ÖZETLENMİŞ İNCELEME
Puan vermedi·128 syf.·
2026 15. kitabı
ÖZETLENMİŞ İNCELEME
Vitruvius’un Gölgesinde Kalan Kadın: Ralph Fox’un “Roman ve Halk”ında Eril Evrensellik ve Edebiyatta Kadının Yokluğu
Özet
Ralph Fox’un “Roman ve Halk” (1937) eseri, Marksist edebiyat eleştirisi içinde, kapitalist yabancılaşmaya karşı “Bütünlüklü İnsan” (The Whole Man) idealini öne çıkaran temel bir metindir. Ancak, Fox’un bu ideali inşa ederken temel referansı olan Rönesans hümanizmi ve onun simgesi “Vitruvius Adamı”, görünüşte evrensel, özünde ise derin bir şekilde eril (masculine) bir özne tasarımıdır. Bu makale, Fox’un “epik kahraman” ve “Bütünlüklü İnsan” arayışını, Vitruviusçu bir erkeklik kurgusu olarak feminist bir perspektiften eleştirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Argümanımız, Fox’un evrensel olduğunu varsaydığı “İnsan” kategorisinin, aslında Batılı, erkek ve burjuva bir özneyi merkeze alarak, kadını bu evrensellik anlatısının dışına ittiği veya onu ikincil, tamamlayıcı bir konuma hapsettiği üzerine kuruludur. Makale, öncelikle Vitruvius Adamı imgesinin tarihsel ve cinsiyetçi doğasını ortaya koyacak; ardından Fox’un bu imgeyi edebiyat teorisine nasıl aktardığını ve bunun “kahraman”, “yaratıcı deha” ve “tarihin öznesi” gibi kavramları nasıl eril bir şekilde kodladığını analiz edecektir. Son olarak, bu eril evrensellik iddiasının, edebiyat tarihi ve eleştirisinde kadın yazarların, karakterlerin ve deneyimlerinin sistematik olarak “yok sayılması”, marjinalleştirilmesi veya çarpıtılarak temsil edilmesiyle nasıl doğrudan bir ilişkisi olduğu, Virginia Woolf, Simone de Beauvoir ve Elaine Showalter gibi feminist teorisyenlerin çalışmalarına atıfla gösterilecektir. Fox’un kapitalizm eleştirisi değerli olmakla birlikte, önerdiği estetik ideal, ataerkil tahayyüllerle iç içe geçmiş olduğu için, kadının edebi ve tarihsel varlığına dair kapsayıcı ve
A Critical Review of Humankind
Rutger Bregman’s book Humankind is one of the books that questions negative ideas about human nature and makes readers think. For many years, many people believed that humans are naturally selfish, bad, and only care about themselves. However, Bregman does not agree with this idea. According to him, human nature is not as dark as people think. Instead, people are more willing to help each other, understand others’ feelings, and do good things. In the book, the author supports these ideas with many examples from wars, psychology experiments, history, and biology. One of the best parts of the book is that it gives hope about humanity. Still, when I finished the book, I did not only feel admiration. On one side, I was happy to read it because it made me think differently. On the other side, some of the author’s ideas felt too optimistic to me. Because of this, the book was both interesting and questionable for me.
One of the strongest parts of the book is that it makes people question ideas about human nature that many accept without thinking. Today, we often see violence, murder, wars, and fights on television, social media, and in the news. After some time, people start to believe that the world is full of bad people. At this point, Bregman asks an important question: If humans were really bad by nature, how could societies survive for so many years? A big part of human history was shaped by helping each other, working together, and surviving together. From this side, the writer’s ideas are important and meaningful.
His ideas against the belief that humans are naturally wild are especially interesting. Today, when someone behaves badly, people sometimes say, “Did you grow up in a cave?” However, Bregman says that hunter-gatherer societies were not as violent as many
Reklam
It is not a book that is published with a lot of claims. So I can say that I really enjoyed reading it with the writer's style and it's on words but it is not too necessary to read it if you don't conduct a research about the writer or doing anything related. But it was a gripping book and it kept me eager to read. But I would like it more if the message of the stories were a bit more visible and blatant. right now I feel like it is a book that I will forget in a few days
In Amis’s famous novel, London Fields, the witty language is used and highlighted in the book repatedly. With the use of wit and pan (word play) Amis creates one of the most intelligent written novel ‘London Fields’. These uses of high elevated language and word plays also gives us the hints of postmodern fiction. As the novel is considered one of the best novel representing postmodernism, one can appreciate it due to the style that the novel is written, by means of wit and language. To give examples from the book;
-It was fixed. It was written. The murderer was not the murderer. But the murderee had always been a murderee.
The quote from Samson Young foreshadows that the real murderer is not the one we think, it will change. However the murderee ‘Nicola’ will always be the victim, not be affected by the inconstant murderer.
- I know what his poetry will be about. What poetry is always about. The cruelty of the poet’s mistress.
In this quote we can also sense the metaphor that is made to Nicola. Here Samson , as a writer, claims that the poets are writing poetry due to the relationship between their mistresses. It is known that Young also writes a novel about Nicola, creating the same plot with the poets he criticizes.
-I close my eyes, trying to see a way- how do writers dare do what they do ? – and there is just chaos. It seems to me that writing brings trouble with it, moral trouble, unexamined trouble. Even to the best.
-When God got mad he was a jealous God. He had other planets, thanks, and in better parts of the universe. He promised plague, famine mile-high tides, sound-speed winds and terror, ubiquitous and incessant terror, with blood flowing bridle deep. He threatened to make her old and keep her that way forever… Cross that firebreak and then cross that
I finished The Thing on the Doorstep and Other Weird Stories by H.P.Lovecraft. I already read these stories but in turkish. So reading in English was a language hurdle: I could read the writer's original thought. So it was a hard but fun adventure.
Puan vermedi
“Russia! Russia! What is the incomprehensible, mysterious force that draws me to you? Why does your mournful song, carried along your whole length and breadth from sea to sea, each and re-echo incessantly in my ears? What is there in that song? What is it that calls, and sobs, and clutches at my heart? What are those sounds that caress me so poignantly, that go straight to my soul and twine about my heart? Russia! What do you want from me? What is that mysterious, hidden bond between us?”
How the affectione love for this gray country is reflected, Gogol himself is encountered by the harsh dilemma of whether to love or to complain aboout the country itself. He reveals the deep corruption of the russian society including the bureaucratic absurdity that is shown by the officials. Although the city is corrupted, he cannot hold himself without expressing the mysterious, hidden bond between him and his hometown. Even though he is complaining and creating a social satire for Russia, at the same time he accepts that he is part of this system as well, as being a russian. He admits that he has some 'Russia' in him, symbolizng both the corruption and the sweet-sound home. As well as Chichikov, the writer himself is facing the conflict caused by 'being a part of something' whether the whole thing is a negative or a positive statement.
Reklam
Reklam