature were historically

presented as objects seen from a male perspective.

Reevaluating literature and the world in which literature is read: This involves

questioning whether society has predominantly valued male authors and their literary

works because it has valued males more than females.

A feminist literary critic resists traditional assumptions while reading a text. In addition

to challenging assumptions which were thought to be universal, feminist literary criticism

actively supports including women's knowledge in literature and valuing women's

experiences.

Feminist literary criticism assumes that literature both reflects and shapes stereotypes and

other cultural assumptions. Thus, feminist literary criticism examines how works of

literature embody patriarchal attitudes or undercut them, sometimes both happening

within the same work.

Feminist theory and various forms of feminist critique precede a formal naming of the

school of literary criticism. In so-called first-wave feminism, the Woman's Bible is an

example of a work of criticism firmly in this school, looking beyond the more obvious

male-centered outlook and interpretation.

During the period of second-wave feminism, academic circles increasingly challenged

the male literary canon. Feminist literary criticism has since intertwined with

postmodernism and increasingly complex questions of gender and societal roles.

Feminist literary criticism may bring in tools from other critical disciplines: historical

analysis, psychology, linguistics, sociological analysis, economic analysis, for instance.

Feminist literary criticism is distinguished from gynocriticism because feminist literary

criticism may also analyze and deconstruct literary works of men.

Gynocriticism

Gynocriticism, or gynocritics, refers to the literary study of women as writers. It is a

critical practice exploring and recording female creativity. Gynocriticism attempts to

understand women’s writing as a fundamental part of female reality. Some critics now

use “gynocriticism” to refer to the practice and “gynocritics” to refer to the practitioners.

Elaine Showalter coined the term gynocritics in her 1979 essay “Towards a Feminist

Poetics.” Unlike feminist literary criticism, which might analyze works by male authors

from a feminist perspective, gynocriticism wanted to establish a literary tradition of

women without incorporating male authors. Elaine Showalter felt that feminist criticism

still worked within male assumptions, while gynocriticism would begin a new phase of

women’s self-discovery.

Feminist criticism is concerned with "...the ways in which literature (and other cultural

productions) reinforce or undermine the economic, political, social, and psychological

oppression of women" (Tyson). This school of theory looks at how aspects of our culture

are inherently patriarchal (male dominated) and "...this critique strives to expose the

explicit and implicit misogyny in male writing about women" (Richter 1346). This

misogyny, Tyson reminds us, can extend into diverse areas of our culture: "Perhaps the

most chilling example...is found in the world of modern medicine, where drugs

prescribed for both sexes often have been tested on male subjects only" (83).
Feminist criticism is also concerned with less obvious forms of marginalization such as

the exclusion of women writers from the traditional literary canon: "...unless the critical

or historical point of view is feminist, there is a tendency to under-represent the

contribution of women writers" (Tyson 82-83).

Common Space in Feminist Theories

Though a number of different approaches exist in feminist criticism, there exist some

areas of commonality. This list is excerpted from Tyson:

1. Women are oppressed by patriarchy economically, politically, socially, and

psychologically; patriarchal ideology is the primary means by which they are kept

so

2. In every domain where patriarchy reigns, woman is other: she is marginalized,

defined only by her difference from male norms and values

3. All of western (Anglo-European) civilization is deeply rooted in patriarchal

ideology, for example, in the biblical portrayal of Eve as the origin of sin and

death in the world

4. While biology determines our sex (male or female), culture determines our gender

(masculine or feminine)

5. All feminist activity, including feminist theory and literary criticism, has as its

ultimate goal to change the world by prompting gender equality

6. Gender issues play a part in every aspect of human production and experience,

including the production and experience of literature, whether we are consciously

aware of these issues or not.

Feminist criticism has, in many ways, followed what some theorists call the three waves

of feminism:

1. First Wave Feminism - late 1700s-early 1900's: writers like Mary Wollstonecraft

(A Vindication of the Rights of Women, 1792) highlight the inequalities between

the sexes. Activists like Susan B. Anthony and Victoria Woodhull contribute to

the women's suffrage movement, which leads to National Universal Suffrage in

1920 with the passing of the Nineteenth Amendment

2. Second Wave Feminism - early 1960s-late 1970s: building on more equal

working conditions necessary in America during World War II, movements such

as the National Organization for Women (NOW), formed in 1966, cohere feminist

political activism. Writers like Simone de Beauvoir (Le deuxième sexe, 1972) and

Elaine Showalter established the groundwork for the dissemination of feminist

theories dove-tailed with the American Civil Rights movement

3. Third Wave Feminism - early 1990s-present: resisting the perceived essentialist

(over generalized, over simplified) ideologies and a white, heterosexual, middle

class focus of second wave feminism, third wave feminism borrows from post-

structural and contemporary gender and race theories (see below) to expand on

marginalized populations' experiences. Writers like Alice Walker work to

"...reconcile it [feminism] with the concerns of the black community...[and] the

survival and wholeness of her people, men and women both, and for the

promotion of dialog and community as well as for the valorization of women and

of all the varieties of work women perform" (Tyson 97).

Typical questions:

 How is the relationship between men and women portrayed?

 What are the power relationships between men and women (or characters

assuming male/female roles)?

 How are male and female roles defined?

 What constitutes masculinity and femininity?

 How do characters embody these traits?

 Do characters take on traits from opposite genders? How so? How does this

change others’ reactions to them?

 What does the work reveal about the operations (economically, politically,

socially, or psychologically) of patriarchy?

 What does the work imply about the possibilities of sisterhood as a mode of

resisting patriarchy?

 What does the work say about women's creativity?

 What does the history of the work's reception by the public and by the critics tell

us about the operation of patriarchy?

 What role the work play in terms of women's literary history and literary

tradition? (Tyson)

Feminist literary criticism, arising in conjunction with sociopolitical feminism, critiques

patriarchal language and literature by exposing how these reflect masculine ideology. It

examines gender politics in works and traces the subtle construction of masculinity and

femininity, and their relative status, positionings, and marginalizations within works.
Beyond making us aware of the marginalizing uses of traditional language (the

presumptuousness of the pronoun "he," or occupational words such as "mailman")

feminists focused on language have noticed a stylistic difference in women's writing:

women tend to use reflexive constructions more than men (e.g., "She found herself

crying"). They have noticed that women and men tend to communicate differently: men

directed towards solutions, women towards connecting.

Feminist criticism concern itself with stereotypical representations of genders. It also

may trace the history of relatively unknown or undervalued women writers, potentially

earning them their rightful place within the literary canon, and helps create a climate in

which women's creativity may be fully realized and appreciated.

One will frequently hear the term "patriarchy" used among feminist critics, referring to

traditional male-dominated society. "Marginalization" refers to being forced to the

outskirts of what is considered socially and politically significant; the female voice was

traditionally marginalized, or discounted altogether.

Feminist literary criticism is literary criticism informed by feminist theory, or more

broadly, by the politics of feminism. It uses feminist principles and ideology to critique

the language of literature. This school of thought seeks to analyze and describe the ways

in which literature portrays the narrative of male domination by exploring the economic,

social, political, and psychological forces embedded within literature.[1] This way of

thinking and criticizing works can be said to have changed the way literary texts are

viewed and studied, as well as changing and expanding the canon of what is commonly

taught.[2]
Traditionally, feminist literary criticism has sought to examine old texts within literary

canon through a new lens. Specific goals of feminist criticism include both the

development and discovery female tradition of writing, and rediscovering of old texts,

while also interpreting symbolism of women's writing so that it will not be lost or ignored

by the male point of view and resisting sexism inherent in the majority of mainstream

literature. These goals, along with the intent to analyze women writers and their writings

from a female perspective, and increase awareness of the sexual politics of language and

style[3] were developed by Lisa Tuttle in the 1980s, and have since been adopted by a

majority of feminist critics.

The history of feminist literary criticism is extensive, from classic works of nineteenth-

century women authors such as George Eliotand Margaret Fuller to cutting-edge

theoretical work in women's studies and gender studies by "third-wave" authors. Before

the 1970s—in the first and second waves of feminism— feminist literary criticism was

concerned with women's authorship and the representation of women's condition within

literature; in particular the depiction of fictional female characters. In addition, feminist

literary criticism is concerned with the exclusion of women from the literary canon, with

theorists such as Lois Tyson suggesting that this is because the views of women authors

are often not considered to be universal ones.[4]

Additionally, feminist criticism has been closely associated with the birth and growth

of queer studies. Modern feminist literary theory seeks to understand both the literary

portrayals and representation of both women and people in the queer community,

expanding the role of a variety of identities and analysis within feminist literary criticism.
Feminist literary criticism is literary criticism informed by feminist theory, or more

broadly, by the politics of feminism. It uses feminist principles and ideology to critique

the language of literature. This school of thought seeks to analyze and describe the ways

in which literature portrays the narrative of male domination by exploring the economic,

social, political, and psychological forces embedded within literature.[1] This way of

thinking and criticizing works can be said to have changed the way literary texts are

viewed and studied, as well as changing and expanding the canon of what is commonly

taught.[2]

Traditionally, feminist literary criticism has sought to examine old texts within literary

canon through a new lens. Specific goals of feminist criticism include both the

development and discovery female tradition of writing, and rediscovering of old texts,

while also interpreting symbolism of women's writing so that it will not be lost or ignored

by the male point of view and resisting sexism inherent in the majority of mainstream

literature. These goals, along with the intent to analyze women writers and their writings

from a female perspective, and increase awareness of the sexual politics of language and

style[3] were developed by Lisa Tuttle in the 1980s, and have since been adopted by a

majority of feminist critics.

