i
S
’
G
R
E
B
S
N
I
G
N
E
L
L
A
P
O
E
T
I
C
I
N
F
L
U
E
N
C
E
O
N
A
M
I
R
I
K
A
R
A
B
A
’
S
“
S
O
M
E
B
O
D
Y
B
L
E
W
U
P
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
”
S I S E H T E T A U D A R G R E D N U N A
s t n e m e r i u q e R e h t f o t n e m ll i f l u F l a it r a P s a d e t n e s e r P
f o e e r g e D e h t r o
F Sarjana Sastra s
r e tt e L h s il g n E n I
y B
D E S U N A H P E T
S Y WINARTO
7 0 0 4 1 2 4 8 0 : r e b m u N t n e d u t S
E M M A R G O R P Y D U T S S R E T T E L H S I L G N E
S R E T T E L H S I L G N E F O T N E M T R A P E D
S R E T T E L F O Y T L U C A F
Y T I S R E V I N U A M R A H D A T A N A S
A T R A K A Y G O Y
ii
v i h
t e k il
I e mwhoenteredt henigh tbu twereafraido fdarkness -Alw iAtmaArdhana-
, d r a z a h y r e v e t a k a e p s o t ti m r e p I , d a b r o d o o g r o f r o b r a h I
, y g r e n e l a n i g ir o h ti w k c e h c t u o h ti w e r u t a N
-Wal tWhtiman-
e p o h r u o y x if , ti ri p s n i r e b o s p e e k , n o it c a r o f s d n i m r u o y e r a p e r p , e r o f e r e h T
t e l p m o
c elyont hegracet obebroughtt oyouatt her evelaitonofJ esu sCh irs.t )
v
y li m a f d n a s d n e ir f d e v o l e b y m r o
F
ii v
Y
T
I
L
A
N
I
G
I
R
O
F
O
T
N
E
M
E
T
A
T
S
s i h t f o t n e t n o c e h t , e g d e l w o n k y m f o t s e b e h t o t t a h t y fi tr e c o t s i s i h T
e tt i m b u s n e e b t o n s a h s i s e h t s i h T . k r o w n w o y m s i s i s e h t e t a u d a r g r e d n
u d f o rany
. s e s o p r u p r e h t o r o e e r g e d
n w o y m f o t c u d o r p e h t s i s i s e h t s i h t f o t n e t n o c l a u t c e ll e t n i e h t t a h t y fi tr e c I
e v a h s e c r u o s d n a s i s e h t s i h t g n ir a p e r p n i d e v i e c e r e c n a t s i s s a e h t ll a t a h t d n a k r o w
. d e g d e l w o n k c a n e e b
a tr a k a y g o
Y , 14J anuary 2013
T heWrtier,
ii i v
S T N E M E G D E L W O N K C A
v a h o h w l l a o t o g s k n a h t y
M e read o rcommented on the dratf so fthis e
t a u d a r g r e d n
u thesisf romthefris tun it lthi s ifna lscirp:ti twould bemyhonort o y
m y lt s ri f k n a h
t adviso ,r Dr .F.X .Siswad iM.A. fo rhi s advice added by hi s t
n e m e g a r u o c n e y l g n i v o
l da n technica lcorrecitons and N iLuh Putu Rosiandan i r
e d a e r a s a e c n e it a p d n a s e c i v d a r e h r o f m u H . M , . S .
S . Then to the gorgeou s
r e f f o y l d e tr a e h r e d n e t o h w , ij A m a h a r b
A e d to me hi sopinion in the effor to f k
a t s i m g n i z i m i n i
m es .My grattiudealso goest o my f irend sAlwi ,Dewi ,Galang , .
M LulukAritkaandWahyuGinitngwhosharedt herir eading sandcommentaire s y
rt e o p f o y r o e h t e h t n o p
u .
t s i
tI heBlessinguponmet oeve rhaveandmee tthesesmar tandbeautfiu l e
l p o e
p ,fo rwhom Imus tbe here and now salute t hem ,fort he bitte rand swee t s e n a h o Y d n a i tr a n u S a n i m r I s t n e r a p y m h t o b : m o d s i w d n a t ir i p s e h t r o f ; s e ir o m e m
’ s u i n o t n A ; s r e t s i s d n a s r e h t o r b ; e fi l l u fr e w o p d n a e v o l t a e r g r i e h t r o f o y o tr a K
a n it r a M , y li m a
f ’ sfamliy ,Rosaila’ sfamliy, Agusitnus ’famliy ,and Madam Rini y
m forme rEng ilsht eacheri n KoleseGonzagafo rmateira landspritiua lsuppo trs ; Father Hary Susanto ,S.J. and Wahmuj ifo rtheri enormou steachings ;Kenan ,
e
H rman ,Natan ,Saka ,Ptia ,Adul ,Destyan ,Dede ,Pat irck ,Brtio ,Fauzan ,Kanzi , o
d n a
L , Yoga , Simon , Maitas , Dimas , Elieen , Vtio , and Leo , fo r the bes t f o s w o ll e f l l a d n a , s il E d n a o y r a P C A S o u d , k i n r a m u S k i n i N M ; s p i h s d n e ir f
f o y tl u c a F s ’ a m r a h D a t a n a
S LettersI ’veknownandyett oknow.
x i
T N E T N O C F O E L B A
T S
E G A P E L T I
T ……… i E
G A P L A V O R P P
A ………. ii G
A P E C N A T P E C C
A E……… iii
E G A P O T T O
M ... v i E
G A P N O I T A C I D E
D ... . v H A I M L I A Y R A K I S A K I L B U P N A U J U T E S R E P N A A T A Y N R E P R A B M E L
S I M E D A K A N A G N I T N E P E K K U T N
U ...………………………………………… vi
Y T I L A N I G I R O F O T N E M E T A T
S ... v ii T
N E M G D E L W O N K C
A S………. iiv i
S T N E T N O C F O E L B A
T ……….. xi T
C A R T S B
A ……… x K
A R T S B
A ……… xii N
O I T C U D O R T N I : I R E T P A H
C ………1
.
A Backgroundoft heStudy……….. ..2 .. .
B ProblemFormulaiton..………..4 .
C Objecitve soft heStudy..………..4 .
D Deifniitono fTerm..……… .5 :
I I R E T P A H
C THEORETICALREVIEW... 7 1 . … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … s e i d u t S d e t a l e R f o w e i v e R .
A 0
0 1 . .. .. .. … … … … … … … … … … … … … … s e ir o e h T d e t a l e R f o w e i v e R . B
1 .TheAnxietyofI n lfuence………. .10 2 .TheRevisionaryRaito s……… .12 5 1 .. … … … … … … … d n u o r g k c a B l a c i h p a r g o i B /l a c ir o t s i H n o w e i v e R . C
1 .Amri iBaraka……… 15 2 .AllenGinsberg………. .18 0 2 . .. … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .. . k r o w e m a r F l a c it e r o e h T . D
Y G O L O D O H T E M : I I I R E T P A H
C ………21
.
A Objec toft heStudy……….. .21 .
B Approachoft heStudy………. .22 .
C MethodoftheStudy……… .23 S
I S Y L A N A : V I R E T P A H
C ……… .25 .
A TheMappingonTheI den itifcaitono fGinsbergandBaraka……….25 .
