Borrowers Physicians and Literary Theoreticians

8/10/2019 Borrowers Physicians and Literary Theoreticians

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/borrowers-physicians-and-literary-theoreticians 1/14

Petrusevska

Biljana Petrusevska

Prof. Zoran Ancevski, PhD

Anglo-Saxon Literary Theories

!th A"ril #$$

Borro%ers, Physicians an& Literary Theoreticians

'ith the (oun&aries of ti)e, s"ace an& &istance (eing (roken &o%n so easily in recent

ti)es, it has (eco)e in&is"ensa(le for us hu)ans to atte)"t (uil&ing the to%er of Ba(ylon

again. Para&ox is so)ething %e ex"erience every &ay, the %orl& has (een shrunk to its

)ini)al si*e an& our reach an& hori*on has (een a)"lifie& an& &i)inishe& at the sa)e ti)e,.

+t is a society of everyone for the)selves an& the greater goo& is a )eta"hysical i&ea, an& so

are )orals an& values. othing is certain, an& the groun& is &isa""earing (eneath our feet.

Beco)ing a%are of this, so)e %oolgatherers have alrea&y starte& on the foun&ations,

"ulling strings an& connections here an& there. This atte)"t has (een going on since hu)ans

gaine& so)e consciousness a(out the) selves, (ut the necessity to un&erstan& ho% things

%ork, is even greater no%a&ays. The e)ergence of ne% sciences an& theories, an& the

)erging an& sur"assing of ol& ones have create& a ne% inter-net%orke&-"lane. But if %e trace

our atte)"ts (ack through the footste"s of our ancestors, %e shall see that it has al%ays (een

&ifficult to force a structure on things.

+t ha& al)ost al%ays gotten the (est of us, an& even the things %e consi&er our

creations, the cultures an& languages of the %orl& have also sho%n their hi&&en an& shar"

teeth, they elu&e& our gras", turning an& altering all %e kne% a(out the), or rather thought

%e kne%. This can "erha"s (e (est co)"are& to the relationshi" (et%een a chil& an& a "arent,

%hen chil&ren &evelo" in a uite &ifferent %ay than their )others an& fathers i)agine&.

$



Petrusevska

Language thus )ay have (een create& to "ut so)e or&er in the ne% an& )ystifying nature,

(ut )eanings have (een "lastere& on every (it in its structures an& it has (eco)e a su(ject of

a co)"letely &ifferent set of rules, %hich are as &ifficult to &eter)ine as the ones nature

see)s to o"erate un&er.

Language is ar(itrary so to say it has no natural connection %ith )aterial things. +t

has further taken this ar(itrariness to the next level, an& turne& it into a "er"etu) )o(ile,

%hich (rings the uestion of ho% shoul& one a""roach it. /oul& %e treat it as alienate& to us

as %e &o nature0 After all %e are "art of (oth an& they are a "art of us. 'hen such relations

exist on several levels, coul& one conseuentially use the sa)e )etho&s to "erceive the), to

un&erstan& the)0 By "ers"ective )entione& here + )ean "erceiving things fro) a hu)an

"ers"ective, a kin& %ith a si)ilar genetic &is"osition in all of its re"resentatives an& their

thoughts, )ost of %hich overla" in &ifferent %ays. 1ne "erson is a(le to ex"erience an&

un&erstan& each sensation ex"erience& (y another one of their kin&. This ho%ever &oesn2t

)ean that they &o this it is just that they have the tools nee&e& to get the jo( &one. But (efore

)aking this a )eta"hysical %ork, + shall "ut a &ifferent "ers"ective to ex"lain %hat + a)

trying to say.

Since the )ain of this research "a"er is literary scholarshi", %e )ust sho%case a

)ixe& array of "ers"ectives taking u" )uch s"ace in this fiel&, an& "erha"s cover the

ex"onential as"ects. The texts %ere revie%e& )any ti)es an& their 3literariness2 %as

&iscusse&, first (y evaluating the) accor&ing to so)e social an& aesthetic stan&ar&s, an& then

(y the rules an& la%s of language. The "eo"le %ere so)eti)es taken as a vital facet, (ut since

the &eath of the author an& the &isregar&ing of 4or rather (y5 the rea&er, an& the u"s an&

&o%ns of social an& historical alternatives, this thing has eva&e& our snatch. Also %hen

%orking through these theories, + %oul& like to "ut so)e ne% light on the su(ject, (orro%ing

essences, threa&s an& fi(ers of thought for) a rather unusual source, a ne% theory %hich has