The history of feminist literary criticism is extensive, from classic works of nineteenth-

century women authors such as George Eliotand Margaret Fuller to cutting-edge

theoretical work in women's studies and gender studies by "third-wave" authors. Before

the 1970s—in the first and second waves of feminism— feminist literary criticism was
concerned with women's authorship and the representation of women's condition within

literature; in particular the depiction of fictional female characters. In addition, feminist

literary criticism is concerned with the exclusion of women from the literary canon, with

theorists such as Lois Tyson suggesting that this is because the views of women authors

are often not considered to be universal ones.[4]

Additionally, feminist criticism has been closely associated with the birth and growth

of queer studies. Modern feminist literary theory seeks to understand both the literary

portrayals and representation of both women and people in the queer community,

expanding the role of a variety of identities and analysis within feminist literary criticism.

MARXIST LITERARY CRITICISM

Marxist literary criticism is a loose term describing literary criticism based on socialist

and dialectic theories. Marxist criticism views literary works as reflections of the social

institutions from which they originate. According to Marxists, even literature itself is a

social institution and has a specific ideological function, based on the background and

ideology of the author.

The English literary critic and cultural theorist, Terry Eagleton, defines Marxist criticism

this way:

Marxist criticism is not merely a 'sociology of literature', concerned with how novels get

published and whether they mention the working class. Its aim is to explain the literary

work more fully; and this means a sensitive attention to its forms, styles and, meanings.

But it also means grasping those forms, styles and meanings as the product of a particular

history.[1]
The simplest goals of Marxist literary criticism can include an assessment of the political

'tendency' of a literary work, determining whether its social content or its literary form

are 'progressive'. It also includes analyzing the class constructs demonstrated in the

literature.

Karl Marx's studies have provided a basis for much in socialist theory and research.

Marxism aims to revolutionize the concept of work through creating a classless

society built on control and ownership of the means of production. Marx believed that

Economic Determinism, Dialectical Materialism and Class Struggle were the three

principles that explained his theories. The Bourgeois (Dominant class who control and

own the means of production) and Proletariat (Subordinate class: Don’t own and control

the means of production) were the only two classes who engaged in hostile interaction to

achieve class consciousness. Marx believed that all past history is a struggle between

hostile and competing economic classes in state of change. Marx and Friedrich

Engels collaborated to produce a range of publications based on capitalism, class

struggles and socialist movements.

Marxist Literary Criticism, Then and Now

Neither is philosophy turning to advantage the approach of that professor who, in the pre-

Fascist era, experienced an urge to rectify the ills of the times, and examined Marlene

Dietrich’s film, The Blue Angel, in order to obtain, at first hand, an idea of how bad

things really were. Excursions of that kind into tangible realities turn philosophy into the

refuse of history, with the subject-matter of which it is confused, in the manner of a

fethisistic belief in culture per se.

Theodor Adorno

“Why Philosophy?”1

“Traditional” Marxism, if “untrue” during this period of a proliferation of new subjects of

history, must necessarily become true again when the dreary realities of exploitation,

extraction of surplus value, proletarianization, and the resistance to it in the form of class

struggle, all slowly reassert themselves on a new and expanded world scale, as they seem

currently in the process of doing.

Fredric Jameson

“Periodizing the 60s”

What has Marxism contributed to literary criticism? And what does its en counter with

literature in the twentieth century mean for the directions that Marxist criticism might

take in the twenty-first? These are huge questions — too large for a short paper; to

answer them properly would require, to begin with, some assessment of the state of

various Marxisms today (whatever existence they eke out here and there) as well as the

situation in which the profession of literary criticism finds itself. Nevertheless, I thought

it might be useful to take the subject head-on, however briefly — a sketch with inevitable

gaps, but one that could offer a starting point to the project of filling in the bigger picture.

There is no such thing as a Marxist literary criticism: no established ap proaches, no clear

methodology, no agreed-upon ideas about how to approach a text or what count as

appropriate texts to read, or, indeed, no clearly established sense of why one might

expend energy on literary analysis to begin with. It is difficult even to establish a core set

of interests and commitments that mark it off from other forms of literary criticism.
Marxist literary criticism need not make reference back to Marx (who liked Shakespeare

but didn`t discuss literature in relation to historical materialism); it certainly doesn’t deal

with a stock set of questions or topics — say, class or labour, in the way sometimes

imagined in introductory texts on literary criticism. There are numerous modes of

Marxist criticism related to one another through a theoretical family resemblance and

perhaps a shared, general political outlook. The taxonomies of Marxist approaches

offered by Raymond Williams, Terry Eagleton, and others not only differ from one

another, but show enough internal variation as to leave things confused in the extreme.

For the form of Marxist criticism which Eagleton, for instance, calls “economic” — a

category including such things as the sociology of literature and book history — words in

books don’t really matter, or at least aren’t the primary source of literature’s social and

political function and importance. But for the other forms of criticism he discusses, from

social realism to Ideologiekritik, the marks on the page that are the typical focus of

literary criticism are the main things to be assessed and analyzed.

There are, it seems to me, three primary forms or modes of intervention that Marxist

literary criticism has taken, especially since the 1920s, begin ning with the early work of

Adorno, Benjamin, Bloch, Lukács, and others. These modes of Marxist criticism have

changed in content, but less so in form — though the conditions under which they are

practiced and carried out have changed, a fact not always reflected within newer practices

of Marxist criticism, which make use of (say) the old insistence on the relation of literary

form to social form even while the former has declined in importance and the latter has

been reshaped in response to new forces and historical circumstances. Hopefully, spelling
out these three modes can help to show us where Marxist literary criticism stands today

and what might be on the horizon.

In perhaps its most simple and basic form, Marxist criticism has taken the form of a

series of methodological criticisms and challenges to existing forms of criticism. These

are reminders of what to do or not to do — to “Always historicize,” for example, or to

remember the centrality of class struggle and the determining role of the forces and

relations of production to social life and to literary and cultural production. Such critical

imperatives are meant to shape literary criticism as such, pulling it away from idealist

forms of historicism and formalism and toward a commitment to the social character of

literary writing. In Marxism and Literature, Williams remarks that “‘Marxist criticism’

and ‘Marxist literary studies’ have been most successful … when they have worked with

the received category of ‘litera ture’, which they may have extended or even revalued, but

never radically questioned or opposed.”3 Adorno on Mann, Lukács on Scott, Jameson on

Gissing, Schwarz on Brás Cubas: each of these analyses might introduce new insights

into the objects and authors being studied, but they still largely take the form of learned

commentaries of objects known in advance for being ones filled with significance and in

need of study with the tools of literary analysis. Here, Marxism piggybacks on received

definitions of literature and literary study in a manner that defines it as a theoretical

approach to texts — one of a handful which can be substituted for one another depending

on context or even an individual critic’s analytic sensibilities.

The second mode of Marxist criticism builds on the impulse of this first, but extends it

significantly. Here, the received category of literature around which institutional practices

such as professional organizations and university departments are organized is scrutinized

and placed into question. Marxism has at the core of its theory and practice the analysis

of history and of the shifts that take place within it; it assumes that the economic is (“in

the last instance”) of prime importance in how human social life is organized. With

respect to literature and literary criticism, it thus tries to understand the existing social

and political function of these practices by mapping out the manner in which they have

developed and changed over time — that is, both how these practices themselves have

changes and shifts in their social and political function. This is a form of metatheory: a

view of the status and practice of the literary in general which focuses more on social

form than on aesthetic content; it is something akin to a history of ideas traced out within

materialist philosophy. Williams and others remind us that literature devel oped into “an

apparently objective category of printed works of a certain quality” out of something

more inchoate, something once linked to reading ability and not limited to creative or

imaginative works defined by taste or sensibility.4 But beyond this acknowledgment of

definitional shifts with the category of literature is an insistence on the politics of

literature in relation to larger social developments: “Literature and criticismare, in the

perspective of historical social development, forms of a class specialization and control

of a general social practice, and of a class limitation on the questions which it might

raise.”5

If the first mode of Marxist criticism introduces more complex forms of literary analysis

into existing forms of criticism, the second aims to shatter the self-certainties of literary

analysis by insisting on the ways in which culture and power are necessarily bound

together, perhaps especially so in the constitution of literary criticism as a practice. Terry

Eagleton has written that “Nobody is much bothered by materialist readings of Titus
Andronicus … but a materialist theory of culture — a theory of culture as production

before it is expression — sounds, in the spontaneously idealist milieu of middle-class

society, something of a category mistake or a contradiction in terms.”6 The most

important intervention made by cultural criticism in the twentieth century — and not just

in Marxism, but in the work of scholars from Thorstein Veblen to Pierre Bourdieu — was

to desacralize and demy thologize ideas of literature and culture, highlighting the social

and political violence which shaped the consecration of these categories into practices

immediately associated with transcendent value; the insistence on culture as always

already a form of production is only the beginning of this effort. While political

reflections on the category of literature and culture itself have contributed to the practice

of literary criticism, they have just as frequently pushed critical analysis in other

directions — towards sociological approaches to literature and culture (the latest of which

is exemplified by the work of Franco Moretti) or to the study of numerous other modes of

cultural expression and practice. Challenges to the institutions of literary analysis make it

— or at least should make it — hard to continue with criticism as usual.