1 TheI denit ifcaitoni nTheBeginning………..26 .
2 TheI denit ifcaitoni nTheMiddle………. .32 .
3 TheI denti ifcaitoni nTheEnding……… .37 .
B TheMappingo fPoeitcI n lfuence………. .42 R
E T P A H
C V :CONCLUSION……… .48 Y
H P A R G O I L B I
B ……… …… 51 S
E I C I D N E P P
i x .
t n e d i s e r
p Second ,Baraka’ smind saw Ameirca through oppressions .Thi s rtope e
h t s a
w tesseraand askesi so fGinsberg’ s“angeilc” .Through t esseraand askesis , a
k a r a
B ’ smind moves the sympathy t oward communism and ti sgood people by n
e
m itoningmorename sthanGinsberg’ sdoneandpu tthemint hedeathr ow .Thi s e
z i s a h p m e o t n e tt ir w s i e p o
rt thesympathybymenitoning moref act saboutgood e
l p o e
p w ho ilveand diein t erro .rThrid,t o closehi spoem ,Baraka’ smindfound h
f o e m il b u s n w o s i
h i sunbearableburdenmanfiested i nt heconfusiono fhisr ole . e
H i sconfusedwhethe rhei sagoodmanwhos awt heevi landt oldthepeople ilke n
a ow la d n acrazydog ,o rhei sanev liwhopoisonedpeoplebyt hef rieo fanger . i
G f o n o it a z i n o m e a d e h t s i t
I nsberg’ s unbearable identtiy in the ending o f s
e v i v e r a k a r a B . ” A C I R E M A
“ et h srtucture used by Ginsberg in w iritng ”
A C I R E M A
“ .He ifnd shi smind through the revisionary raito sin t hi ssrtucture . y
b ” A C I R E M A “ s ’ g r e b s n i G g n it ir w s m e e s a k a r a B e d a m s s e c o r p s i h
T hi sown
T . o it a
r herefore the whole Baraka’ spoem wa sthe apophrades. I twa sBaraka’ s m
s i s p il o s t s o m l a d n a e d u ti l o s e v it a n i g a m
ii i x
a y n r a n e b e s g n a y n e d i s e r p n a k k u j n u n e m a i D . n a h a t n ir e m e p m e t s i s p a d a h r e
t telah
n a d a s a u g n e p h e l o n a k il a d n e k i d n a h a t n ir e m e p m e t s i s n a d h u n u b i
d pemain d i
k n a
B , bukan demokras idan kekuatan rakyat .Kiasan in iadalah cilnamen ata s n
a a y a d r e b k a d it e k n a ri k i
p Ginsbergdiikut idengankeno issata skehendakGinsberg ,
a u d e K . n e d i s e r p i d a j n e m k u t n
u pikrian Baraka meilha t Ameirka melalu i d
a i n i n a s a i K . n a s a d n i n e
p alah tessera dan askessi dar igambaran "malaikat"-nya g
r e b s n i
G .Melalu itessera dan askesis ,pikrian Baraka menggerakkan simpat i g
n a r o n a d e m s i n u m o k p a d a h r e
t -orangn ya yang baik dengan menyebutkan lebih h
e l o n a k t u b e s i d g n a y a d a p ir a d a m a n k a y n a
b Ginsberg dan meletakkannya d i
n a it a m e k n a t e r e
d .Kiasan in idtiuils untuk menekankan simpat itersebut dengan g
n a t n e t a t k a f k a y n a b h i b e l n a k t u b e y n e
m orang-orang baik yang hidup dan mat i a
k a r a B n a ri k i p , a y n i s i u p p u t u n e m k u t n u , a g it e K . r o r e t m a l a
d menemukan
a y n m il b u
s sendri imengena ibeban t ak te trahankan yang termanfiestas idalam n
a g n u g n i b e
k akan peran diirnya .Ia bingung apakah ia adalah orang baik yang g
n a r o a d a p e k n a k a t a g n e m n a d n a t a h a j e k t a h il e
m -orang sepe tr ianijngdan burung
e m g n a y t a h a j g n a r o h a l a d a a i d u a t a u t n a
h racun iorangdenganap ikemarahan.I n i h
a l a d
a daemonizaiton ata s beban identtia s Ginsberg d i akhi r dar i puis i I
R E M A
" CA" .Baraka menghidupkan kembal isrtuktu ryang dipaka iGinsberg m
a l a
d puisi "AMERICA" dan menemukan diirnya dalam rasio revisione r a
g g n i h e
s keseluruhan puis i Baraka adalah apophrades . tIul ah kesendiiran .
e m s i s p il o s r i p m a h n a d a k a r a B f it a n ij a m
i Rasioakhi rin imenciptakan efek bahwa a
d a g r e b s n i
1
I
R
E
T
P
A
H
C
N
O
I
T
C
U
D
O
R
T
N
I
.
A Backgroundoft heStudy h t r o l e h c a b e h
T esi senitlted Allen Ginsberg’ spoeitc in lfuence on Amri i a rt n i f o s i s y l a n a h ti w s l a e d , ” A C I R E M A P U W E L B Y D O B E M O S “ s ’ a k a r a
B
f o p i h s n o it a l e r c it e o
p Allen Ginsberg’ s“AMERICA” on Baraka’ spoem. The a
B r e v o c s i d e r o t d e m i a s i h c r a e s e
r raka’ so irginaltiy . tI i srelevan tbecauseAmri i d n a t n e m e v o M s tr A n a c ir e m A k c a l B n i e r u g if g n i d a e l e h t s i a k a r a B
s m e o p s u o m a f d n a l a i s r e v o rt n o c f o e n o s i ” A C I R E M A P U W E L B Y D O B E M O S “
. y rt e o P n a c ir e m A y r a r o p m e t n o c e h t n i
e r o f e r e h t ; e l b a d i o v a n u s i e c n e u lf n
I o irginaltiy i saplacef ort hei nveniton . o
h c e n a s e m o c e b d n a s t e o p r e h t o y b d e c n e u lf n i s i t e o p a f
I oft hem ,peoplewould
m i h /r e h l l a
c epigone .She/he i scalled a mediocre imtiato ro fsomebody else , r
e h p o s o li h p r o t e o p t n a tr o p m i n a f o y ll a i c e p s
e .Theques tofi n lfuencei si mpo tran t f
o n o it i s o p e h t w o n k o t s e i d u t s y r a r e ti l e h t n
i Amri iBaraka between modern
. s t e o p n a c ir e m
A “SOMEBODY BLEW UP AMERICA” i s an epigone o f a
c e b ” A C I R E M A
“ use Baraka w as srtongly in lfuenced by Allen Ginsberg .To Y
D O B E M O S “ t a h t e v o r
p BLEW UP AMERICA”i sno tmerely an epigone, t he g
n i w o ll o f s i h c r a e s e
r rH ola d Bloom’st heory o fpoerty TheAnxietyofI n lfuence . y
r o e h t s i h t y l p p a o
T da n to analyze the 2 poems ,the research searche s fo rthe h
g u o r h t e p o
assumpiton tha ta belated poem i san epigone o ran imtiato ro fthe previous . y
rt e o p f o y r o e h t s ’ m o o l
B wli lbeusefult o rtacet heo irginaltiy fo Amri iBarakain d
n u o r g k c a b e h T . n o it i d a rt y r a r e ti l e h
t o fstudy l eads to somequesiton saboutt he g
n i p o rt d n a e p o
rt inBaraka’ s“SOMEBODYBLEWUPAMERICA” .
n o it a l u m r o F m e l b o r P . B
n i y ti l a n i g ir o r e v o c s i d e r o t tr o f f e e h t s
A Baraka’ s“SOMEBODY BLEW
” A C I R E M A P
U , the researche r made the analysi s o f poem into two main s
m e l b o r
p .Fris,ttomanfiestthecloser eadingo fpoemintot heques tof rtope sand ,
d n o c e s e h
t tof ollowt hecreaitveacts o fmisreadingandtorevea lti so irginaltiy: w
o H .
1 are t he cenrta lcharacteirsitc so fGinsberg’ s“AMERICA” recognized in s
’ a k a r a
B “SOMEBODYBLEWUPAMERICA”? w
o H .
