Re-writing Myth: An Analysis of Margaret Atwood’s The Penelopiad

Namrata Nistandra
{"title":"Re-writing Myth: An Analysis of Margaret Atwood’s The Penelopiad","authors":"Namrata Nistandra","doi":"10.31178/ubr.11.2.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Myths provide a fertile ground for adaptation and appropriation. The preoccupation of writers with the stories and characters from the margins leads to interesting variations of age-old stories. As a consequence, the familiar stories are re-worked and transformed as an act of subversion. The embedded mythical framework in the revised text enriches its meaning infinitely. This paper is an attempt to understand Atwood’s text as trying to fill in some gaps in Homer’s Odyssey. As a feminist writer, Atwood re-visits the canonical text from a new perspective. She attempts “not to pass on a tradition but break its hold over us” (Rich). The re-writing of grand narratives becomes a strategy whereby a shift in power becomes possible. Atwood’s text is subtitled ‘The Story of Penelope and Odysseus’ making the shift quite clear. The narrative voice alternates between Penelope’s disembodied spirit from the underworld and the chorus of her twelve, faithful maids. The Penelopiad, in this way, becomes a polyphonic text where the different voices blend and clash and no final, authoritative meaning is possible. The re-working, thus, becomes an act of liberation.","PeriodicalId":306553,"journal":{"name":"University of Bucharest Review. Literary and Cultural Studies Series","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Bucharest Review. Literary and Cultural Studies Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31178/ubr.11.2.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

: Myths provide a fertile ground for adaptation and appropriation. The preoccupation of writers with the stories and characters from the margins leads to interesting variations of age-old stories. As a consequence, the familiar stories are re-worked and transformed as an act of subversion. The embedded mythical framework in the revised text enriches its meaning infinitely. This paper is an attempt to understand Atwood’s text as trying to fill in some gaps in Homer’s Odyssey. As a feminist writer, Atwood re-visits the canonical text from a new perspective. She attempts “not to pass on a tradition but break its hold over us” (Rich). The re-writing of grand narratives becomes a strategy whereby a shift in power becomes possible. Atwood’s text is subtitled ‘The Story of Penelope and Odysseus’ making the shift quite clear. The narrative voice alternates between Penelope’s disembodied spirit from the underworld and the chorus of her twelve, faithful maids. The Penelopiad, in this way, becomes a polyphonic text where the different voices blend and clash and no final, authoritative meaning is possible. The re-working, thus, becomes an act of liberation.
重新书写神话:玛格丽特·阿特伍德《佩内洛普》分析
神话为改编和挪用提供了肥沃的土壤。作家对故事和空白处人物的专注导致了古老故事的有趣变化。因此,熟悉的故事被重新制作和改造,作为一种颠覆行为。修订文本中所嵌入的神话框架使其意义无限丰富。本文试图将阿特伍德的文本理解为试图填补荷马《奥德赛》中的一些空白。作为一名女权主义作家,阿特伍德从一个新的视角重新审视了经典文本。她试图“不传递传统,而是打破它对我们的控制”(里奇)。对宏大叙事的重写成为一种策略,从而使权力的转移成为可能。阿特伍德的文本副标题是“佩内洛普和奥德修斯的故事”,这使得这种转变非常明显。叙述的声音在佩内洛普从地下世界出来的灵魂和她十二个忠实女仆的合唱之间交替。通过这种方式,《佩内洛普》变成了一个复调的文本,不同的声音混合在一起,相互冲突,不可能有最终的,权威的意义。因此,重新工作成为一种解放的行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信