“Culture for Marxism is at once absolutely vital and distinctly secondary: the place where

power is crystallized and submission bred, but also somehow ‘superstructural’, something

which in its more narrow sense of specialized artistic institutions can only be fashioned

out of a certain economic surplus and division of labour, and which even in its more

generous anthropological sense of a ‘form of life’ risks papering over certain important

conflicts and distinctions.”7 This tension lies at the heart of most forms of Marxist

criticism that deal with culture as opposed to economics, politics, or the social. Culture is

an object of suspicion as a result of its structural function and, indeed, its very existence,
but is also a field which requires critical study — and not just because of its ideological

function (to which Eagleton points here), but because it is also imagined as a space in

which the crystallization of power can be interrupted or halted, and submission turned

into autonomy and genuine self-expression. If literature and culture were simply the

space of ideological expression, if ideology was simply false consciousness or a blunt

substitute for religion, they wouldn’t create such headaches and problems for Marxist

criticism. Rather, culture is also imagined within Marxism as a space of political

possibilities and alternative imaginings — not “politics by other means” in any simple

and direct way, but also not ultimately separable from politics.

Marxism may be “deeply suspicious of the cultural, which it views as in the end the

offspring of labour, as well as, often enough, a disownment of it,” but it also can’t give

up on culture or literature.8 The longstanding anxieties within Marxism about what

Herbert Marcuse called “affirmative culture” or what others name as “instrumental

culture” aren’t meant to close down the horizon of possibility offered by culture, but to

show the enormous difficul ties for criticism in addressing culture without participating in

its reification and instrumentalization. Adorno’s worries in “Cultural Criticism and

Society” and elsewhere echo those of Marcuse: both worry about the tendency of

criticism to be interested in culture because of its links with the spiritual and the

transcendent.9 “Man does not live by bread alone; this truth is thoroughly falsified by the

interpretation that spiritual nourishment is an adequate substitute for too little bread”; and

Marcuse again: “The culture of souls absorbed in a false form those forces and wants

which could find no place in everyday life.”10 The challenge for Marxist criticism has

been to name or identify alternative or antagonistic forms of life expressed in culture,

while keeping the lie also named by culture firmly in mind. A difficult task: playing with

and against the false autonomy of culture established by bourgeois social life since the

late eighteenth century. The criticism of the past several decades, whether looked at

individually or as a whole, has taken this challenge up with more or less rigor, but

without any coherent plan of attack. With respect to literature, some forms of criticism

have sought to separate out reified forms of culture from other, more revolutionary forms;

in many cases this has reflected existing taxonomies, with (say) mass culture being seen

as the most ideological, and forms of experimental or explicitly political literature being

seen as having escaped instrumentalization and so having special significance (Jameson

speaks of modernism in this fashion, even if at other points he insists on the opposite

point). Marxist criticism which places wagers on the utopian dimension of this or that

novel or genre — “serious” science fiction, for instance — seems to forget the second

mode to which I’ve pointed concerning the political and economic conditions of

possibility of literary writing and criticism, with the effect being a curious, uncritical

acceptance of (for instance) writerly aims and intentions, and of the category of the

literary more generally.

More interestingly, other forms of Marxist criticism have imagined that it is “possible to

find the material history which produces a work of art somehow inscribed in its very

texture and structure, in the shape of its sentences or its play of narrative viewpoints, in

its choice of a metrical scheme or its rhetorical device.”11 This is to use symbolic

responses to an objective historical situation as a way to read back through to those

circum stances, whether in a direct, unmediated form, or perhaps with the added bonus

that inscribed in symbolic forms is some hint of the Real or the social unconscious of a
given historical period. The most powerful of these approaches is found in the work of

Fredric Jameson, who famously views literature as a symbolic practice that provides

imaginary and ideological solutions to unresolved sociopolitical contradictions. In

Jameson’s “Reification and Utopia in Mass Culture,” the divide between mass and high

culture is collapsed; each is now seen as a different way of managing the same set of

social contradictions, thus providing materials valuable for critics who want to better

understand the ways in which culture is reified.12 It is the “utopian” content of mass

culture that most readers of Jameson’s essay seize on, the idea that a latent element of

any form of cultural expression casts doubt on the fixity of the political present and its

self-certainties. Here, the hope that culture yields political tools and insights (if not

transcendence of an older, spiritual kind) is tied together with a more sociological,

institutional approach: one gets the rewards of literary criticism while approaching things

from a Marxist perspective. What’s still left out of the picture is how and why certain

forms of culture might be seen to escape the instrumentalization that worried the

Frankfurt School. If everything has a utopian content (even if perhaps only in the

minimal sense outlined by Williams: “No mode of production and therefore no dominant

social order and therefore no dominant culture ever in reality excludes or exhausts all

human practice, human energy, and human intention”), then there’s no need to make

distinc tions about what to study as especially significant forms of culture.13 Literature is

displaced from the center of Marxist critical concern, but in the process culture becomes

a space of study primarily for what it reveals about conditions and developments at other,

more socially significant levels.

If one way of addressing the crisis that affirmative culture introduces into Marxist

criticism was to divide culture into serious work and junk, avant-garde modernism and

mass culture, Jameson manages this problem (in part) by considering different zones of

capitalism in which “culture” takes different forms. The utopia which is supposed to go

hand-in-hand with reification is divided spatially, with utopia being displaced from the

West to the rest. Already in the “Reification” essay we find him introducing the idea that

revolutionary cultural expressions can be found only in those places whose conditions of

possibility — formal, but not yet real, subsumption into global capital — allow for forms

of cultural production that don’t obey the inexorable logic of affirmative culture. This

spatial move is also a temporal one — it suggests (questionably) that literature and other

cultural forms once lived out the political promise of their semi-autonomy from social

life, before collapsing into the undifferentiated murk of instrumentality. For Jameson, the

phenomenon called “globalization” seems to have eliminated this possible political

opening in the gap between formal and real, so that now what we read in his work and

that of other Marxist critics is an insistence on the fact that everything is now cultural —

an assertion whose implications have been difficult to ascertain or to properly make sense

of, perhaps especially so when it comes to the question of what it is one imagines one is

doing in engaging with this or that literary text from a Marxist perspective. Every thing is

cultural: should we take this as a further intensification (or even dialectical

transfiguration) of the drama of the spectacle to which Guy Debord alerted us, or as

announcing a welcome social immanence whose outcome can be nothing other than the

multitude and the commons described by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri?
Where are we then left? The first mode is inadequate; the second, reduc tive; and the

third, confused by the movement between the repudiation of culture as an ideological

category and a belief in its potential redemptive and/or political possibilities — a politics

grounded in older critical ontologies and epistemologies, even if these are troubled by

Marxist categories. How, then, do we relate these approaches to literature and its

potential end(s)? Literature always has a truth value of some kind. Even if its slow

marginalization as a social practice has made it tempting to insist more strongly on its

class basis and social untruth, it would be a mistake for Marxism to think that it is done

with it once and for all. Literature still provides cognitive, utopian, or aesthetic insights,

and writing itself remains a political practice — “one of the most transgressive and most

easily ex changed cultural forms through which dissidence can be articulated, not least

because the material prerequisites of pen and paper” — or the keyboard and the wireless

connection — “are relatively easy to acquire.”14 But this persistence of literature (a

persistence which finds analogs in the figures of excess animating poststructuralist

philosophy or Deleuzian politics) doesn’t find an easy counterpoint in Marxist literary

criticism, much of which seems to me to continue to work within one of the three modes

I’ve just outlined, if (to be ungenerous) with an increasing lack of purpose and direction.

What other path could it follow? To a large degree, literary criticism has absorbed

Marxism’s methodological pointers and grasps the implications of its larger critique of

literary institutions, even if it hasn’t acted on them (here, the institutional instinct for self-

preservation kicks in). As for its own attempts to grasp the strands of culture that slip out

from under affirmative culture, this seems to have brought Marxist criticism back to a

sense of culture as pure ideology or as pure political possibility, without a clear sense of
which situation holds where or when, convinced of neither outcome, but energized by

these breaks, gaps, and incompletions.

To get a sense of why this might be the case — and what might come next — we need to

think about the historical conditions of Marxist criticism itself. More than thirty years

ago, Perry Anderson diagnosed a paradigm shift in Marxism — a shift away from

political practices intimately connected to the activities of parties and unions to a

phenomenon he named “Western Marxism,” which roughly comes into being with the

work of the Frankfurt School. For Anderson, the “first and most fundamental of its

characteristics has been the structural divorce of this Marxism from political

practice.”15In Western Marxism, the divide of theory and practice isn’t something to be

actively engaged, but has become affirmed as a given, with energies thus devoted entirely

to theory at the expense of practice. Marxism shifts towards philosophy, and becomes an

“ever increasing academic emplacement”; its central focus is on culture and aesthetics,

particularly of the bourgeois kind; and it becomes “Western,” which is to say, “utterly

provincial and unin formed about the theoretical cultures of neighbouring

countries.”16For Anderson, this strain of Marxism is also characterized by a consistent

pessimism as it develops “new themes absent from classical Marxism — mostly in a

speculative manner.”17 “Where the founder of historical materialism moved

progressively from philosophy to politics and then economics,” Anderson writes, “the

successors of the tradition that emerged after 1920 turned back from economics and

politics to philosophy.”18

Anderson’s characterization of Western Marxism is meant to sound alarm bells about the

draining of energies from what he would have under stood (in 1976 at least) as a “proper”
form of politics. He writes that “the hidden hallmark of Western Marxism as a whole is

that it is a product of defeat.”19 This criticism comes at a moment in which actually-

existing socialisms — even given their very real flaws and their distance from Marxist

theory — presented a viable alternative to forms of liberal democratic capitalism and

unionism remained a strong movement across the world. In the context of our

circumstances, it is easy enough to see the depth of this defeat as something we are still in

the process of coming to under stand. Many of the points that Anderson makes with

respect to Western Marxism seem characteristic of Marxist criticism today: it is largely

divorced from political parties or even from social movements (though perhaps not at its

anarchist edges); its practitioners are primarily university-based and generally accepted

there as one variant of a multiplicity of critical ap proaches; and they are interested in

philosophy more than in (say) the nitty-gritty of re-establishing an international party

operating above and beyond parochial nationalisms. These points are, of course, directed

at Marxist criticism in general and not just at Marxist literarycritics, who were in

relatively short supply before Lukács (despite Plekhanov and Lenin and Trotsky’s

writings on art and literature).