Petrusevska

(een "ro"hesi*e& to unify so)e of the )ost fa)ous conce"ts in "hysics an& )athe)atics6 the

theory of relativity, uantu) )echanics an& e%tonian gravity. As for the (orro%ers

)entione& a(ove an& their relation to their 7title-)ates8 9 they %ill (e calle& 7)etony)ic

agents8 of this %ork, referring, &eferring %hat floats aroun& the surface of this "article of

text, hol&ing in line all the overlooke& instances. They re"resent the essence of all (eings in

an al)ost Dar%inian )atter of survival, a&o"ting ne% traits as a %ay to a&a"t to the constant

gro%th of our %orl&. This evolution occurs in every fiel& an& conseuentially these fiel&s

)erge into each other. An& %e all have a "ur"ose, us (orro%ers, that justifies our )eans,

trying to )ake so)e sense of it all.

+n or&er for us to (e off to a goo& start, let us see %hat so)e of the conclusions

(rought forth (y in&ivi&ual theoreticians are, in a (rief overvie% of their vie%s. The )o&ern

literary theorists have certainly left their )ark on the %ay %e "erceive literature (ut the

struggle (et%een so)e of the schools of thought left unfille& ga"s, &is"arities cause& (y their

contra&ictions. But funnily enough one can still note so)e kin&re& 7i&eas8 (et%een Plato2s

vie%s on "oetry an& language an& the structuralist an& "oststructuralist 4&econstructionist5

vie%s of the sa)e, (oth cla)ing that %or&s can not refer to nature (ecause they &o not have a

natural connection, (ut rather an ar(itrary one$. The tra&itionalist literary critics share& the

vie% of Shakes"eare2s "hrase hol&ing 7a )irror u" to nature8 until the nineteenth century,

%hen for)alists 4inclu&ing the :ussian ;or)alists an& e% /ritics5 )a&e so)e changes,

turning ever so ra"i&ly fro) "ositivis) an& in a logical continuation of issues the

Structuralists an& Post-Structuralists carrie& along the torch of language, as the starting "oint

in any literary theory. Aca&e)ic, %as the ne% a&jective &escri(ing literary theory, an& it %as

no longer the ro)antic2s i&ealistic esca"e, (ut an intellectually su"erior caste su"erior in the

un&erstan&ing of literature an& its la%s. The context an& )eaning of a %ork %ere not

$ Ar(itrariness as first use& (y Saussure

<



Petrusevska

)istaken for its "rinci"al attri(utes. An& the %hole 7cannon8 of literary theorists is governe&

(y the anxiety of influence "resent since the (eginning of culture. The ter)inology is a (it

)ore creative than the one in the sciences, an& ter)s are use& in an un&efine& a)(iguous

)anner . An& this is "recisely %hat causes the "ro(le)s in the first "lace this ar(itrariness of

ter)s leaves no s"ace to &efine the issues.

The conclusion of all of these "ers"ectives has cul)inate& in the "ost)o&ernis), a

ti)e %hen all the (oun&aries are (lurre&. The )eaning of a certain text is forever-changing

an& this activity of "ro&uction is en&less. +ts 7evolution8 is a(le to even catch itself off guar&

an& elevate or &isfigure in an instant. Those 7(asic an& sta(le texts8 %hich %e all kno% as a

"art of the hu)anities an& sciences kee" )eaning at (ay, (y "rinci"les of co))on

kno%le&ge. But since they the)selves "rofess to hol& a fa)iliar structure %hich is constant

an& generally kno%n, the i)"lication takes this clai) further, enco)"assing that %hich is not

)entione& in the), %hether it is thus "rohi(ite&, or exclu&e& in the interest of control. The

7connotation8 is there an& the )in& races after the language, going (ack an& forth, not al%ays

consciously.

