William Shakespeare and Sarah Kane are playwrights who for drastically different reasons have left indelible impacts upon the theatrical world. A key factor in each of their plays is the presentation of violence. Shakespeare uses violence for observable, orthodox reasons of driving the plot forward, while Kane uses it for sensory effect, social commentary, and for subverting traditional narrative expectations. This study examines how violence and fighting work as dramaturgical tools in these playwrights’ work, by individual examination, juxtaposition, and the use of other pieces of drama to inform these two differing schools of theatrical violence.

I argue that literary texts after 1980 use the fluid relationship between the physical world and the world of writing in order to present alternate versions of the body’s relationship to the mind. Examining works by Toni Morrison, William Gibson, Kathy Acker, Sarah Kane, and Shelley Jackson, I demonstrate the ways in which these texts reinterpret the relationship between mind and body by offering bodily metaphors for their character’s interior emotional lives; they compare this inner life to a pregnant mother, a sexual couple, and more. I emphasize the political implications of the kinds of bodies employed in these metaphors, setting this against the background of late twentieth century feminism. I read my primary texts alongside the work of Julia Kristeva, Hélène Cixous, Luce Irigary, and others, in order to chart the parallel projects of literature and theory in articulating the relationship between the body—especially, the female body—and our understandings of subjectivity and representation. Starting with the 1980s, when the second wave feminist movement suffered conservative backlash, and continuing through the development of the third wave, I examine literary theorizations of feminist concerns during a period of transition in the feminist movement itself.

No description available.

In twentieth century America, women continue the age-old struggle for recognition as whole, intelligent individuals, not just an "other," less hearty, less deserving or less capable being than man. Sarah Grimke spoke of the inequalities over 150 years ago during the abolitionist movement when she compiled her major arguments into a series of letters originally published individually in the New England Spectator, then as a volume in 1838 entitled Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Woman. Grimke gets to the core of the matter and dares to challenge long-standing patriarchal tradition and beliefs. Feminists have since tried to categorize her ideas into a particular philosophy, giving her credit as the first American feminist. However, the difficulty lies in labeling her from a twentieth century perspective (feminism) when her intent was to be heard as an individualshe wanted to break the barriers which categorizing creates. The strength of the Letters lies in their rhetorical soundness as an art which speaks profoundly to its audience, transcending the boundaries of time. This study focuses on the rhetorical soundness of the Letters, providing a close analysis, that reveals Sarah Grimke's rhetorical methods, and her reaffirmation of classical notions of rhetoric. The study also contextualizes the letters while answering the critical question: Why should we read the letters now, in the twentieth century when slavery is an issue long since resolved and women have been given the right to vote and have been assured of equal rights under the equal rights amendment? We must read primary texts, not secondary or interpretive texts, to experience the author's rhetoric and recapture her intentions. / Graduation date: 1992

Christianity is not anti-intellectual; however, there is a distinct quality of anti-intellectualism in the rhetoric of the Christian Right. This thesis explores the ways in which rhetors in the Christian Right encourage anti-intellectual sentiment without explicitly claiming to be against intellectualism. I argue that the Christian Right makes these anti-intellectual arguments by invoking the tropes and topoi of populism, anti-evolution, and common sense. I analyze how Pat Robertson, as a representative of the Christian Right, used the stock argument, or topos, of populism in his 1986 speech, in which he announced his intention to run for President. I argue that while Robertson used the generic argumentative framework of populism, which is "anti-elitist," he shifted the meaning of the word "elitist" from a wealthy person to an intellectual person. This formed a trope, or turn in argument. Next, I consider the Christian Right's argument against the teaching of evolution. I analyze William J. Bryan's argument in the Scopes Trial, a defining moment in the creation-evolution debate. I show that Bryan used the topos of creationism, which included the loci of quality and order, to condemn the teaching of evolution, arguing that it would be better to not have education at all than for students to be taught something that contradicts the Bible. Finally, I consider how both Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin used the topos of common sense. Reagan used this topos to create a metaphorical narrative that was to be accepted as reality, or common sense. Sarah Palin, then, used the common sense narrative that Reagan had created to support her views. By calling her ideas "common sense" and frequently referencing Reagan, her rhetoric gives the illusion that good governing is simple, thus removing the space for an intellectual in public life.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Lehigh University, 2001. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 225-235).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Concordia University, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 138-151). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk3/ftp05/NQ66691.pdf.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--West Virginia University, 2001. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains iv, 341 p. Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 317-341).

In 1800, Gilbert Stuart began three paintings of his friend, republican writer, Sarah Wentworth Apthorp Morton--the Worcester, Winterthur, and Boston portraits. While Morton has been remembered more for a tragic personal family scandal than for her literary endeavors, Stuart's provocative images acknowledged her as both a poet and an intellect. His portraits presented a progressive and potentially controversial interpretation of his sitter--the lovely and learned Morton--by prioritizing the writer's life of the mind rather than her socially prescribed life in the world. This study reconstructs the circumstances by which Stuart composed the group of Morton paintings that culminate in his unorthodox Worcester rendering through which he ultimately depicted Morton as the first woman of ideas in American art. Supported by close readings of her work, this dissertation illuminates both the course and depth of the exceptional personal and professional relationship between Morton and Stuart. The paths of the two republican figures crossed at several historic junctures and is highlighted by the interconnectivity of their work. Most significantly, the Stuart portraits represent an ideal lens through which to view Morton's life and work as well as to follow the Boston native's transformation into one of America's earliest women of ideas. / text

No description available.