The intervening thirty years and the end of state socialism have brought about new

geopolitical configurations within which Marxisms circulate, and, as such, new criteria

with which to assess their political possibilities. Western Marxism looks like a defeat if

one imagines politics to have to take a certain form — that which characterized Marxist

and socialist movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The political

and historical terrain has altered so much in the global era that it would be a mistake to

measure success or failure on these grounds (a point made repeatedly since at least
Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s Hegemony and Socialist Strategy).20 Anderson

laments the break of Western Marxism with an international party and criticizes its

parochialism. While there remains nothing like a new international socialist party, the

palpable sense of having to frame one’s political imaginings and activities in a global

context ensures that the “Westernness” of Western Marxism has now dissipate — though,

in part, this is because of the global circulation and re-purposing of Western Marxism in

places around the globe (university-based Marxists even in Russia, Eastern Europe, and

China are Western Marxists in terms of the archives they draw upon and their broad

interest in culture over politics and economics). Nor does culture hold the attention of

Marxist criticism as it once did, and, where it does capture critical attention, the focus is

certainly not bourgeois culture alone. If anything, the shift from economics to philosophy

that Anderson describes seems to have been reversed in recent years. The very absence of

the socialist world (at least on its former scale) has brought the structuring force of

economics to the surface in a way that has rendered its foundational role apparent to

everyone: political economy is back in style. One of the real limits of Western Marxism

was that despite its best intentions to do other wise, it, too, tended to treat culture as in the

end semi-autonomous from politics, and so as a space necessitating a careful mapping by

those whose political commitments demanded a search for alternative social forms and

imaginings. Anderson writes that while Gramsci dealt extensively with Italian literature

in the Prison Notebooks, he “took the autonomy and efficacy of cultural superstructures

as a political problem, to be explicitly theorized as such — in its relationship to the

maintenance or subversion of the social order.”21 In this sense, we are all Gramsci now,

with the difference being that the political problem with respect to culture today is, in
fact, its lack of autonomy and efficacy, its equivalence with the political in a manner that

leaves conceptions of its function as ideological or anti-ideological unhelpful and beside

the point.

Western Marxism’s focus on culture generated contributions to literary criticism that

have been productive even for those who don’t understand themselves to be Marxists.

However we might assess the status of its activities — a distraction from real politics or a

contribution to understanding the complexity of social signification and meaning-making

without which there can be no politics — we are in new historical circumstances that

have pushed Marxist criticism towards new objects of study and modes of intervention.

This is an ongoing process; the three approaches to literature or culture that I described

above continue to describe much of what is done under the name of Marxism. But the

changed political circumstances of the present moment — one which finds capitalism

under question, widespread expressions of anxiety about ecological futures, and so on —

have pushed critical energies in other directions, and will continue to do so. One of the

only positive things that Anderson says about Western Marxism is that it proved to be

unexpectedly immune to reformism. Marxism is a theory of social and political

transformation — of revolution, not evolution, since it understands that no amount of

amelioration of existing political and eco nomic frameworks will address the broad social

injustices that capitalism produces. At the moment, studies of literature within

universities may not be the main site for such transformations to be better understood, or

actualized — which isn’t the same as saying that such studies don’t have any value at all.

According to Marxists, and to other scholars in fact, literature reflects those social

institutions out of which it emerges and is itself a social institution with a particular
ideological function. Literature reflects class struggle and materialism: think how often

the quest for wealth traditionally defines characters. So Marxists generally view literature

"not as works created in accordance with timeless artistic criteria, but as 'products' of the

economic and ideological determinants specific to that era" (Abrams 149). Literature

reflects an author's own class or analysis of class relations, however piercing or shallow

that analysis may be.

The Marxist critic simply is a careful reader or viewer who keeps in mind issues of power

and money, and any of the following kinds of questions:

 What role does class play in the work; what is the author's analysis of class

relations?

 How do characters overcome oppression?

 In what ways does the work serve as propaganda for the status quo; or does it try

to undermine it?

 What does the work say about oppression; or are social conflicts ignored or

blamed elsewhere?

 Does the work propose some form of utopian vision as a solution to the problems

encountered in the work?

NEW CRITICISM

New Criticism emphasizes explication, or "close reading," of "the work itself." It rejects

old historicism's attention to biographical and sociological matters. Instead, the objective

determination as to "how a piece works" can be found through close focus and analysis,
rather than through extraneous and erudite special knowledge. It has long been the

pervasive and standard approach to literature in college and high school curricula.

New Criticism, incorporating Formalism, examines the relationships between a text's

ideas and its form, between what a text says and the way it says it. New Critics "may find

tension, irony, or paradox in this relation, but they usually resolve it into unity and

coherence of meaning" (Biddle 100). New Criticism attempts to be a science of literature,

with a technical vocabulary, some of which we all had to learn in junior high school

English classes (third-person, denoument, etc.). Working with patterns of sound, imagery,

narrative structure, point of view, and other techniques discernible on close reading of the

text, they seek to determine the function and appropriateness of these to the self-

contained work.

New Critics, especially American ones in the 1940s and 1950s, attacked the standard

notion of "expressive realism," the romantic fallacy that literature is the efflux of a noble

soul, that for example love pours out onto the page in 14 iambic pentameter lines

rhyming ABABCD etc. The goal then is not the pursuit of sincerity or authenticity, but

subtlety, unity, and integrity--and these are properties of the text, not the author. The

work is not the author's; it was detached at birth. The author's intentions are "neither

available nor desirable" (nor even to be taken at face value when supposedly found in

direct statements by authors). Meaning exists on the page. Thus, New Critics insist that

the meaning of a text is intrinsic and should not be confused with the author's intentions

nor the work's affective dimension (its impressionistic effects on the reader). The

"intentional fallacy" is when one confuses the meaning of a work with the author's

purported intention (expressed in letters, diaries, interviews, for example). The "affective
fallacy" is the erroneous practice of interpreting texts according to the psychological or

emotional responses of readers, confusing the text with its results.

To do New Critical reading, ask yourself, "How does this piece work?" Look for

complexities in the text: paradoxes, ironies, ambiguities. Find a unifying idea or theme

which resolves these tensions.

New Criticism, post-World War I school of Anglo-American literary critical theory that

insisted on the intrinsic value of a work of art and focused attention on the individual

work alone as an independent unit of meaning. It was opposed to the critical practice of

bringing historical or biographical data to bear on the interpretation of a work.

The primary technique employed in the New Critical approach is close analytic reading

of the text, a technique as old as Aristotle’s Poetics. The New Critics, however,

introduced refinements into the method. Early seminal works in the tradition were those

of the English critics I.A. Richards (Practical Criticism, 1929) and William Empson

(Seven Types of Ambiguity, 1930). English poet T.S. Eliot also made contributions, with

his critical essays “Tradition and the Individual Talent” (1917) and “Hamlet and His

Problems” (1919). The movement did not have a name, however, until the appearance of

John Crowe Ransom’s The New Criticism (1941), a work that loosely organized the

principles of this basically linguistic approach to literature. Other figures associated with

New Criticism include Cleanth Brooks, R.P. Blackmur, Robert Penn Warren, and W.K.

Wimsatt, Jr., although their critical pronouncements, along with those of Ransom,

Richards, and Empson, are somewhat diverse and do not readily constitute a uniform
school of thought. New Criticism was eclipsed as the dominant mode of Anglo-American

literary criticism by the 1970s.

To the New Critics, poetry was a special kind of discourse, a means of communicating

feeling and thought that could not be expressed in any other kind of language. It differed

qualitatively from the language of science or philosophy, but it conveyed equally valid

meanings. Such critics set out to define and formalize the qualities of poetic thought and

language, utilizing the technique of close reading with special emphasis on the

connotative and associative values of words and on the multiple functions of figurative

language—symbol, metaphor, and image—in the work. Poetic form and content could

not be separated, since the experience of reading the particular words of a poem,

including its unresolved tensions, is the poem’s “meaning.” As a result, any rewording of

a poem’s language alters its content, a view articulated in the phrase “the heresy of

paraphrase,” which was coined by Brooks in his The Well Wrought Urn (1947).

Definition and Origins of New Criticism

How would you want people to judge you - based off what they've previously heard

about you, or your words and actions as you interact with them? Most people would want

to be judged off their own words and actions. Even though our histories and reputations

are important, there's a reason why we hear again and again not to 'judge a book by its

cover.'

According to New Criticism, we should judge books the same way. Rather than worrying

about the author's background or our own reactions to a book, we should evaluate work

based only on the text itself. Since we're only dealing with the text, we'd be doing what's
called a close reading, which requires taking apart a text and looking at its individual

elements, such as theme, setting, plot, and structure, for example.

In 1939, Richards began teaching at Harvard and influenced a new American literary

theory. Two years later, John Crowe Ransom, an English professor at Kenyon College,

published New Criticism. The new book's title was applied to this young method of

examining texts. New Criticism went on to become a popular method of literary analysis

throughout the middle of the 20th century.

What Exactly Do New Critics Do?

In focusing on the text itself, New Critics intentionally ignore the author and the reader.

According to intentional fallacy, it's impossible to determine an author's reasons for

writing a text without directly asking him or her. And even if we did determine the

author's intentions, they don't matter, because the text itself carries its own value. So,

even if we're reading a book by a renowned author like Shakespeare, we shouldn't let the

author's reputation taint our evaluation of the text.