2 i sthe o irginaltiy of Baraka’ s“SOMEBODY BLEW UP AMERICA” d
e l a e v e
r ?
y d u t S e h t f o s e v it c e j b O . C
s n o i s i v i d o w t e h
T oft heanalysi sarenecessary fo racompleteanalysi so f e
h
t poeitci n lfuencethrough t herelaitonshipo fabelatedpoemwtih ti sprecursor : a
s ti d e v e i h c a m e o p s i h n i t e o p e h t w o
h nxiety ,whliecreaitvely i n lfuencedbyt he e
r p g n o rt
s curs ? or How those two processe smade a space by speculaitng the n i a tr e c n o d n a , s o it a r y r a n o i s i v e r , e g a u g n a l f o s e c n a t s n i n i a tr e c s ti f o n o it a r e p o
m e c a l p s i d l a c i g o l o p o
n o it s e u q t s ri f e h
T a s im to i dentfiy thecharacteirsitc sof t hebelated poem r
o s r u c e r p e h t d n
a by analyzing t he body oft he poem and seeking fort he rtopes . if
e s e h
T ndings wli lbevery usefult o formulatet he characteirsitc sof t hebelated e
o
p mandt heprecursor.
m i a n o it s e u q d n o c e s e h
T s to speculate ,ort or evea lthepoeitci n lfuencei n m
e o p d e t a l e b e h
t . I twli lperform t heswervingofi deasf romt heprecursorin t he l
e
b ated poem .How t heswervingperformed thepoeitci n lfuenceand so revealed .
y ti l a n i g ir o e h
t Through t hi sway, t heresearchercould ifnd t heo irginaltiy oft he m
e o p g n o rt s a t i e d a m t a h t m e o p d e t a l e
b .
f o n o it i n if e D .
D Term
.
1 PoeitcI n lfuence
a rt n i r o e c n e u lf n I c it e o
P -poeitc relaitonship between a poe t and t he e
h t s i r o s r u c e r
p storyoft heanxietyofI n lfuence . tI ist hestoryo fcreaitveproces s e u s s i l a rt n e c e h t s a t i d e m i a l c m o o l B d l o r a H . m e o p s i h h g u o r h t d e l a e v e r t e o p a f o
d n a e v it a e r c f o y r o t s i h e h t n
i ciritca lmisreading ,which irses t o t hecreaitve and f
o g n it ir w l a c it ir
c .ti In thi scase ,any ltierary work canno tachieve meaning n i s e it il a u q e v it c n it s i d e h t s a w t i , m i h r o F . s r o s r u c e r p e h t o t n o it c e n n o c s ti t u o h ti w
r e h t o h ti w d e r a p m o c m s i c it ir c d n a y rt e o p f o e r u t a n l a c it e h ti t n a d n a l a c it e h t s e a e h t
. s g n it ir w f o s d n i k
o r a
H ldBloomt ook t hewordi n lfuencef romShakespeare .Heexplainedi n f
o e c a f e r p s i
s e g a m
i (Bloom ,1997:7). Fromt hi sunderstanding ,poeitci n lfuencei sunavoidable h
g u o r h t d e l a e v e r s i y ti l a n i g ir o d n
a thepoe’t sconcepiton oft hemselvesindeailng .
n i g n i v il s a w e h t a h t n o it i d a rt y r a r e ti l e h t m o r f e c n e u lf n i c it e o p e h t h ti
w
f o t p e c n o c a g n ir e v il e d y b y ti l a n i g ir o f o a e d i e h t k o o t o s l a m o o l
B Poeitc
n o i s ir p s i
M tha tinternailzed srtonglyand i ntensely ilkei n Sigmund Freud’ ssense y
li m a F f
o Romance .The main idea o fi ti stheparen tappearance sa es t h chlid n
o it a t e r p r e t n i c it s a t n a
f (Bloom ,1979:3). Throught hisi dea, thant hel ogiccamet o d n a h t y m d e t a e r c y a w e m a s e h t y b d n a r o s s e c e d e r p s i h g n i d a e r f o y a w s ’t e o p e h t
e h t h g u o r h t t i e g n e ll a h
c i rproces so fthinking and wiritng to ifnd his/he rown n
o it p e c n o
c . In t hi scase ,Bloom deilvered t he i deat ha traito sand l anguage were f o t l u s e r e h t s a t e o p r e h t o n a o t t e o p a m o r f d e g n e ll a h c d n a d e r r e f s n a rt
t c e p s a l a c i g o l o h c y s
p hecalled tifantasitci nterpretaitono radmriaiton t owardt he f
o t l u s e r e h t s a p u e m a c y ti l a n i g ir o n e h t , a e d i s i h t h g u o r h T . r o s r u c e r
p the poe’t s
8
I
I
R
E
T
P
A
H
C
W E I V E R L A C I T E R O E H T
s e i d u t S d e t a l e R f o w e i v e R . A
Research on poeitcin lfuence conducted i n Harold Bloom’s t heory ist he a
e s e r d n o c e
s rch in Sanata Dharma Universtiy. The pionee ro fthi sresearch in y
ti s r e v i n U a m r a h D a t a n a S f o t n e m tr a p e D s r e tt e L h s il g n
E wa s Galang Firt i
r e tf A . a y a ji
W Galang, there w as no research projec ton poeitc in lfuence unit l lt
it e h t r e d n u h c r a e s e r a d e t c u d n o c e H . 2 1 0
2 e The Poeitc Breaking o fForm o f
.) 0 1 0 2 ( ” l w o H “ s ’ g r e b s n i G n e ll A
h c r a e s e r s i h n
I , Galang tired t o ifnd t he rtace o fWal tWh timan’ sway o f o
p y r a n o it u l o v e r s u i n e g e h t n i g n i k n i h
t emo fGinsberg .Basically hesearche dthe f
o n o it a c if it n e d
i Wal tWhtiman’ scenrta lcharacteirsitcsinGinsberg’ s“Howl” and m
r o f f o g n i k a e r b c it e o p e h t d e t a rt s n o m e
d using the six revisionary raitos. He e
c n e u lf n i c it e o p f o y r o t s e h t d e m r o f r e p y ll u f s s e c c u
s among Ginsberg and Wal t
tr o p p u s d n a n a m ti h
W e d thet heory abou tmeaning and relaiton among poet sand r
i e h
t poems. Thi sresearch cataputle d Ginsberg in the fron t ilne o fAmeircan r
e ti r w n o n a
C s nearb y Wal tWhtiman in t hesame ilnewtihWallaceStevens ,Har t Crane ,andJ ohnAshbery.
e o j d u C . R n y w l e
S is anothe rnamewhichshouldbewirtten i nt hisr eview. n
O Novembe r 26 , 2002, Cudjoe read Baraka’ s “SOMEBODY BLEW UP ”
A C I R E M
A .Hewasanalyzingt hepoe’t swayo fw iritngt o createce traineffects . e
e b n a m o w d n a n a c ir e m A n a c ir f A e s o h t t a h t d i a s n o i s u l c n o
c a tpoets ea r no t
e n o g i p e t s u j r o w e n g n i h t e m o s g n it n e v n
i oft heealryo fbea twrtiers. e
r p e h t o t g n i d r o c c
A -research and review o frelated studies, t hese poem s n
i m ’ s t e o p e h t d n a y t u a e b t u o b a g n il l e t y l n o t o n ; c it s i u rt l a e r
a d ,bu talso drieclty
a c i n u m m o
c t ewtiht hes ocietyaboutt hepoets ’concepitoni nf ron to fvalue so fthe o t e l p o e p g n it i v n i d n a c it e h p o r p e r e w s m e o p e s e h t ,s d r o w r e h t o n I . r a w l a r u tl u c
e r e w s m e o p e s e h t y h w s n o s a e r e h t e r a e s e h T . s e u l a v n a m u h f o n o it a d a r g e d e h t e e s
s n o c d n a l a i s r e v o rt n o
c idered dangerous .Ginsberg i sfound a san in lfuence .By t
e o p d a e d e h t f o t s e t a e r g e h t s a g r e b s n i G g n i k a
m s fo rBaraka’ s“SOMEBODY
s ’ g r e b s n i G f o g n i d li u b e h t d e t u b ir t n o c h c r a e s e r s i h t , ” A C I R E M A P U W E L B
t I . n o n a c y r a r e ti
l i s par t o f Ginsberg’ s ltierary canon because Ginsberg’ s ”
A C I R E M A
“ ist heprecurso rof“SOMEBODYBLEWUPAMERICA” . e
h
T ciritcism and developmen to fthese related studies are buli ton the r
e h c r a e s e
r ’ r sagumen tatfer the pre-research .The basic argumen ti stha tevery s
a h d n i
m ti sown srtength though in lfuence i sunavoidable .Therefore ,Baraka’ s ,
d n i
m though unavoidablyi n lfuenced byGinsberg ,ha sti sownsrtength .Dfiferen t ,
s ’ g n a l a G m o r
f researcherrejects Bloom’ scynicalr efusalupont hecutlura lwar in d
e t a t s s a n o it i d a rt y r a r e ti l e h
t byBloomint hei nrtoducitono fWesternCanon;t he f
o s l o o h c S d n a s k o o
B theAges. T th a poets ’concepitoncanno tbeseparatedf rom s
d lr o w r i e h
t makes cutlura l wa r a place to bloom for poeitc in lfuence and f
o n o it n e v n
s e i r o e h T d e t a l e R f o w e i v e R . B
.