Physics and Literary Theory

7=all the )eta"hysical &eter)inations of truth, an& even the one

(eyon& )eta"hysical onto-theology that >ei&egger re)in&s us of, are )ore or

less i))e&iately inse"ara(le fro) the instance of the logos, or of a reason

thought %ithin the lineage of the logos, in %hatever sense it is un&erstoo&=8

4Derri&a $#5

+n his )onu)ental 7 Literary Theory: An Introduction” 4$?!<5 Terry @agleton, )akes

a state)ent in his "reface, %hich + %oul& very )uch like to "oint out. >e says that 7 there are ot a natural use 9 once )ore ar(itrariness )akes an a""earance



Petrusevska

some who complain that literary theory is impossibly esoteric - who suspect it as an arcane

elitist enclave somewhat akin to nuclear physics.8 4vii-viii5

A true (orro%er 4so)e of you )ight even say &econstructionist5 %ill neglect the "oint

Terry )akes here, an& %ill use so)e of its connotations necessary for hisher theory. So %ith

this sentence taken out of context, %e can i)agine it to relate to the recent contri(utions to

literary theory (y uantu) )echanics, theory of relativity an& chaos theory, %hich verify that

it is even easier to )ake use of a theory %hich "ro)ises to unite all these. Another thing %e

)ust hark, is that the unifying &escri(e& here &oesn2t su(&ue the i&entity of any of the other

theories, on the contrary it is a sort of a silver tray u"on %hich they can (e (are& an&

scrutini*e& even &ee"er, an& to a &egree gives the) so)e "erceiva(le attri(utes nee&e&, if %e

are to )ake use of the).

The current fixation of all natural sciences is to fin& a gran& unification theory 4CT5

of everything very si)ilar to the %ay literary theory %as han&le& fro) the t%entieth century

on%ar&s. +n ##E, an enthusiastic surfer an& "hysician, Carrett Lisi "oste& to the "hysics

arFiv on ove)(er G, a "a"er title& Exceptionally imple Theory of Everythin! %hich

"ro)ises to unify all the fun&a)ental forces in nature, on a su(ato)ic level. The title it self is

a %or&-"lay, a touch of the influence of language, a "un of the alge(raic grou" use& 9 the @!.

This is effectively one of the )ost co)"licate& lie grou"s<, a ! &i)ensional sy))etric

grou" %ith a very (eautiful geo)etric structure. The &ark la(yrinths of this nu)erical

en&eavour %oul& re"resent for the (lin& traveller a very risky an& uncertain "ath, (ut in or&er

for us not to get tangle& in the &e"ths of )athe)atics an& kee" this ex"lanation of the theory

si)"le, %e shall kee" only to the essential "rinci"les of this far reaching theory. + %oul& also

< Lie grou"s lie at the intersection of t%o fun&a)ental fiel&s of )athe)atics6 alge(ra an& geo)etry. A Lie grou"

is first of all a grou". Secon&ly it is a s)ooth )anifol& %hich is a s"ecific kin& of geo)etric o(ject. The circlean& the s"here are exa)"les of s)ooth )anifol&s. ;inally the alge(raic structure an& the geo)etric structure)ust (e co)"ati(le in a "recise %ay.

H



Petrusevska

like to intro&uce a ter) use& in "hysics an& )any other sciences, %hich %oul& in )y o"inion

fit the occasion 9 a particle.

'hen s"eaking of "articles in this context %e )ust first 7&ischarge8 the) of the

syntag)atic "rotocol of gra))atical )eaning they carry. +n gra))ar a "article is a function

%or& )ostly use& to enco&e gra))atical categories 4such as negation, )oo& or case5, fill or

facilitate &iscourse. 'hile the "articles %e are trying to "ut forth into this "a"er, through

Lisi2s theory, are a slightly &ifferent )o&el %hich co)(ines the 7"hysical8 an& 7)etalingual8

attri(utes foun& in &iscourse. A "article here %oul& (e a certain instance of )eaning )a""e&

out fro) %hen it a""eare&, charge& %ith )eaning, relate& to other of its kin& an&

overla""ing %ith )any )ore, as it )akes its %ay through &iscourse an& ti)e. +t &oesn2t leave

a trail (ehin& it, it is har& for us to testify its existence, (ut %e i&entify it (y all the ele)ents it

interacts %ith, (y %hat it contains insi&e it, an& (y %hat it exclu&es in the "rocess. This is the

very ele)ent that is calle& (y )any na)es 9 intertextuality 4not only in the sense of a certain

structure of texts, (ut on an even (igger scale5, &ifferance, an& it is not "erceiva(le "recisely

(ecause of these "ro"erties. These )eaning carriers can (e letters, %or&s or sentences, as

in&efina(le an& te)"oral as they al%ays %ere.

As to the a""earance of this "article, one shoul& i)agine it as a ring-like )o&el, a sort

of a clou& of )eaning an& language %hich surroun&s a certain o(ject or sensation. 'e can

&ra% this conclusion closer to our un&erstan&ing if %e (egin to conte)"late the %ay )eaning

accu)ulates. Let2s i)agine an ite) that %e see for the first ti)e, an& kno% nothing a(out.