Similarly, affective fallacy claims that we shouldn't waste time thinking about the effect a

text may have on the reader, because then we're polluting the text with our own personal

baggage. So, we should ignore how 'beautiful' a poem may be or our reactions to an

emotional novel such as Where the Red Fern Grows. If we give in to our emotional

reactions, we're less able to evaluate the text objectively.

Besides authors and readers, New Critics would also argue that a text's historical and

cultural contexts are also irrelevant. For example, even if we're looking at such a

culturally significant text, such as Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, we should

avoid the temptation to read it as an anti-slavery novel. Instead, we should read it to see

how the novel's elements, such as its setting and theme, work together to produce a

unified, whole text.

New Criticism was a formalist movement in literary theory that

dominated American literary criticism in the middle decades of the 20th century. It

emphasized close reading, particularly of poetry, to discover how a work of literature

functioned as a self-contained, self-referential aesthetic object. The movement derived its

name from John Crowe Ransom's 1941 book The New Criticism. The work of English

scholar I. A. Richards, especially his Practical Criticism and The Meaning of Meaning,

which offered what was claimed to be an empirical scientific approach, were important to

the development of New Critical methodology.[1] Also very influential were the critical

essays of T. S. Eliot, such as "Tradition and the Individual Talent" and "Hamlet and His

Problems", in which Eliot developed his notion of the "objective correlative". Eliot's

evaluative judgments, such as his condemnation of Milton and Shelley, his liking for the

so-called metaphysical poets and his insistence that poetry must be impersonal, greatly

influenced the formation of the New Critical canon.

Formalism theory

New Criticism developed as a reaction to the older philological and literary history

schools of the US North, which, influenced by nineteenth-century German scholarship,

focused on the history and meaning of individual words and their relation to foreign and

ancient languages, comparative sources, and the biographical circumstances of the

authors. These approaches, it was felt, tended to distract from the text and meaning of a

poem and entirely neglect its aesthetic qualities in favor of teaching about external

factors. On the other hand, the literary appreciation school, which limited itself to

pointing out the "beauties" and morally elevating qualities of the text, was disparaged by

the New Critics as too subjective and emotional. Condemning this as a version of

Romanticism, they aimed for newer, systematic and objective method.[2]

It was felt, especially by creative writers and by literary critics outside the academy, that

the special aesthetic experience of poetry and literary language was lost in the welter of
extraneous erudition and emotional effusions. Heather Dubrow notes that the prevailing

focus of literary scholarship was on "the study of ethical values and philosophical issues

through literature, the tracing of literary history, and ... political criticism". Literature was

approached and literary scholarship did not focus on analysis of texts.[3]

New Critics believed the structure and meaning of the text were intimately connected and

should not be analyzed separately. In order to bring the focus of literary studies back to

analysis of the texts, they aimed to exclude the reader's response, the author's intention,

historical and cultural contexts, and moralistic bias from their analysis. These goals were

articulated in Ransom's "Criticism, Inc." and Allen Tate's "Miss Emily and the

Bibliographers".

Close reading (or explication de texte) was a staple of French literary studies, but in the

United States, aesthetic concerns, and the study of modern poets was the province of non-

academic essayists and book reviewers rather than serious scholars. But the New

Criticism changed this. Though their interest in textual study initially met with resistance

from older scholars, the methods of the New Critics rapidly predominated in American

universities until challenged by Feminism and structuralism in the 1970s. Other schools

of critical theory, including, post-structuralism, and deconstructionist theory, the New

Historicism, and Receptions studies followed.

Although the New Critics were never a formal group, an important inspiration was the

teaching of John Crowe Ransom of Vanderbilt University, whose students (all

Southerners),Allen Tate, Cleanth Brooks, and Robert Penn Warren would go on to

develop the aesthetics that came to be known as the New Criticism. Indeed, for Paul
Lauter, a Professor of American Studies at Trinity College, New Criticism is a

reemergence of the Southern Agrarians.[4] In his essay, "The New Criticism", Cleanth

Brooks notes that "The New Critic, like the Snark, is a very elusive beast", meaning that

there was no clearly defined "New Critical" manifesto, school, or stance.[5] Nevertheless,

a number of writings outline inter-related New Critical ideas.

In 1946, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley published a classic and controversial

New Critical essay entitled "The Intentional Fallacy", in which they argued strongly

against the relevance of an author's intention, or "intended meaning" in the analysis of a

literary work. For Wimsatt and Beardsley, the words on the page were all that mattered;

importation of meanings from outside the text was considered irrelevant, and potentially

distracting.

In another essay, "The Affective Fallacy", which served as a kind of sister essay to "The

Intentional Fallacy" Wimsatt and Beardsley also discounted the reader's

personal/emotional reaction to a literary work as a valid means of analyzing a text. This

fallacy would later be repudiated by theorists from the reader-response school of literary

theory. Ironically, one of the leading theorists from this school, Stanley Fish, was himself

trained by New Critics. Fish criticizes Wimsatt and Beardsley in his essay "Literature in

the Reader" (1970).[6]

The hey-day of the New Criticism in American high schools and colleges was the Cold

War decades between 1950 and the mid-seventies, doubtless because it offered a

relatively straightforward and politically uncontroversial approach to the teaching of

literature. Brooks and Warren's Understanding Poetry and Understanding Fiction both

became staples during this era.

Studying a passage of prose or poetry in New Critical style required careful, exacting

scrutiny of the passage itself. Formal elements such as rhyme, meter, setting,

characterization, and plot were used to identify the theme of the text. In addition to the

theme, the New Critics also looked for paradox, ambiguity, irony, and tension to help

establish the single best and most unified interpretation of the text.

Although the New Criticism is no longer a dominant theoretical model in American

universities, some of its methods (like close reading) are still fundamental tools of literary

criticism, underpinning a number of subsequent theoretic approaches to literature

including poststructuralism, deconstruction theory, and reader-response theory.

New Criticism

It was frequently alleged that the New Criticism treated literary texts as autonomous and

divorced from historical context, and that its practitioners were “uninterested in the

human meaning, the social function and effect of literature.”

Indicative of the reader-response school of theory, Terence Hawkes writes that the

fundamental close reading technique is based on the assumption that “the subject and the

object of study—the reader and the text—are stable and independent forms, rather than

products of the unconscious process of signification," an assumption which he identifies

as the "ideology of liberal humanism,” which is attributed to the New Critics who are

“accused of attempting to disguise the interests at work in their critical processes.”[8] For
Hawkes, ideally, a critic ought to be considered to “[create] the finished work by his

reading of it, and [not to] remain simply an inert consumer of a ‘ready-made’ product.”[8]

In response to critics like Hawkes, Cleanth Brooks, in his essay "The New Criticism"

(1979), argued that the New Criticism was not diametrically opposed to the general

principles of reader-response theory and that the two could complement one another. For

instance, he stated, "If some of the New Critics have preferred to stress the writing rather

than the writer, so have they given less stress to the reader—to the reader's response to

the work. Yet no one in his right mind could forget the reader. He is essential for

'realizing' any poem or novel. . .Reader response is certainly worth studying." However,

Brooks tempers his praise for the reader-response theory by noting its limitations,

pointing out that, "to put meaning and valuation of a literary work at the mercy of any

and every individual [reader] would reduce the study of literature to reader psychology

and to the history of taste."

Another objection to the New Criticism is that it is thought to aim at making criticism

scientific, or at least “bringing literary study to a condition rivaling that of

science.”[7] René Wellek, however, points out the erroneous nature of this criticism by

noting that a number of the New Critics outlined their theoretical aesthetics in stark

contrast to the "objectivity" of the sciences (although Ransom, in his essay "Criticism,

Inc." did advocate that "criticism must become more scientific, or precise and

systematic").

At times, Wellek defended the New Critics in his essay “The New Criticism: Pro and

Contra” (1978).
Formal literary criticism focuses mainly on the clarity, quality and complexity of the

writing of the subject. A formal critic looks primarily at syntax, literary devices, and the

flow of the writing. Formalist literary criticism can be divided into two categories:

descriptive and prescriptive.

Descriptive formalism focuses on the technical analysis of the literary and linguistic

devices in texts, with especial regard for how these make a text 'literary' i.e. how the text

uses language in a special way which sets it apart from everyday discourse. Prescriptive

formalists advocate a style of literary writing which is as distinct as possible from

everyday discourse, as they believe that it is the responsibility of literary writers to make

readers see things in a new way.

Prescriptive formalism is often associated with Marxism; the early Soviet critic

Shlovsky argued that the function of literature was to "make the stone stonier" i.e. to use

the alienating effect of challenging devices in order to avoid offering up an immediate,

transparent meaning to readers so that they would have to engage actively with texts and

discover new meanings from them, in a way analogous to the development of political

consciousness. Bertold Brecht argued that such literary forms as satire operate through a

'Verfremdungseffekt' - i.e. they present the familiar in unfamiliar ways and therefore

arouse readers' and audiences' awareness of the ideological nature of their assumptions.

Descriptive formalism was at the heart of the New Criticism school which emerged at

Cambridge in the 1930s under F.R. Leavis, William Empson and Cleanth Brooks, and

which encouraged students to engage in 'practical criticism', looking at literary texts as

self-contained artefacts which should be explained on their own terms rather than by
reference to external information such as biographical and historical details. This

approach, encouraging close analytical reading, was very similar to that of the

structuralist school which emerged after the Second World War and was advocated by

figures such as Roland Barthes, Lacan, Bhaktin and Levi-Strauss.