1 TheAnxietyofI n lfuence o
t g n i d r o c c
A The Criitca lTradiiton ,Classica lText sand Contemporary s
d n e r
T edtied by David H .Richter ,1998 ,Harold Bloom i srepresented by “ A y
ti r o ir P n o p u n o it a ti d e
M ” ,in the psychoanalyitc theory .Thi stext i salso the n
o it c u d o rt n
i ot sh i poerty t heory TheAnxietyo fInlfuence .This t heory wa sborn .
s t e o P c it n a m o R f o y d u t s l u ft h g i s n i e h t h g u o r h
t Ther esearcher ws a PercyBysshe t
h g u o h t s ’ y e ll e h
S inHaroldBloom’ satttiudet owardt het ext .Shelleyhonore dthe e
g d e l w o n k f o r e e n o i p e h t s a t x e t t n e i c n
a . Theveryi deao fShelleywast hehono r t
x e t t n e i c n a d r a w o
t , B“ ecause the nature o fthe infancy o fsociety made every r
o h t u
a b eapoet ,sot hatapoe tw asthepionee rofi nveniton” (Shelley ,“ADefense ,
” y rt e o P f
o 1 182 ). Therefore Bloom preferred to see Freud’ s work sthrough e
r a e p s e k a h S e e s o t n a h t r e h t a r y r o e h t n a e r a e p s e k a h
S ’ s work sthrough Freudian
y r o e h
t da n hebuitltheoryo fpoertyo ent h Shakespeare’sSonne t87rathe rthanon n
a i d u e r F e h
t theoryo fpsychoanalysis . m
o o l
B ’ s theory wa sexplained in “Poeitc O irgin sand Fina lPhases”, m
o o l B r e h t o n
a ’ s essay wa scomplied i n Modern Criitcism and Theoryed tied by .
e g d o L d i v a
D Bloom found the conneciton between poet sand poems, P“ oeitc m
o c h t g n e rt
s e sonly fromt het irumphan twrestilng wtih t he greates tof t hedead , n
a m o r f d n
a even more t irumphan tsoilpsism” (Lodge ,2000 :218). Fu trhermore , t
e o p a f o e ri s e d t s e p e e d e h t t a h t d e v e il e b e
h w asto bean in lfuenceand no tto be e
h t n i n e v e d n A . d e c n e u lf n
i srtonges tonewhomt hedesriewa saccompilshed,t he r
o f g n i e b f o y t e i x n
To understand howt hist heoryworksi n pracitcall evel ,theatttiudeoft he y
r o e h
t toward the tex tand language should be understood .According to thi s s
k r o w y r a r e ti l r o s t x e t , y r o e h
t a rethe cenrta loft het heory. In othe rwords, text s e
r
a the staritng poin tfo rthe fu trhe rbody o fthe theor y and ti sanalysis . T he b
p i h s n o it a l e
r etween texts si in the dialecitc interpretaiton between texts . I t n
o it c n u
f s tos eet hemovemen tofs ignfromt extt oanothert ext. I tdemonsrtatedi n . g n i p o rt d n a e p o rt f o s i s y l a n a e h t n i y g o l o d o h t e m e h t ; ” m r o F f o g n i k a e r B e h T “
m o o l B d l o r a
H buitl hi sidea upon rtope on hi sexpansion toward John r
e d n a ll o
H ’ s theory upon rtopes .Bloom claime d tha t rtope w as rtoped whereve r e
r e h
t wa sa movemen tfrom sign to intenitonaltiy ,whereve rthe rtansformaiton g
n i n a e m o t n o it a c if i n g i s m o r
f wa smadeby t her es to fwha taidst heconitnutiyo f
. e s r u o c s i d l a c it ir
c Then hef ollowed Kenneth Burkei n seeing de ifniiton off orm e
r u t a r e ti l n
i tha t rtope is “an arousing and fulifllmen to fdesrie.” Bloom ctied n
a e k r u B e h T m o r f y lt c e ri
d formula; “A work ha sform i n so f a ra sonepar tof i t e
b o t , tr a p r e h t o n a e t a p i c it n a o t r e d a e r a s d a e
l graitifed in sequence.” Trope
e b t i y l n o f i y rt e o p n i s l a e v e
r comesaplaceofi nveniton ori nt heltierary rtadiiton s
o p o t d e ll a
c (Bloom ,1979:2). Later, eh connected rtopewtih psychicdefense by e
p o rt h c a e f o e r u t a n e h t g n i e e
s int hepsychicdefense. n
i
F ally Bloom connected language ,ego ,and defense in hi sdeifniiton on e
p o
rt . Thi sconnecitonmade rtopei nBloom’st heorybethecen rtalcharacteirsitcs m
e o p f
o . Heargued raitonaledepende dupon diachronic, r athert hanasynchronic c
e h t e v r e s b o d l u o w t a h
t hanging nature o fboth ilnguisitc rtope and psychic y
r o t s i h y r a r e ti l s a e s n e f e
, e r o f e r e h
T TheAnxiety o fIn lfuence i n ti sdemonsrtaiton upon t het ext s sw a the n
o it a l e
r upon et h rtope and rtoping. The story fo ti srelaiton then became the y
r o t s i h y r a r e ti
l .
2 .TheRevisionaryRa itos
e s e h T . y t e i x n a s ’t e o p e h t f o s n o it a t s e fi n a m e r a s o it a r y r a n o i s i v e r x i s e h T
h ti w t l a e d t e o p e h t w o h w o h s d n a g n i d a e r s i m c it e o p e h t n i a l p x e l li w s m s i n a h c e m
T . e c n e u lf n I f o y t e i x n a s i
h h ey w ere Cilnamen o rPoeitc Misp irsion ,Teserra o r , y ti u n it n o c s i D d n a n o it it e p e R r o s i s o n e K , s i s e h ti t n A d n a n o it e l p m o C
, e m il b u s r e t n u o c e h t r o n o it a z i n o m e a
D Askesiso rPurgaiton and So ilpsism ,and e
d a r h p o p
A so rthe return o fthe dead .Here is the explanaiton upon the six s
o it a r y r a n o i s i v e
r according to the Synopsi sw irtten by Harold Bloom in hi s y
rt e o p f o y r o e h
t TheAnxietyofI n lfuencepage 41 - 61 ; .
a Cilnamen n e m a n il
C aw s a poeitc misreading o rmisp irsion prope.r Bloom t ook t he d
r o
w from Lucreitus ,where i tmeant a “swerve” o fthe atom sso a sto make e
v r e w s t e o p A . e s r e v i n u e h t n i e l b i s s o p e g n a h
c d away from hi sprecursor ,by so
a e t u c e x e o t s a m e o p s ’ r o s r u c e r p s i h g n i d a e
r cilnamen in relaiton to ti .Thi s
r a e p p
a e da sacorrecitvemovementi n hispoem ,whichimpiled thatt heprecurso r , d e v r e w s e v a h d l u o h s n e h t t u b , t n i o p n i a tr e c a o t p u y l e t a r u c c a t n e w m e o p
i d e h t n i y l e s i c e r
p recitont hatt henewpoemmoves(Bloom ,1997 :14). .