This ite) %ill re"resent our te)"orary core on to %hich %e start to give attri(utes, %e "lace it

into language 4&enotate it5, an& then as ti)e "asses )ore an& )ore connotationsH are a&&e&.

The )a""ing out is only )entione& here as an intro&uction to the further &evelo")ent of the relations (et%eenthese t%o theoriesH 'or&s an& )eanings )ust have ha& a core at so)e "oint it has just (een &islocate&

G



Petrusevska

ti)es. This allo%s the) to for) a )o&el si)ilar to the @!, an& re"resenting these interactions

through its sacre& geo)etrical sha"e %oul& not (e %rong to a certain extent encourage& to

hel" us sho% ho% the %hole %orktext is constructe& on a larger scale. 'hen %e o(serve it,

%e &on2t see just the sections, (ut )ake out a grou" of )eanings clustere& in an area, a

ju)(le of fi(res %hich can2t successfully (e single& out. +nstea& each one is caught in the

)i&st an& torn (et%een all the other "ossi(ilities. +n a %ay it re"resents the easiest %ay to

regar& the &ifferent realities an& feel the), not (eing threatene& (y the sa)e, (ut just to

ex"erience so)ething &ifferent an& change our o%n context.

;or Iacues Derri&a one of the )ost i)"ortant traits is the Jitera(ilityJ of these

"articles 4off course he &oesn2t use the ter) "articles5. 'hat this )eans is that the usage of

these "articles )ust (e re"eata(le, if co)"rehensi(le. The %ay this )o&el co)(ines it all

together, the &ifferent levels of interaction, the constant )ove)ents of the )o&el an& all the

connections "ossi(le in all the &i)ensions leaves roo) for the "re&icting of further as"ects

&iscovere&. Derri&a (la)es Saussure for se"arating )eaning into t%o conce"ts6 signifiers an&

signifie& an& kno%s that thus &oesn2t account for all the alternatives inclu&e& 4this

"ara&oxically inclu&es those not inclu&e&5 in one "article of language. 1ur argu)ent to this

uarrel is that their structure is not original, nor has re)aine& so &iachronically, (ut %as

ex"an&e&, stretche& out, rotate&, an& has (een sti)ulate& an& &ealt u"on.

A "ro"os the @!, %here Carrett Lisi talks a(out s"inning all the "articles asse)(le&,

first in four &i)ensions (ase& on the fun&a)ental charges 4electro)agnetic, %eak, strong,

an& gravitational forces5 an& kee"s on a&&ing &i)ensions to this 7)o&el8, %ith ne% "articles

an& ne% charges e)erge in each, an& fro) then on the )o&el cant hel" (ut ex"an& further

%ith each ne% &i)ension o(serves ho% the sy))etries relate to each other, an& ho% the

"revious (roken sy))etry of a lets say six-&i)ensional )o&el, fits into a ne% seven-

!



Petrusevska

&i)ensional )o&el an& regains its sy))etry. An& this is very si)ilar to ho% literary theories

%ere &evelo"e& through the centuries. @ach ne% theory trie& to fix the (roken sy))etry of

its "re&ecessor, (eing a(le to look at its strengths as %ell as its %eaknesses fro) a ne%

"ers"ective.

4 A "-# representation of E$5

At the turn of literature theory in the $?th an& #th century, its )ain concerns lay in the

atte)"t of setting things in a &efine& syste), so)ething gras"a(le an& not relying %riting

si)"ly on intuition. >o%ever this %as the very "ro(le) that &i&n2t allo% the) to "ush

through any syste) an& things "retty )uch re)aine& along the sa)e lines for a longer "erio&,

(ecause there %as al%ays so)ething uncanny a(out it, so)e unex"laine& trace an& )eaning

left (ehin&, as &econstruction has (een kin& enough to "oint out. So the scales it took %ere

hu)ongous an& s"rea& out so %i&ely, that all sense %as lost, an& %ith it the essence of

literature. 'hat "oststructuralists ten& to overlook is that, even though in to&ay2s %orl&

%or&s only refer to other %or&s, so)e (eginning )ust have existe&, language has (een )a&e

)eta"hysical (ut %as not al%ays so. The &ifficulties in un&erstan&ing the )eaning of %or&s

are )erely un"ractical an& %ith that ren&ere& elusive.