READER-RESPONSE CRITICISM

Reader-Response criticism is not a subjective, impressionistic free-for-all, nor a

legitimizing of all half-baked, arbitrary, personal comments on literary works. Instead, it

is a school of criticism which emerged in the 1970s, focused on finding meaning in the

act of reading itself and examining the ways individual readers or communities of readers

experience texts. These critics raise theoretical questions regarding how the reader joins

with the author "to help the text mean." They determine what kind of reader or what

community of readers the work implies and helps to create. They also may examine the

significance of the series of interpretations the reader undergoes in the reading process.

Like New Critics, reader-response critics focus on what texts do; but instead of regarding

texts as self-contained entities, reader-response criticism plunges into what the New

Critics called the affective fallacy: what do texts do in the minds of the readers? In fact, a

text can exist only as activated by the mind of the reader. Thus, where formalists saw

texts as special, reader-response critics view them as temporal phenomena. And, as

Stanley Fish states, "It is not that the presence of poetic qualities compels a certain kind

of attention but that the paying of a certain kind of attention results in the emergence of

poetic qualities. Interpretation is not the art of construing but the art of constructing.

Interpreters do not decode poems; they make them" (326-327).

 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the research methodology which will be utilized in

answering the problems presented in Chapter 1. This includes the research method used,

locale of the study, and the subjects of the study used in analyzing the obtained data.

The researcher gathered the information through the use of library sources as the

books, journal and encyclopedias which serve as the primary sources of the paper and the

internet as the secondary sources.

3.1 Research Method

This study will utilize the quantitative type of research in identifying the three

different short stories written by Filipino writers.

3.2 Research Locale

This study will be conducted at Philippines.

3.3 The Respondents of the Study

The subjects of the study will include all the critics.

 CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Rice by Manuel Arguilla

Formalistic Approach

The story “Rice” is a narrative story describing the situation of rice farmers and their

family in Hacienda Consuelo. It was when the social condition is only on the side of

those in the higher class. At the beginning of the story you can actually feel the dark or

unpleasant feeling the characters is experiencing. Mang Pablo, the main character has

three children – two of them are boys and a little girl named Isabel. He is a thin dark man.

Thin because of inadequate food especially this season when they have no harvest. He is

dark in complexion because of everyday farming under the heat of the sun. Her wife

Sebia is also thin as indicated in the line “her skirts clung to her thin legs...” The couple

Andres and Osiang is the neighbour of Mang Pablo. There is also a rude senora and a

watchman in the rice field. Other farmer named Elis act as the leader of the farmers. Elis

and Andres aspire for changes or merely they just want a just arrangement for the rice

they borrowed to senora. It is the farmers against the immoral senora. Because of the

situation, farmers start to complain about the arrangement that for every five cavans of

rice they borrowed, they have to pay it for ten cavans and that even a handful of snails

from the rice field costs five cavans of rice. Farmers plan to ambush the truck loaded of

rice that are about to deliver in the city. Andres find it better to steal that rice than to have

nothing to eat because for him it is not stealing like the statement suggests “it is not

stealing...the rice is ours.” Mang Pablo chose not to go with the plan of Elis and Andres
but Pablo cant take to see his family especially his children crying because they have

nothing to eat. In the end, Mang Pablo decided to go with Elis and Andres. He said “we

shall have food tonight!” that clearly shows that Mang Pablo is a father that will do

anything for his family even stealing.

The Wedding Dance by Amador T. Daguio

Honour and dignity are signatures of men. These two things are significant because for

them men are naturally born to be respected. Women, on the other hand, are known for

their love and caring. When they love, they could give everything beyond their

capabilities.

The story, ”The Wedding Dance”, is just simply the portrayal, the shadow, the mirror,

and the mere representation of the two different individual, a man and a woman. Awiyao

represents a well-defined being. His characteristics as a person are bold, passionate, a

good follower, and at the same time seeking the honor and dignity for himself. Lumnay

as a woman is defined to be unselfish, faithful, and ultimately strong. She is very

courageous and has the will to give all the things that she could give to her husband.

In the story, we could see how passionate Awiyao was. He was a dreamer. He wants to

have a child. For him, having a child is a fulfillment of a lifetime. But here’s Lumnay.

Even though she was forced by Awiyao to find another man, she can’t be unfaithful to

her husband. All she ever wanted was to be with him. She doesn’t want another man; she

just wants to be with Awiyao for the rest of her life.

The Wedding Dance is not just a simple story of two lovers. It is a story of passion and
love, a story of sacrificing and believing, a story of being faithful and a good follower, a

story of honor and dignity, and of course, a story of love and caring.

The Wedding dance tells tge reader "that there could be a conflict between your personal
love and love for one's people (tribe) and culture and jn some cases culture prevails"

The story clearly demonstrates how their culture prevents Lumnay and Awiyao from

loving reach other and living together as husband and wife. Thier love for each other is

revealed through their conversation. Awiyao, no matter what how it pains him to leave

lLumnay has to conform to the social dictates. Lumnay, no matter how much she loves

Awiyao chose to give in to their unwritten law.

There could also be an underlying theme of the story that is love as self sacrifice. The

couple, Lumnay and Awiyao has to give up thier for their love not only because of what

their culture dictates but also save each other from the scorn of society. In Awiyao's case

he had been mocked being childless because a man to be considered a man should have a

child.

How My Brother Leon Brought Home a Wife by Manuel E. Arguilla

When I first read "How My Brother Leon Brought Home A Wife," I was in fourth grade.

And just like any fourth grader, it didn't mean anything to me. Or perhaps it did, albeit in

a very shallow, childish way. I remember thinking that Maria is a clever and sweet girl

when she called Leon Noel. See, it's Leon spelled backwards! Oh, the simple satisfaction

of a child's discovery.

Reading it again several years after, proved to be more than an eye-opener. The short

story is not just a recollection of an afternoon adventure with a brother's fiancé. It's a plan

made with good intentions, but was executed with apparent cruelty.
The short story opened with a simple but direct (and quite pictorial) description of Maria.

She stepped down from the carretela of Ca Celin with a quick, delicate grace. She was

lovely. She was tall. She looked up to my brother with a smile, and her forehead was on a

level with his mouth.

… Her nails were long, but they were not painted. She was fragrant like a morning when

papayas are in bloom. And a small dimple appeared momently high on her right cheek.

From here, all the other descriptions sprang from Maria. Baldo, Leon's younger brother,

see things only as Maria's periphery. The narrative flow becomes based on whatever

Maria looks at, touches, or whoever comes near Maria. She seems to be a beautiful light

source, and any object only becomes relevant when touched by her radiance.

Baldo was the one tasked to bring Leon and Maria to their house. But instead of

following camino real (which I believe was the main road), Baldo guided Labang (the

carabao) the other way -- back to where Ca Celin dropped them off and into the fields.

This is where things get mysterious … and awkward.

When I sent Labang down the deep cut that would take us to the dry bed of the Waig

which could be used as a path to our place during the dry season, my brother Leon laid a

hand on my shoulder and said sternly:

"Who told you to drive through the fields tonight?"

His hand was heavy on my shoulder, but I did not look at him or utter a word until we

were on the rocky bottom of the Waig.

"Baldo, you fool, answer me before I lay the rope of Labang on you. Why do you follow

the Waig instead of the camino real?"

His fingers bit into my shoulder.

"Father, he told me to follow the Waig tonight, Manong."

Swiftly, his hand fell away from my shoulder and he reached for the rope of Labang.

Then my brother Leon laughed, and he sat back, and laughing still, he said:

"And I suppose Father also told you to hitch Labang to the cart and meet us with him

instead of with Castano and the calesa."

What's admirable in Leon's personality is his calmness. He might have already sensed

that something is awry, yet, just like most Filipinos, he chose to dwell on positive things.

Without waiting for me to answer, he turned to her and said, "Maria, why do you think

Father should do that, now?" He laughed and added, "Have you ever seen so many stars

before?"

And so they looked at the stars, and sang. They still sang even after the cart's wheels hit a

big rock. And Baldo noticed that Leon and Maria's world is no doubt full of happiness.

After realizing that they are getting nearer Leon's home, Maria expressed her fear that his

father may not like her.

Upon reaching their house, Leon immediately looked for his father. But it was Baldo for

whom the old man called.

"Did you meet anybody on the way?" he asked.

"No, Father," I said. "Nobody passes through the Waig at night."

He reached for his roll of tobacco and hitched himself up in the chair.

"She is very beautiful, Father."

"Was she afraid of Labang?" My father had not raised his voice, but the room seemed to

resound with it.

And again I saw her eyes on the long curving horns and the arm of my brother Leon

around her shoulders.

"No, Father, she was not afraid."

"On the way---"

"She looked at the stars, Father. And Manong Leon sang."

"What did he sing?"

"---Sky Sown with Stars... She sang with him."

He was silent again.

When Leon and Maria entered the old man's room, Baldo was told to water Labang. And

on his way out, he can’t help but notice Maria again.

I looked at Maria and she was lovely. She was tall. Beside my brother Leon, she was tall

and very still. Then I went out, and in the darkened hall the fragrance of her was like a

morning when papayas are in bloom.

The story started and ended in the description of the same person. It is easy to think that

the story isn't about Leon. It is about Maria.

In fact, the road Leon's father told Baldo to take is also for Maria. If one considers how

Baldo and Leon had difficulty in tying Labang to the cart, and even guiding him to the

part where the camino real curves (because Labang wanted to go straight on), it is very

apparent that even the animal isn't used to taking that road.

Why the old man decided that the visitor ride on the hay in a cart (in her high heels) and

pass by the field instead of a more comfortable calesa in a shorter road isn't answered.