b Tessera a r e s s e
T aw s a compleiton and anttihesis ;Bloom t ook t heword no tfrom s
o
t
i wa smean tat oken o frecogniiton, t hefragmen tsay o fa smal lpo twhich wtih e
r d l u o w s t n e m g a r f r e h t o e h
t -consttiute the vessel . A poe t anttiheitcally e
t e l p m o c
“ d”hi sprecursor ,bys or eadingt heparent-poemast or etain tist erm sbu t s
r u c e r p e h t h g u o h t s a , e s n e s r e h t o n a n i m e h t n a e m o
t o rhadf aliedt ogof a renough
) 4 1 : 7 9 9 1 , m o o l B
( .
s i s o n e K . c
s i s o n e
K wa s a breaking-device simlia r to the fence mechanism s ou r y
o l p m e s e h c y s
p agains trepeititon compulsions ;kenosi sthen wa sa movemen t e
h t h ti w y ti u n it n o c s i d d r a w o
t precursor .Bloom took the word from St .Paul , n
a e m t i e r e h
w t the humb ilng o remptying-ou to fJesu sby himsefl ,when he t
p e c c
a e d reduciton from divine to human statu .s The late r poet ,apparenlty s
u t a lf f a n w o s i h f o f l e s m i h g n i y t p m
e ,hisi maginaitvegodhood ,seemedtohumble g
n i b b e s i h t t u b , t e o p a e b o t g n i s a e c e r e w e h h g u o h t s a f l e s m i
h wa ssoperformed
r o s r u c e r p e h t t a h t g n i b b e f o m e o p s ’ r o s r u c e r p a o t n o it a l e r n
i w sa empited ou t
n o it a lf e d f o m e o p r e t a l e h t o s d n a , o s l
a wa sno ta sabsoluteasi tseemed (Bloom , 7
9 9
1 : )1 . 4
n o it a z i n o m e a D . d
n o it a z i n o m e a
D o ra movemen ttoward sa personailzed Counter-Subilme , ;
e m il b u S s ’ r o s r u c e r p e h t o t n o it c a e r n
i Bloom took the term from genera lNeo -r e t n e , n a m u h r o n e n i v i d r e h ti e n , g n i e b y r a i d e m r e t n i n a e r e h w , e g a s u c i n o t a l
P e d
n e p o t e o p r e t a l e h T . m i h d i a o t t p e d a e h t o t n
i e dhimseflt owha thebeileved tobe d
t a h t m e o p t n e r a p e h t n i r e w o p
. r o s r u c e r p t a h t d n o y e b t s u
j The belated poe’t s subilme turned agains t hi s e
m il b u s ’ s r o s r u c e r
p (Bloom ,1997 : )1 . 5 .
e Askesis s is e k s
A ,o ramovemen to fsel fpurgaitonwhicht ende dtheattainmen to fa ti
s a l a r e n e g , m r e t e h t k o o t m o o l B ; e d u ti l o s f o e t a t
s aw s ,paritcula lry from the
e r p f o e c it c a r
p -Socraitcshaman s ilked Empedocles .The l ate rpoe tdi d not ,asi n r
e d n u , s i s o n e
k gone a revisionary movemen to femptying bu to fcu traiilng ;he d
l e i
y e d up par to fhi sown human and i maginaitveendowment ,so ast oseparate d
e h d n a , r o s r u c e r p e h t g n i d u l c n i , s r e h t o m o r f f l e s m i
h i ti d in hi spoem by so
t n e r a p e h t o t d r a g e r n i t i g n i n o it a t
s -poem a sto make tha tpoem undergone an s
is e k s
A too;t heprecurso rendowmen twa salso rtuncated(Bloom ,1997 : )1 . 5 s
e d a r h p o p A . f
p o p
A hradesort her eturnoft hedead ;Bloomt ookt hewordf romAthenian l a n if n w o s i h n i ,t e o p r e t a l e h T . d e v il d a h y e h t h c i h w n o p u s y a d y k c u l n u r o l a m s i d
, m s i s p il o s a t s o m l a s i t a h t e d u ti l o s e v it a n i g a m i n a y b d e n e d r u b y d a e rl a , e s a h p
n e p o o s m e o p n w o s i h s d l o
h e d again t o t heprecursor’ swork t ha tatf ristreader s e
v e il e b t h g i
m d thewhee lha scameful lcricle ,and t ha treaders ew re back i n t he g
e b h t g n e rt s s i h e r o f e b , p i h s e c it n e r p p a d e d o o lf s ’t e o p r e t a
l unt o asser t tisefli nt he
m e o p e h t t u B . s o it a r y r a n o i s i v e
r wa snow held opent ot heprecursor ,whereonce n
e p o s a w t
i ed ,andt heuncannyeffec twast hatt henewpoem’ sachievemen tmad e m
e e s
ti e dtous ,no tast hought heprecurso rwerew iritng ti ,bu tast hought hel ate r a
h c s ’ r o s r u c e r p e h t n e tt ir w d a h f l e s m i h t e o
d a h e h d n a , m e o p s ’ g r e b s n i G h ti w r a il i m a f s a w a k a r a B t a h t y a s o t e c n e d i v e
. g r e b s n i G y b d e c n e u lf n i e b o t y t e i x n a
a k a r a B . a k a r a B o t l a it n e u lf n i s a w o h w r e ti r w e n o y l n o e h t t o n s i g r e b s n i G
d e c n e u lf n i g n i e b f o s s e n e r a w a d a
h byothe rwrtie respeciallyi nhi snove lenitlted .l
l e H s ’ e t n a D f o m e t s y S e h
T “ Iwa s rtying to ge taway from the in lfuence o f e
l p o e
p ilke Creeley and Olson . Iwa s ilving in New York then and the whole y
e l e e r
C -Olson i n lfuencewa sbeginning t o bea tmeup”( Benston ,1977 : 106). He “
: l o o h c s o w t f o e l d d i m e h t n i w e r g e h t a h t d e d d
a Ical lthe Jewish-Ethnic
-bohemian Schoo l(Allen Ginsberg and hi sgroup )and the Angl -o German Black l
o o h c S n i a t n u o
M ”( Benston ,1977 :106). Theyarehisf irend sandhenoitcedt ha t r
w e
h ote defensively and offensively at t he same itme because he wa s rtying t o “
. y a w a t e
g Il tierallydecidedt owrtiej usti nsitncitvely ,wtihou tanyt houghtt oany e
r p f o d n i k y n a o t r o m r o
f -understanding o fwha t Iwas shaping - - jus twrtie i t n
w o
d ”( Benston,177 :106 .)Theevidenceabovedeilver sBaraka’ sawarenes sand .
k r o w s i h g n it ir w n i m s i n a h c e m
s ’ a k a r a
B passion on Black A tr sNaitonailsm manfiested in hi spoilitca l .
0 7 9 1 e c n i s n g i a p m a
c Campaign o fKenneth Gibson fo rMayo ro fNewark ,New o
p e h t s a w y e s r e
J ilitca lacitvtiyhededicatedf ori n,1970 .In 2001 ,hebecamet he S
“ d e s o p m o c d n a e t a e r u a L t e o
P OMEBODY BLEW UP AMERICA” atfe r
1 r e b m e t p e
S 1 ,2001whichi nvolved himwtihconrtoversyandd riectt ex twa rwtih s
t s i n a m u h n a c ir e m
A a nd led to call sfo rhi sdismissal .Now he i sa lecturer , t
s i v it c a d n a , r e h c a e
2 .AllenGinsberg g r e b s n i
G wa sbornon3June1926t oLoui sandNaom iGinsberg ,second -n
o it a r e n e
g o fRussian-Jewishi mmigrant .Hi sparent swerel ef twingr adical swtih c
it s a i s u h t n e n
a interes ton modern thinking such as Marxism ,vegetairanism , .
m s i n i m e f d n a , m s i d u
n Hewroteabou thi smotheri nhi spoem .sI n “AMERICA” , .