+n light of this "hysics )o&el, one )ight get the ho"e that it is "ossi(le to "resent all

of these syste)s an& interactions in a single i)age. This single i)age, that )ight (e a(le to

?



Petrusevska

)ake the) "al"a(le is (orro%e& fro) the, the @! )o&el %e have (een talking a(out, an eight

&i)ensional charge s"ace next in line %hich is a )a" of all kno%n "articles as %ell as so)e

%hich haven2t (een foreseen yet. /onsi&ering the literary "articles %e have (een &iscussing,

%e kno% that are not a "art of a soli& structure an& are constantly )ove& a(out (y charges.

Civen their large nu)(er %e can2t kee" track of the) all, (ut just ackno%le&ge their

existence as such, an& (e res"onsive to their )etony)ical an& )eta"horical "ro"erties. These

scientific theories &on2t really ex"lain ho% everything %orks together, rather ho% each

7force8 o"erates.

%It is in the presentation of such a %complex” instantaneously which !ives that sense

of sudden liberation& that sense of freedom from time limits and space limits& that sense of

sudden !rowth' which we experience in the presence of the !reatest works of art(” 4Poun&, A

;e% DonKts (y an +)agiste5

So)e of the %eaknesses of theory can (e lessene& (y using this )etho&. The fact is

that theori*ing a(out things has re"lace& actual creating of literary %orks to (e stu&ie& an&

these critics, "ara"hrasing, as %ell as the %riters %ho &eal exclusively %ith %riting have (een

affecte& an& have no "eace of )in&. Literary theory no longer &eals %ith the %riting of

%orks, (ut %ith the su(seuent critici*ing an& categori*ing of the). There are so)e like @liot

an& Poun& %ho reali*e this an& insist that such en&eavours shoul& (e (rought to a )ini)u).

Dee" )ental "rocesses an& the surface ex"ressions of &ee" social structures %ere

&ra%n as conclusions an& su))aries in )any theories, an& + guess that the cross sections in

our )o&el %oul& (e %hat one calls the general )arkings of a text, (ut %e )ust kee" in )in&

that they are just the )ost o(vious ones. As %e can clearly see, there are so )any factors at

stake that it is a "ainstaking jo( to go through the) all.

$#



Petrusevska

To give a s"ecific exa)"le of the charges + )entione&, influencing the on-an&-a(out

of this "article, one can (e i&entifie& as the &yna)ic "rinci"le intro&uce& (y ;or)alis),

)eaning that %henever so)e )aterial 4an& (y )aterial %e )ean %hat ever has accu)ulate&

in that "article u" until that )o)ent5 is acte& u"on, often transfor)s its a""earance &ue to

this charge.. This is also a conce"t acce"te& in Structuralis) an& Post-structuralis), an& here

it is one of the %ays in %hich the )eaning is a&&e& onto these "articles. 'hat2s )ore is that

here they &i&n2t just have in )in& the 7(asic8 )aterials, (ut also the for) an& this allo%s us

to take all these effects into action. e% /ritics (elieve& that the only historical a""roach that

is vali& is the one regar&ing the history of %or&s an& their )eaning, rather than the outsi&e

circu)stances. This )o&el enco)"asses the) (oth, the history of )eaning is situate& in the

"rinci"al "article, an& the outsi&e social an& historical factors are the charges that )ove it

a(out.

'hat )ust (e re)e)(ere& is that in the very )i&st of the existence of everything,

there is a &ifference 4&ifferance5. An event unfol&ing coul& really go (oth %ays, an& a

)eaning of a %or&, or a %ork can also never fully (ring its )eaning forth, nor can a rea&er.

1ne can only )ove along an en&less chain of signifiers an& constantly rotate an& alter his

cre&entials. But it is i)"ortant for a "erson to (e a%are of the existence all those "ossi(ilities,

even if it is not the )ost natural thing in the %orl& for hi). This is %hy this first "rinci"le

unites these t%o theories, (ecause it "ro"heses to sho%case the existence of these

heterogeneous features %hich govern the "ro&uction of these alternatives an& ho% )uch they

coul& alter an& s%ivel (et%een the)selves.