The interrogation of Baldo (which doesn't provide straight answers, too) seemed to be

inevitable, but nonetheless significant.

The epiphany in the story is very subtle. The falling action quite abrupt. What could

remain in the readers' minds is the question of how Maria would keep her composure in

front of the old man considering the journey they have just taken. She doesn't appear to

have enough time to gather her thoughts and feeling, any more than she has time to rest.

And in the end. That's what the old man wants -- to see her for what she really is.

In his novel The Winner Stands Alone, Paulo Coelho wrote, “Life has many ways of

testing a person's will, either by having nothing happen at all or by having everything

happen all at once.” He implies that life is full of surprises. And a person's character is

reflected by his or her reactions for both scenarios.

In Maria's case, everything seemed to happen all at once: her desire to look the best she

could, only to be part of an uncomfortable journey, and then face a man whom everybody

seemed to be scared of.

Instead of complaining, she spoke calmly, remained full of gaiety and laughter and

finesse, and admired the beauty of nature that Ermita is forever bereft. She may not have

gone through the tests of Psyche and Savitri, but in her own difficult journey, she stood

out for what she really is -- a beautiful woman inside and out.
 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

SUMMARY

Rice by Manuel Arguilla

An afternoon on a hut with a tamarind tree beside it, Pablo, an old farmer, came from

the farm and unhitched his carabao upon its empty sled and began to feed it with a zacate.

Then, he called her wife, Sebia, from their hut but no one answers him. He goes to the

neighborhood to ask if they’ve seen Sebia and his children but Osiang, their neighbor,

seems not hearing what Mang Pablo is asking and give a question back regarding his

husband Andres. Later sometime Osing told Mang Pablo that his wife and three children

went to the creek for some snails.

Mang Pablo reminisce the scenario later that morning when he with the several other

tenants driven with their sleds to the house of the senora to borrow some grains. But as

they go changes come, their usual tersiohan system on borrowing became takipan

meaning the amount that they borrow becomes double at harvest time. His co-tenants

refuse for this is too much and can’t even know if they can pay it exactly at the time

given. In the end everyone leave with an empty sled and will come home without any rice

to eat.

Then, Osiang’s voice broke the silence. Asking if he had already cook their rice and

offered him pieces of coal. When he is about to go back home Andres came and give a

sign telling he must wait for him. Andres – dark, broad and squat man, wearing a printed
camisa de chino appeared asking Mang Pablo if he is coming with them. Mang Pablo

advice him not to continue this because they will commit stealing but Andres together

with other men is desperate.

As he turned, he had seen wife and three children and was accompanied with a man.

The man told him that they are fishing in the fields but Sebia disagreed and told him that

they are just gathering some snails. Then, the watchman told Mang Pablo that they must

pay five cavanes. Sebia is asking for the rice but Mang Pablo told him that there is no rice

while looking in his hungry children seeing weakness and pain then he asks for his bolo

joining Andres and together they walked to the house of Eli.

How My Brother Leon Brought Home a Wife by Manuel E. Arguilla

The story “How My Brother Leon Brought Home a Wife” was set during the 1930s in

Nagrebcan, Bauang La Union. The place is a province and we know that the people who

are living there would most likely be the farmers. The story is told in the 1 st person point

of view and this narrator is Baldo, the younger brother of Leon. His older brother is Noel

but named by Maria as Leon. As what Baldo realized: “But it was only the name of my

brother Leon said backward and it sounded much better that way.” Another major

character found in the story is Maria who is the wife of Leon. For Baldo, her name is

“sosyal” and it is obvious that she comes from a city.

The conflict shown in the story is centered between Maria and herself, as well as the

society by which Baldo and Leon lived in. We know that Maria is from a city while her

husband Leon is from a province. Maria is concerned if she’s going to be accepted or not

by Leon’s family despite of her social status. She was even tested if she is worthy to be
the wife of Leon. This was seen when Baldo ignored his older brother’s question about

why did they have to go to Waig instead of Camino Real.

I think Maria is a good character in the story. I like Maria not because she’s kind and

lovely, but because she is not the typical “matapobre” as seen in the story. She is indeed

a sympathetic woman. In fact, Maria was a bit anxious because of meeting Leon and

Baldo’s parents for the first time. Maria is worried that she will not be accepted by

Leon’s father because she may not able to adapt their way of living in the province.

However, on their way home, she discovered the differences of the life of the people

lived there and the life in the city where she met and fell in love with Leon. We can see

Maria’s response when Leon asked her: “You miss the houses, and the cars, and the

people and the noise, don’t you?” My brother Leon stopped singing. “Yes, but in a

different way. I am glad they are not here.” I appreciate her the most simply because she

accepted and respected Leon for what he really is. She didn’t care what Leon’s life back

in Nagrebcan. She was a supportive and a loving wife to Leon. She was so endearing and

kind-hearted lady. She was very keen to meet Leon’s family. It is somewhat discouraging

that the rural is different from the city but the closer they get to the house, Maria still

managed to overcome any trials. She admits for having some fear, but she also shows

clearly it did not stop her. I believe that social status is not a hindrance if you truly love

each other.

The first theme of this story is that no matter what it takes to be with the one you love,

you will do anything to be with that person. I know that having a long and strong

relationship with the person you love is seldom nowadays. People tend to love one
another at first but eventually end up being bitter. Well, that kind of relationship is not a

true love after all. If I’m going to apply this significant theme or message to the life of

Filipinos then it can be said that as Filipinos, we are very emotional when we think of

true love. We also care about true love. There are Filipinos who turn to sacrifice and

endure things just to be happy. If you are sacrificing it truly means that you value and you

truly love this person (Adofina et al., 2013). In the story, we can see that Maria will

sacrifice anything just to be happy with Leon, her only love. I can say that this love is

true and genuine. This kind of love then is truly authentic.

Another theme that is portrayed in the story is the saying that “Don’t judge the book by

its cover.” Baldo, when he first saw Maria, was surprised to see that his brother Leon

accompanied a woman who is different from them because of her name, as well as lovely

and beautiful appearance. He said to himself that: “He did not say Maring. He did not say

Mayang. I knew then that he had always called her Maria and that to us all she would be

Maria; and in my mind I said ‘Maria’ and it was a beautiful name.” It is then obvious for

Baldo that Maria came from a city. As a person living in a province, he has already the

belief that people like Maria doesn’t belong to them and is impossible to adapt their way

of living in the province. But despite of the test ordered by his father, Baldo somehow

realized that Maria is also a friend and should be treated like them knowing that she

proved worthy of it.

We can also see Filipino values or traits that are revealed within the story. One trait is the

goal to obtain one’s trust most especially when you want your parents to have a

permission to marry your chosen loved one. Filipino parents are very hard to impress. It
is hard to get their trust as well. But what Maria did in the test that the father of Baldo

and Leon gave to her proved that she really deserved and love Leon. She will sacrifice

anything to be happy and be with her only love. Another value that is revealed within the

story is living a life of contentment. Filipinos who live in the province are very well

known to be simple yet they are contented for what they have. They are happy with small

things and appreciate what they have and how they live life.

The one-act play “Wanted: A Chaperon” was set in the living room which was simply

furnished one Sunday morning, at about eleven. It is a comedy. The story is told in the 3 rd

person point of view. The characters involved in this play were Don Francisco the father,

Doña Petra the mother, Nena their daughter, Roberting their son, Doña Dolores, Fred her

son, Francisco a.k.a. “Francis” the servant, and Pablo the mayordomo. The play was

written in a way that is simple, usual, and humorous.

The play is all about the traditional way of courting and accompanying women on a party

and in other occasions which means that the portrayal of old customs are seen in that

play. Don Francisco is so strict not just with Roberting during the money conversation,

but also with his daughter Nena because he doesn’t want Nena to go on a party or in any

occasions unchaperoned most especially she’s a lady. We can see this when Don

Francisco had a conversation with his son Roberting: “You young modern people. Do you

realize that in my time when I was courting your mother, her father, her mother, her

three sisters, her young brother, her grandmother, five first cousins and two distant

relatives sat in the sala with us?” He also added the reason of what he said about

courting: “Because in those days we were more careful about a woman’s reputation.”
One night, Nena goes out with Fred, her friend. Unfortunately, rumors right after their

date were spread. Many people think that something bad is happened to the two of them.

And for the townspeople, it’s inevitable. Until Doña Dolores, mother of Fred, goes to the

house of Don Francisco insisting that something happened between his son and Nena. It

is Doña Dolores’ plan to insist his son Fred to Nena but nothing really happened in fact.

The same situation is happened to Don Francisco’s son Roberting at the end of the play.

So to avoid these issues Don Francisco and Doña Dolores look for chaperons for their

children to guide them instead of the muchacho (servant) (Casuyon, 2011).

The writer poked fun at middle-class characters grappling with the problem of

Americanization (Lumbera B. and Lumbera C., 2005). To use a Marxism approach for

this play, we can see how Don Francisco wanted to call himself as someone who is high

than their servant Francisco. He even changed Francisco’s name into Francis to avoid

confusion. Francis often gets into trouble and that’s why he was being yelled by Don

Francisco.

The message or the theme of the play is that our traditional culture, customs, and ways of

living must always be alive in our heart knowing that these are now fading most

especially in the technological age by which we are living in. We have been adopting

other countries’ cultures or activities that we are not open to our own culture. Don

Francisco said that: “Outward things change, like the styles of women’s dresses and

men’s ties, but the human heart remains the same.” I think the play is a best example on

how we should live our life with our own. That is why there is a saying in Filipino that
says: “Dapat nating mahalin ang sariling atin.” We should then live life in accordance to

our original beliefs that our ancestors wants these teachings to be a mark for us Filipinos.