g n it e e m l l e c t s i n u m m o c n i t s i v it c a n a s a r e h t o m s i h d e b ir c s e d e
h Hisf athe rwas a
d e r a e p p a k r o w e s o h w t e o p l u f s s e c c u
s in a vairety o fwell-respected pubilcaiton h
c u
s ast heNewYorkTime sMagazines(Lawlor ,2005 :117). g
r e b s n i
G graduated from Columbia Universtiy a sa schola ro flaw .Hi s c
e b o t n o it i b m
a ome a lawye rquickly cas taside atfe rhe me tLucien Carr ,Jack c
a u o r e
K and Wliilam Burrough sdiscussing the new vision o fltierature. Jack c
a u o r e
K invtied Ginsberg to fo llow him in w iritng poerty .Burroughs, a thief , ,
r e lt s u h , r e s u s g u r
d mobster ,and awrtier ,in lfuenced him i n rebelilou satttiudes 5
0 0 2 , r o l w a L
( :117). h
T edarkimage so fGinsbergi nt hes ocietys tatredwhenJ ackKerouacand f o s e c n e d i v e l a ir e t a m e h t s a e c il o p e h t y b d e t s e r r a e r e w s h g u o r r u B m a il li W
v a D . r e r e m m a K d i v a D g n ir e d r u m n i l a n i m ir c r r a C n e i c u
L idKammere rwa skilled
e h r e tf
a proclaimedhisf eeilngt oLucienCar randt hreatened himi fCarrf aliedt o ti
t p e c c
a . Being a homosexua la ttha t itme wa ssomething bad. In the same n
o it a u ti
s , Ginsberg’ slfie and hi ssexua lo irentaiton wtih hi scompanies ;Jack y
k s v o lr O r e t e P d n a , y d a s s a C l a e N , c a u o r e
K ew reno tacceptedbys ociety .Though k
o o l e l p o e
p e d down a thim ,Ginsberg w as kind toward Herber tHuncke and s
d n e ir
f the burgla r homeless by shairng hi sapa trmen t to them .Bu t a sthe s
i h e c n e u q e s n o
c apatrmen tbecome sa place t o store t hei rstolen goods(Lawlor , 5
0 0
g r e b s n i
G main acitviite swere wiritng poerty and journal .Howeve,r he s
a
w arrested by the poilce because the ca r tha t b irnging stolen good s was .
d e r u t p a
c Insteadofj alied, thepoilcesen tGinsbergt othepsychiat irchosptial j tus v
i n U a i b m u l o C r e tf
a erstiy’ sfacutly and attorney defend him on the tiral so f .s
e s a c l a n i m ir c r o f e k c n u H t r e b r e
H In t hehosptial, heme tCar lSalomonageniu s m e o p l a t n e m u n o m t s o m e h t e t o r w e H . m i h o t y h p o s o li h p d n a s tr a d e r a h s o h w n a m
f a n o m o l a S l r a C r o f ” L W O H
“ te rhewen tou toft hehosptial(Lawlor ,2005 :121). g
r e b s n i
G went t o Mexico ,Af irca ,and India i n ordert o search and l earn .
m o d s i w t n e i c n a e h t m o r
f Hebecameat eache randseveral itme swentt oEurope e
v a g d n
a poerty wiritng lecture to the Senio rHigh Schoo lstudents in Poland , .
n o d n o L d n a , a i k a v o l s o h c e z
C H ehad apenchantf o rblackcutlure- hel ovedf olk , r
a k a D o t y a w e h t l l a d e ll e v a rt e H . s e u l b e h t d n a , z z a
j ,Senega lto be among
lr a H o t d e v o m e h d n a , s n a c ir f
A e m to beamong urban black folk .Bu the neve r n
a w g n it s a o
b ted t obeBlack ilkeJack Kerouac .Ginsberg’ spo ilitca laciton sw eer e
h
t ac mpaign agains tVietnamWa .r Hi scampaign t henwident o suppo trt hef ree g
n il tt a b , e c u r B y n n e L t s ir it a s l a i c o s g n i d n e f e d , h c e e p s f
o NewYorkC tiyofifcial s
d e ir t o h
w to restirc tcabare t ilcenses ,and acitng a sadvocate fo rThe Living r
e t a e h
T (Lawlor ,2005 :122). lr
a e e h t n
I y morning hour s5 Ap ir l1997 ,Ginsberg died peacefu lly i n hi s .
s d n e ir f e s o l c f o l u f d n a h a y b d e d n u o r r u s , p e e l
s A tfe raBuddhistf unera lservice , c
e r e w s n i a m e r s i
h rematedand hi sashe sdist irbutedt ohisf athe rgravestiea tNew y k c o R e h t d n a , n a g i h c i M t a y r e t s a n o m t s i h d d u B t r a e H d e r c a S e h t o t , y e s r e J
a t n u o
D .Theoreitca lFramework
m e l e c i s n ir t n i n i e h t f o s i s y l a n
A enti sdonei n t hepre-research byl ooking g
n i s u s i s i s y l a n a r e h tr u f e h T . e g a u g n a l e v it a r u g if d n a e r u t c u rt s n
o Bloom’st heory
e c n e u lf n I f o y t e i x n A e h
T . tIisi mpo tran tast hewayt of indthepoeitci n lfuenceo f s
’ a k a r a B n i g r e b s n i G n e ll
A “SOMEBODYBLEWUP AMERICA”and r evealed e
h
t o irginaltiy o fAmri iBaraka .Thist heory i sused t o analyze the rtope sandt he g
n i p o
rt oft hepoem. Toapplyt het heory ,ther esearcherreadBaraka’ srtope sand g
n i p o
rt by t hepoeitc breaking o fform method .The drieciton and movemen to f r
o s r u c e r p e h t f o e c n e u lf n i e h t s a r a e p p a d l u o w m e o p e h
t . On the othe rhand ,
. s t e o p o w t e s e h t f o n o it a l e r e h t e v o r p o t d e d i v o r p d n u o r g k c a b l a c ir o t s i
h A tthe
. p i h s n o it a l e r c it e o p f o y r o t s e h t n i r a e p p a d l u o w e c n e u lf n i d n a y ti l a n i g ir o e h t , d n
e
s i h
a c ir e m
A and discoveredt ha tmuchoft hespeakers w ereAmeirca .Finally ,hewa s ,
a c ir e m
A insipid media ,and ti sparanoid poilitcs .Thesrtuctureoft hepoemwa s d
a e r n a h t r e h t a r d r a e h e b o t t n a e m y ll a e
r sucha sconversaitonals entence .s
y d u t S e h t f o h c a o r p p A . B
The Anxiety o fin lfuence in The C iritca lTradiiton Classic Text sand s
d n e r T y r a r o p m e t n o
C w as catego irzed a sthe psychoanalyitc theory .Though ,
s m r e t s i s y l a n a o h c y s p y n a m o s h ti w d e t c u rt s n o c y r o e h t s ’ m o o l
B t he pracitce o f
f o s e c it c a r p r e h t o n a h ti w r e h t e g o t d e li p m o c , ” m r o F f o g n i k a e r B e h T “ ; y r o e h t s i h
m o r f m s i c it ir
c the deconsrtucitonists in a book enitlted Deconstruciton and Criitcism. nI themapembodyingt heciritcalt ask sdrawnbyPau lHemadi ,Bloom s
c it c e l a i d f o t r a p y ll a c it c a r p y r o e h
t -relaitonship o fMythography ,Themaitc sand s
k r o w s c it e o
P (Rticher ,1998 :11). e c n e u lf n I f o y t e i x n A e h
T statred from Bloom’ sreading expeirences in h
ti w g n il a e
d many poem sfrom classic sto modern .Bloom saw the relaitonship r
o s r u c e r p e h t d n a d e t a l e b e h t n e e w t e
b sa thei mpac to ftheAnxiety o fIn lfuence. Therewa snoplacef ort hebelatedtowrtiesomethingnew .InBloom’ swords ,“I f
n i g a m i o
t e i s to misinterpret , which make s al l poem s anttiheitca l to thei r r
o s r u c e r
p ,t hent oi magineatfe rapoeti st ol earnhi sownmetaphorsf o rhi sact so f g
n i d a e
r ” (Bloom ,1997:93- )9 . 4 As t he reade roft he poem ,Bloom saw how t he m
e o
p wa sconnectedt ot heprecursorandconrtasti .t e
h t n
I “Interchapter ; A Man fiesto fo r Anthtieitca l C iritcism” , Bloom .