An& this is %hat literary theorists have co)e &o%n to as %ell, that one )eaning, one

inter"retation, criticis) an& theory si)"ly &oesn2t suffice in getting a hol& of a %ok of art an&

that although it is not "ossi(le to esca"e all the &ifferent factors regar&ing the 7)ovings8 of a

$$



Petrusevska

literary %ork, %e )ust try to ex"lore as )any of its &ifferent "ossi(ilities as %e can. 'e can

co)"are this to the %ay in %hich %e "erceive colour 4%hich is (y far one of the )ost

ar(itrary ele)ents of language5 9 in short, o(jects a(sor( light %hich contains the %hole

s"ectru) of sha&es in it, an& the one that %e &o see, is the only one reflecte& (y it. +t is the

sa)e %ith texts. @ach %riting "ara&oxically inclu&es %ith in it self the things it &oes consist

of, an& the ones %hich it leaves out at the sa)e ti)e.

o )ore are %e face& %ith the s"irale& ti)e line of our Ba(ylonian ancestors, an& are

very far fro) the linear vie%, (ut are at the 7centre8 of a ne% age, a ti)eless *one. This is a

*one %here ti)e as %e "erceive it &oes not exist, (ut it is all aroun& us, "resent, "ast an&

future gathere& into one s"ace, an& the events are not &eter)ine& (y "erceiva(le factors, (ut

(y their o%n intricate charges, forces, )otivators, &ifferences an& influences. uantu)

"hysics says 7everything that can ha""en &oes8, an& this is true fro) )any "ers"ectives, so

%e have all the right in the %orl& to (orro% this saying for our literary %ork.

+n vie% of the )any "ossi(ilities offere& (y the uantu) %orl& an& in light of the

"resent &is"osition to%ar&s (oun&aries an& &efinites, %e )ustn2t allo% our theories of

literature to elu&e our gras" an& turn into a co)"lete ju)(le. + &o %ant you to note that + a)

not s"eaking of extensive control, (ut of )aking it "al"a(le 4"erce"ti(le5 so that rea&ers,

%riters, critics, theorists an& translators are a(le to (rush their fingers through it, as if they are

leaning over the (oat an& &i""ing their han& in the %ater. They can feel the "ressure of the

%ater, an& "ass through it, (ut it is all very )o)entary. +n a )atter of secon&s all traces, of

one2s han& (eing there, &isa""ear. 1ur reality is continually (ranching into &ifferent

"ossi(ilities, (ut they are not evi&ent. 'e can har&ly (e a%are of the) all in the sa)e

)o)ent, (ut can "erha"s stretch our hori*on to enco)"ass )ore in the sa)e fra)e or even

give the) s"ace to a""ear, one at a ti)e.

$



Petrusevska

'hether this theory "roves true or not, an& if it can really sho% the interaction of the

&ifferent "articles, %e can still use this (lue"rint of universality to vie% the interactions of

&ifferent %orks regar&ing the charges 4factors5 an& (et%een each other. >o%ever + a) %ell

a%are that one theory )ay (e o(solete as soon as it is in "rint, (ecause the evolution &oesn2t

"ause at %ill. 'hat + &o ho"e is that this )o&el %ill allo% us to "re&ict an& live s"ace for

changes an& ex"ansions in the near future, or at least long enough for this atte)"t to get so)e

use. /ause "erce"tion of so)ething %e are stu&ying is necessary, %e can not %alk

so)e%here %ith all of our senses exclu&e&, %e nee& to get a feel of it at least, ho% ever

elusive it )ay (e, an& that is %hat is necessary. + think all of us have (een &oing this for a

long ti)e. Pulling threa&s fro) &ifferent theories, using an& noting all the factors %e can, in

or&er to "ro"erly translate the text %e have (een given, an& not to feel like the constant

intru&er. 'e nee& to feel at ease, to )anage our o%n un&erstan&ing an& "ut it in so)e or&er

4not hierarchical5 so that %e can access one thoughtas"ect at a ti)e an& that %ill allo%

further &evelo")ent an& )ake u" for "ast sins.

$<



Petrusevska

'orks /ite&

$. Derri&a, Iacues. )f !rammatolo!y. Iohns >o"kins niv Pr, $??!. $#.

Coogle Books.

. JA ;e% DonKts (y an +)agiste (y @*ra Poun& Marticle)aga*ineN.J *oetry

+oundation. 'e(. A"r. #$$.

Ohtt"6%%%."oetryfoun&ation.org"oetry)aga*inearticle<<H.

+)ages /ite&

$. JCoogle for @!.J http:,,www(crows(com . 'e(. $ A"r #$$.

Ohtt"6%%%.jcro%s.co)e!.ht)l.

$

Borrowers Physicians and Literary Theoreticians

Documents

Transcript of Borrowers Physicians and Literary Theoreticians