Another theme in the play is the giving of importance to the reputation of women. As we

all know, most young women nowadays are getting too liberated. They are liberated in

terms of their sexual behaviors or clothing ways that men would easily tempted to them.

As a result, they’ll end up being harassed or raped. They’ll also end up being pregnant in

an early age which can also lead to abortion. However, the play only reminds us that

young women should behave in their daily living. It’s important for them not to be

influenced too much by the other cultures most especially some Westerners and

Americans who are sexually liberated. Filipino young women from the past used to be

conservative and modest. They were accompanied and courted by their parents or

relatives whenever they have occasions. We all know, for some reason, that women are

treated equally. But they should also learn and strive to live life carefully and wisely most

especially in the present time.

Also, there are people who tend to be so judgmental nowadays. They easily give

comments and opinions to other people without certain evidences. They are gossipers

who make the issues very complicated (Casuyon, 2011). I think, we have to get rid of this

unpleasant attitude as well because this would definitely causes a lot of trouble.

Now, we can see clearly the differences between the two works above. In terms of their

similarity, Arguilla’s short story and Guererro’s play portrayed the socio-economic

problems in Philippine society. The characters think that social status really defines them.

We can see that Maria is from a city while her husband Leon is from a province. Maria is
concerned if she’s going to be accepted or not by Leon’s family despite of her social

status. We can also see that Don Francisco thinks himself as high than their servant

Francisco by treating him immorally. He has a conflict with that kind of situation

The Wedding Dance by Amador Daguio

Awiyao and Lumnay were husband and wife for seven years, but now the husband has to

marry another woman, Madulimay, because Lumnay was not able to give him a child. (In

their culture in the mountains during those times, having a child to follow after the

husband’s name was a must.)

On the night of the wedding, Awiyao goes to his and Lumnay’s house to personally

invite her to the traditional wedding dance. However, Lumnay, the best dancer in the

entire tribe, refuses to go. Then, during their conversation, it is revealed that both of them

still love each other, but because of their tribe’s custom, they have to separate.

Awiyao goes back to the wedding, to the wedding dance, after being fetched by

some friends. Lumnay wants to follow, partly because of the dance, and partly because

she wants to put a stop to their tribe’s tradition of having to marry another partner just to

have a child.

CONCLUSION

The three stories mentioned above are all good stories because we can get here a

moral lesson. On the story wedding dance, Honor and dignity is signatures of men. These

two things are significant because for them men are naturally born to be respected.

Women, on the other hand, are known for their love and caring. When they love, they

could give everything beyond their capabilities. The Wedding Dance is not just a simple
story of two lovers. It is a story of passion and love, a story of sacrificing and believing, a

story of being faithful and a good follower, a story of honor and dignity, and of course, a

story of love and caring.

While for the story “How my brother Leon brought home a wife” we can see that

the theme of the story is Love makes Maria and Leon go straight whatever struggles

come will be ignore to them. But despite of their differences still we can get a moral

lesson here. First, we should respect and accept one's life. Second, Social status is not a

hindrance if you truly love each other. Third, Meeting your special someone to your

family is the right thing to do. And lastly, one may have to sacrifice small part of his/her

life in order to have a happy life. And on the other hand, the third story entitled “Rice”

the only main theme is "That even the righteous man can do anything just for his family's

sake"

The works of Arguilla are very good pieces because of the elements of fiction used and

the way these stories were familiarized. These works are great because of the subject

matters and styles of writing used by outstanding writers and playwrights during the time

of American Colonial period. I can say that we should learn to make a difference in our

lives because having a chance is the greatest gift we can receive. Don’t let things like

social status defines us. We should learn to be sympathetic and understanding persons to

others, be able to adopt our old ways of living at least, be happy, and be wise. In these

ways, we can live life meaningfully.

Rice by Manuel Arguilla

"Rice" is a terribly sad story set among very poor rural people who make their living

from growing rice. The story starts out with Pablo and his beloved carabao (water

buffalo). These animals are normally very gentle and are often almost parts of the

family inspite of their huge size. The description of Pablo taking the carabao to feed was

very beautiful and moving. We see the house Pablo shares with his wife and family. "As

he looked at the house Pablo did not see how squalid it was." He calls out to his wife

but she does not answer so he asks a neighbor woman if she knows where his wife

went. The woman has no rice in the house. For those outside the country, rice is the

basic foodstuff of the country, often eaten with every meal. To not have rice is basically

to not have food. The only food they have in the house is some snails they collected in

the rice fields. They have to hide them from the guards of the plantation owner as they

are supposed to pay for taking even snails from the fields. The families have only one

way to get rice to hold them over before the harvest comes in. They can borrow sacks of

rice from the plantation owner, to be repaid back two sacks for one.

How My Brother Leon Brought Home a Wife by Manuel E. Arguilla

Arguilla's short story can be read as the uneasy intermingling of two approaching social

spheres, the urban and the rural. This is in many ways a fish out of water story, Maria is

out of her element in the countryside and Leon out of his element in attempting to

reconnect with his father (who is the mastermind behind much of the plot) and convince

him that Maria is a worthy daughter in law.

The wife, Maria, is distinctively of the city. Her references are urban, It is so many times

bigger and brighter than it was at Ermita beach. and she has to be instructed in the proper

way of riding a cart, Maria, sit down on the hay and hold on to anything. There too is the

tentativeness in which she approaches the carabao Labang, She hesitated and I saw that

her eyes were on the long, curving horns.

Moreover, she carries with her as well the slight imperiousness of the city, shown when

she identifies the narrator as if bestowing his name, 'You are Baldo,' she said and placed

her hand lightly on my shoulder.

Adding to Maria's allure is her distinctiveness other-ness which quickly besots the

narrator, Baldo. He repeatedly describes her as fragrant like a morning when papayas are

in bloom. Other characters in the story are similarly taken by Maria, a woman very

different from those they are accustomed, I watched Ca Celin, where he stood in front of

his horse, and he ran his fingers through its forelock and could not keep his eyes away

from her.

If Maria is encountering the countryside for the first time her husband, Leon, is

reintroducing himself to it. Simply put, the country folk are no longer sure of Leon who

has gone off to the city and studies, gotten a new name, and then returned with a

Manilena for a wife. As Baldo muses to himself, Now where did she get that name? I

pondered the matter quietly to myself, thinking Father might not like it. But it was only

the name of my brother Leon said backward and it sounded much better that way.
This unease with the couple is illustrated by the arduous path home they are made to take

by Leon's father. The way home is a test, of both Maria and Leon. The drive along the

dry river bed is bumpy and uncomfortable, The jolting became more frequent and painful

as we crossed the low dikes. Furthermore the path is dark and isolated, sure to test the

mettle of someone faint of heart, All the laughter seemed to have gone out of her...

Nobody passes through the Waig at night.

In the end, Maria passes the test and the patriarch, Father, begins to accept his new

daughter in law. That Maria has passed, has begun to become accepted by the

countryfolk, is seen in the final image of the story, where her scent begins to diffuse

throughout the family home, Then I went out, and in the darkened hall the fragrance of

her was like a morning when papayas are in bloom.

The Wedding Dance by Amador Daguio

The story, ”The Wedding Dance”, is just simply the portrayal, the shadow, the mirror,

and the mere representation of the two different individual, a man and a woman. Awiyao

represents a well-defined being. His characteristics as a person are bold, passionate, a

good follower, and at the same time seeking the honor and dignity for himself. Lumnay

as a woman is defined to be unselfish, faithful, and ultimately strong. She is very

courageous and has the will to give all the things that she could give to her husband.
RECOMMENDATION

The researcher recommends to the future critics to use the different approaches in literary

criticism as such formalistic approach, Marxism, Feminism, and Reader-response theory.

It is important to the future critics to know what exactly the content of the works as

formalistic theory says. And also the researcher recommends to read the works of

Filipino writers specially the works of Amador Daguio and Manuel E. Arguilla because

you can get her a lot of moral lesson. As a critic also, established your opinion about the

works using the reader response theory.

 WORKS CITED

 Abrams, M.H. A Glossary of Literary Terms. 7th ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace
College Publishers, 1999.
 Adofina, J., Endon, D., & Reyes J., (2013). A report on how my brother leon
brought home a wife. Retrieved March 3, 2015 from
http://www.slideshare.net/sicachi/how-my-brother-leon-brought-home-a-wife-
28707267
 Biddle, Arthur W., and Toby Fulwiler. Reading, Writing, and the Study of
Literature. NY: Random House, 1989.
 Brooks, Cleanth. The Well Wrought Urn: Studies in the Structure of Poetry. New
York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1947.
 Casuyon, J. (2011). Plot of wanted: a chaperon. Retrieved March 10, 2015
from http://stylistcasuyon.blogspot.com/2011/03/worksheet-1-wanted-
chaperon.html
 Cowan, Louise. The Fugitive Group: A Literary History. Baton Rouge, La.:
Louisiana State University Press, 1959.
 Fish, Stanley. Is There A Text in This Class? Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1980.
 http://www.philippinestudies.net/ojs/index.php/ps/article/viewFile/2164/4194
 Lynn, Steven. Texts and Contexts: Writing About Literature with Critical Theory.
2nd ed. NY: Longman, 1998.
 Murfin, Ross, and Supryia M. Ray. The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary
Terms. Boston: Bedford Books, 1997.
 Ransom, John Crowe. The World’s Body. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1938.
 Tate, Allen. Essays of Four Decades. 3rd ed. Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 1999
 Winchell, Mark Royden. Cleanth Brooks and the Rise of Modern Criticism.
Charlottesville, Va.: University Press of Virginia, 1996.