T he Secondary source swere texts fo the related studies .Bea tCutlure , t
c a p m I d n a , s e l y t s e fi L ; s n o c
I edtied by Wliilam T .Lawlor ,and pubilshed by n
i s n o c s i W f o y ti s r e v i n
U -Steven sPoin to n 2005, AMERICAN SCREAM, Allen e
b s n i
G rg and TheMaking o fTheBea tGeneraiton, w irtten by Jonah Raskin and U
y b d e h s il b u
p niverstiy o fCalfiornia Pres son 2004 and The Autobiography o f a
k a r a B i r i m A s e n o J i o R e
L pubilshed by Freundilch Books ,New York ,1984 . e
s e h
T three book s were the source o f biography o f the poets . Brtiannica f o s e c r u o s e h t e r e w 9 0 0 2 a i d e p o l c y c n E a tr a c n E d n a 8 0 0 2 a i d e p o l c y c n E
. m e o p e h t n i d e n o it n e m s e m a n e h t r o f n o it a m r o f n i
Theresearcher srtuck hardly by Baraka’ sprotest against i njusitcet oward .
e l p o e p k c a l b e h
t tI calledsomepoem srelatedt oAme irca .Fromsevera lname so f ,
s t e o
p Allen Ginsberg histo ircally closed to Baraka .From severa lGinsberg’ s “
, s m e o
p Ame irca” shared the mos t ifguraitve language . Then Baraka’ s and e
r e w m e o p s ’ g r e b s n i
G analyzed pa tr sby patrs .Thedrieciton att hebeginning t o d
n e e h
t wouldbet her esu tloft hei denitifcaitonoft het wopoets .
Throught her evisionaryr aitos, the rtopeo feachp atrwa sputsideby side r
o s r u c e r p s ti h ti
w .Thi spracitce helped to gain the cenrta lcharacte irsitc sof t he r
p ecursorint hepoemtogett hemappingo fpoeitcin lfuence .Finally,the rtoping d
n
a theswerving ofi deasfrom tisprecursori n t hebelated poem w erefound .I t s
a
w the way to reveal et h story o f poeitc in lfuence to rediscove r Baraka’ s y
ti l a n i g ir
6 2
E
T
P
A
H
C
R
I
V
S
I
S
Y
L
A
N
A
.
A TheMappingonTheI den itifca iton fo GinsbergandBaraka a
w n o it a c if it n e d i f o g n i p p a m e h
T s the searching o f the cenrta l m
e o p e h t f o s c it s ir e t c a r a h
c through revisionary raitos . tI i scenrta lbecause i t s
e n i m r e t e
d themeaning and t he movemen tof t hei deafrom t he beginning t o t he .
g n i d n
e Through the revisionary raitos , Amri i Baraka ifght s agains t Allen e
s n e f e d d n a e c i o v s ’ g r e b s n i
G s hi sown voicei n t he anxiety of i n lfuence. Baraka a
t t o n l li
w k eGinsberg’ s rtope sand t opic and pu t tii n hi spoem becausehe wli l s ’ g r e b s n i G , y t e i x n a s ’ a k a r a B f o e s u a c e B . s i ti s a s r a e p p a e c i o v s ’ g r e b s n i G t e l t o n
. a k a r a B f o n o it p e c n o c y r e v e h t o t d e v o m d n a d e s i v e r e b l li w e c i o v
f o n o it p e c n o c y r e v e h t s i y h p a r g o i b s i h n i d e c a rt s a e c i o v s ’ g r e b s n i G
. fl e s m i
h A sstated by Wliilam Lawlor ,Ginsberg ha sthe dark image sin the ,
l a u x e s o m o h a , y t e i c o
s a f irend o fburglar ,mobster and drug suser ,a Jews -n
a i s s u
R raised by a psycho mothe r who i s a communist , eve r stayed in a l
a ti p s o h c ir t a i h c y s
p , and a socia l acitvis t who ifght s agains t Vietnam War . )
7 1 1 : 5 0 0 2 , r o l w a L
( Thesevoice sappea ralmosti neverypoemhewrote.
o t n i s l o o t s ’ m o o l B d l o r a H d e il p p a r e h c r a e s e r e h t , c it a m e t s y s t i e k a m o T
o t g n i d r o c c a m r o f f o g n i k a e r
b srtuctureo fpoem ;Idenitifcaiton i n t hebeginning , i t n hemiddleand i n the endi . ng Baraka’ sbeginning i s ilne s1-57, t he middle si
s e n
d e s u s e c n e d i v
e to performt hemovemen tofi deafound i n t hebeginning ,middle
. g n i d n e d n
a
Thei den itifcaitono fBaraka’ s“SOMEBODYBLEWUPAMERICA”wa s r
e h c r a e s e r f o t l u s e r e h
t own ifnding i n searchingt heideao fbea tp irmiitvism and r
o f g n i h c r a e s e h
t Baraka’s epo itco irgin. Somefact sshowed ust ha tBaraka wa s W E L B Y D O B E M O S “ . m i h d e t s u rt a k a r a B d n a s m e o p s ’ g r e b s n i G h ti w r a il i m a f
s l a tt u b e r d e m r o f r e p t I . y a w a d e s s a p s ’ g r e b s n i G r e tf a n e tt ir w s a w ” A C I R E M A P U
n i g n i b m o b t s ir o r r e t h ti w g n il a e d n i y c il o p n a c ir e m A d r a w o
t 2001 .Thi spoem
s n o it a m a l c x e y b d e t a r a p e
s searching fo r the actor s behind terro irsm . These .
g n i d n e n i m e o p e h t f o k a e p e h t o t g n i n n i g e b e h t m o r f d e tr a t s s n o it a m a l c x e
, d n a h r e h t o e h t n
O Ginsberg’ s“AMERICA” i sautobiography poerty .I t s
a
w separated i ntot hreepa tr sseparatedbyspace .Int hi spoem ,Ginsbergdeifned y
ti t n e d i s i h d n a e fi l s i h h g u o r h t a c ir e m
A . According t o Ginsberg’biography ,he r .
t s i n u m m o c a s a w r e h t o
m Thi sstatu sappeared in “AMERICA” il s 7ne 6 - .74 ”
I “ e h t e r o f e r e h
T a sthespeakeri n t hepoem wa sGinsberg himsel.f nI effo trst o e
h t e t e l p m o
c searchingo fpoeitco irgino f“SOMEBODYBLEWUPAMERICA” n
o it a l e r s ti d n
a wtih “AMERICA” , the researche r did the mapping o f idenitifcaitonoft het wopoetsint hesepoem .s
n o it a c if it n e d I e h T .
1 fo Ra itos i tn heBeginning
n i a t n o c ” A C I R E M A P U W E L B Y D O B E M O S “ s ’ a k a r a
B e a d lo to fangr y
s n o i s s e r p x
e scattered in the Irony and Sarcasm .The anger wa sdriected to the y
b d e r e v il e d t s ir o r r e t f o n o it i n if e
t c e fr e p m i d n
a images ,God and Evi lfacein t hehistory. Barakastatred hi spoem h
ti
w ilnesint heparenthese sast hedriec topposiitontowarddeifniitono fterro irsm a
c ir e m A n
i , a sseen i n“Allt hinkingpeople/ opposet erro irsm/ bothdomesitc / & …
l a n o it a n r e t n
i / Bu tones houldnot /beused / Tocovert heother)”(Baraka ,2001 , e
n
il s 1- )7 .
e h t s i t i e s u a c e b n o it i d d a r o t n a tr o p m i s s e l s i s e s e h t n e r a p f o e r u t a n e h T
. c i p o t n i a m e h t m o r f e r u tr a p e
d The ilnesi nt hebeginning o fBaraka’ spoemw ere n
o it c u d o rt n i n
a , t hough t herei sno proo ftha tBarakawrotei ta san addiiton, t he t
n a tr o p m i s s e l s a d a e r e b d l u o c s i s e h t n e r a
p . In these il sne ,Baraka declared hi s e
l p o e p g n i k n i h t ll a m o r f d n i m t n e r e f fi d e h t s a d n i
m , t heuniquemind . eT h other
d n i
m should no tbeusedt ocove t rhi smind .Therefore, every ilnenegate d“They” d
n i m s ’ e l p o e p r
o w erethe rtuemind o fBaraka. T he rtue mind stood against the s
’ e l p o e
p deifniitonofAmeircaandterro irsm .
