In the 1980s there was a proliferation of poetry collections, short stories, and novels published by women of Latin American descent in the United States. By the end of the decade, another genre of U.S. Latina writing, the autobiography, also came into prominence with the publication of three notable autobiographical collections: Loving in the War Years: Lo Que Nunca Pasó Por Sus Labios, by Cherríe Moraga; Getting Home Alive, by Aurora Levins Morales and Rosario Morales; and Borderlands/ La Frontera, by Gloria Anzaldúa.
These collections are innovative at many levels. They confront traditional linguistic boundaries by using a mix of English and Spanish, and they each address the politics of multiple cultural identities by exploring the interrelationships among such factors as ethnicity, gender, and language. This effort manifests itself in the generically mixed structure of these works, which combine essays, sketches, short stories, poems, and journal entries without, for the most part, giving preference to any of these modes of presentation.br> In Borderlands/La Frontera, Anzaldúa presents her personal history and the history of the Mexican American community to which she belongs by juxtaposing narrative sequences and poetry. Moraga’s Loving in the War Years is likewise characterized by a mixture of genres, and, as she states in her introduction, the events in her life story are not arranged chronologically, but rather in terms of her political development. According to one literary critic who specializes in the genre of autobiography, this departure from chronological ordering represents an important difference between autobiographies written by women and those traditionally written by men. Getting Home Alive departs even further from the conventions typical of autobiography by bringing together the voices of two people, a mother and her daughter, each of whom authors a portion of the text. The narratives and poems of each author are not assigned to separate sections of the text, but rather are woven together, with a piece by one sometimes commenting on a piece by the other. While this ordering may seem fragmentary and confusing, it is in fact a fully intentional and carefully designed experiment with literary structure. In a sense, this mixing of structures parallels the content of these autobiographies: the writers employ multigeneric and multivocal forms to express the complexities inherent in the formation of their identities.
The 1980s postmodernist wave introduced several key features mentioned in the passage, aligning with the options provided. Firstly, this era resisted Frye’s fixing of meaning by suggesting that the text is fluid. This concept focuses on the evolving nature of texts and the varied interpretations they can have, reflecting a fluid, dynamic quality consistent with postmodernist literature. Secondly, the passage indicates that there was an engagement in the deconstruction of established norms, which aligns with the mentioned topic of 'deconstructing Anatomy of Deconstruction'. Finally, there was an underlying critique against the canonization of white male dominated literature, reflecting the idea that postmodernism sought to challenge such traditional literary standards. Therefore, the characteristics discussed in the passage align with all the options provided:
Therefore, the correct feature of the 1980s postmodernist wave, as mentioned, incorporates all of the above elements, supporting the correct answer: All of the above.
The passage discusses various literary forms and innovations, particularly those brought to prominence by Latina women in the United States during the 1980s. It touches on the blending of different genres and the departure from traditional structures, particularly in autobiographies. Regarding the specific question, the passage doesn't directly reference romance, comedy, tragedy, and irony. However, it implies that these elements represent fundamental storytelling types or structures.
Given the options, let's evaluate:
Common symbols that populate all of literature - The passage doesn't suggest that romance, comedy, tragedy, and irony are symbols present throughout all literature.
The four essential moulds into which every story could be fit - This option aligns with the idea of fundamental storytelling types that can categorize stories, echoing the passage's theme of structuring and categorizing literature in innovative ways.
Atwood’s interpretation of ancient myths that abound in contemporary novels - The passage does not discuss Atwood or her interpretations of myths.
Jungian archetypes that perpetuate themselves in canonical texts - While Jungian archetypes can be relevant, the passage doesn't directly connect these elements to Jungian theory or canonical texts.
Therefore, the most fitting answer is that romance, comedy, tragedy, and irony are the four essential moulds into which every story could be fit.
The question asks for the meaning of "soluble" in the context of the passage. To determine this, we need to understand the themes and descriptions given in the passage.
The passage discusses the innovative and experimental nature of U.S. Latina autobiographies from the 1980s, focusing on how these works transcend traditional boundaries by integrating multiple languages and genres. It reflects on the blended and multifaceted nature of the autobiographies, where different literary forms like essays, poems, and narratives are mixed in a non-traditional, non-chronological order.
Based on this, "soluble" in the context refers to something capable of being dissolved or combined into a single entity, highlighting the merging of genres and cultural identities. Therefore, the term "polysemic," which means having multiple meanings or interpretations, fits perfectly with the context of conveying complex cultural and identity issues through a blend of narrative forms.
Correct answer: polysemic
Read the sentence and infer the writer's tone: "The politician's speech was filled with lofty promises and little substance, a performance repeated every election season."