t n o r f n o c a k a r a B , e c i o v d n a d n i m n w o s i h g n i h c r a e s n
I e dGinsberg’ smind .
f o y t e i x n a s i h s a w t
I beingi n lfuencedandbet hes amea sGinsberg .Baraka’sm ind s
’ g r e b s n i G d e s i v e
r mind in the beginning o fhi spoem through the cilnamen. d
n i m s ’ g r e b s n i
G w asloyalt o t henaiton and nothingt o ifgh tagainsti ta sseen i n f
o g n i n n i g e b e h
t “AMERICA”“Ameirca 'Ivegivenyoual landnow 'Imnothing . / d n a t s t ' n a c I / 6 5 9 1 , 7 1 y r a u n a J s t n e c n e v e s y t n e w t d n a s r a ll o d o w t a c ir e m
A my
d n i m n w
o ”(Ginsberg ,1956 , ilne s1- .)3 Ginsberg’ scontexti si n responset oward it
i n if e d e h t d n a y c il o p n a i s A , s c it il o p d i o n a r a p , r a w d l o
c on o fbeing Ameirca.
o t n i d n i m s ’ g r e b s n i G d e v r e w s y ll u f s s e c c u s a k a r a B , t x e t n o c t n e r e f fi d n i h g u o h T
e u rt e h t s a f l e s m i h g n ir a l c e d y b d n i m n w o s i
n e m a n il
c o fGinsberg’ smind who gave al land nothing ,a sseen in “Bu tone t
o n d l u o h
s /beused /Tocoveredt heother”(Baraka ,2001 ,ilne s5- )7 . t
n e r e f fi d e b o t n o it n e t n i s ’ a k a r a
B fromallt hinkingpeoplewho opposet he s
a w m s ir o r r e
t the swerved “mind” o fGinsberg in “AMERICA” .The Irony in e
v a g o h w , s s e n g n i h t o n s ’ g r e b s n i
G hi smind and money t o hi scounrty, swerved o
t n
i the rtuei ndependen tvoiceo fBaraka’ smind .Theallt hinkingpeople ,a swel l ,
g r e b s n i G s
a weret heoppressed mind .They wereoppressedbyparanoid poilitc s .s
e i m e n e n g i e r o f f o a e d i e h t n i n e e s s
a Through t hecilnamen ,Barakacreatedhi s g
n i d n a t s y lt c e ri d y b e p o
rt hi smindagains tAmeircan’ sparanoidpoilitc .s e
h
T n tex ilnesof t hepoem explained themeaning o fterro irstsaccording e
l p o e p g n i k n i h t l l a o
t .Terro irsts ew re no tthe Ame ircan terro irsts bu t“some c
ir a b r a
b ARabinAfghanistan”. “T yh ” ee w er nott heKuKluxKlan, thes kinhead , n
o it a z i n a g r o l a r u tl u c t s i c a r e h
t .“They” werenotthegovernmen to fUSA such as d n a , r e l d n u h c S . D t e r B , i n a il u i G m a il li W f l o d u R , e k u D d i v a D , tt o L t n e r T
w o t s ir B m l e H n i m a j n e
B . According t o B irtannica Encyclopedia ,“ ythe ” wereal l t
n e m n r e v o g t s i c a r e h
t s. Ironically ,“they”didno ts eethegonorrheai n costume ro d
e ll a c e b o t d e s
u the whtie sheet sdisease sa the terro irst .In fac,t “they” killed .
y ti n a m u h d n a y ti n a s , n o s a e r , e l p o e p k c a l
b tIi srio nnysee inBaraka’ es il s 8- 4n 2 . a
k a r a
B ’ s mind porrtayed “they” who made sitgma o fterro irs tto the r
e n g i e r o
f sa creato rof paranoid poilitc .s The idea o fthe unknown foreigne r s
a w , ” n a t s i n a h g f A n i b a R A c ir a b r a b “ s a h c u s , t s ir o r r e
t equal wtih unknown
u
” d a m r e w o p s 'a i s s u R e h T . e v il a s u t a e o t s t n a w a i s s u R e h T / . s n a i s s u R m e h t
6 7 s e n il , 6 5 9 1 , g r e b s n i G
( -7 8 .)Incontrast ,Baraka’ smindalsoporrtayedthewhtie a
e h r r o n o g r o e s a e s i
d a sthe rtue terro irs tfo rblack people ,reason santiy and .
y ti n a m u
h
a k a r a
B ’ s mind wa san angry expression showed by some words such as “blow up”, “murdered” , “disease” , and “terro irzed. nI conrtas,t Ginsberg
n o it n e
m e d Russian sand Chinamen in t hefunny manner .Ginsberg’ s ilne s76- 87 .
a c ir e m A f o s c it il o p d i o n a r a p e h t d e l u c i d
ir Baraka made himsel fdfiferen tfrom g
r e b s n i
G through t heirony o f“they” porrtayed i n t he ilne s8- 42 .Baraka’ smind porrtayed “they” a s the creator s o f paranoid poilitc in Irony and angry
.s n o i s s e r p x
e
a k a r a
B ’ sm indnegatedthepreviou sil sne ,ass eeni n“Theys ay( whos ay?) g
n i y a s e h t o d o h
W /Who i s t hem paying /Who t ell t he iles /Who i n disguise” ,
1 0 0 2 , a k a r a B
( il e 5n 2 -28) .These negaiton swere the turning point o fBaraka’ s .
d n i
m These quesitons seek t he peoplebehind thepracitceo fbusiness fo terror. d
e t a g e n s l a tt u b e r e s e h
T thepreviou sil s dne a n madesomer acia lorganizaiton sand t
n e m n r e v o
g name sast het erro irst s . s
’ g r e b s n i
G m , ind a sseen in “Ameirca 'Ive given you al land now 'Im g
n i h t o
n ”, wa sswerved in Baraka’ s ilne sabove. In Ginsberg’ s“AMERICA”, t he s
a w ” I “ e h t f o s s e n g n i h t o
n theburdenofi denttiy .The“I”wast heMr .Ame irca ,a s n
i n e e
r a
w , atombomb ,paranoid poilitcstowardTrotskytie scommunists ,andb adAsian y
c il o
p ,ass eenin ilne s4- ,5 ,1 31 1 . f
o d a e t s n
I takingpar toft heI denttiydeilveredi nGinsberg’ smind ,Baraka f
o a e d i e h t d e t c e j e
r n“ othing” .Baraka’ smind wa sno tpar to fthese Ameircan e
h t d n a s n o it a z i n a g r o , s e m a
n i rpoilcies. The negaiton o fGinsberg’ s“nothing” 5
2 e n il t a d e r a e p p
a - 83 . Baraka’s im dn deilvere d the bruta l rtuth abou tthe rea l t
s ir o r r e
t . In thi scase ,Baraka’ snegaiton swere a place fo rh is concepiton o f fl
e s m i
h andhi swo lrda sacriitcoft het erro irsmdiscourse. t
x e n e h
T il s ne wereBaraka’ sattenitont owardt hehistoryoft henaiton .He related t he rtagedy o fTwin t owe ro fWo lrd Trade Cente rbombing followed b y
e h t n i y r e v a l s f o e c it c a r p e h t h ti w , n o it a n i m ir c s i d n o i g il e r d n a l a i c a
r plantaiton ,a s
n i n e e
s the ilne s2 - 19 4 . These ilnesaccused thepeopleo fWal lSrteetast heevi l r
o
f theblack f amliyandtheI ndians ,a sseeni n ilne s34 .Thereforehequesitoned e h t e b l li t s & d o G y e h t y a s o h W “ n i n e e s s a , t e e rt S l l a W f o e l p o e p e h t t u o b a
.) 1 4 e n il , 1 0 0 2 , a k a r a B ( ” li v e
D Accordingt oBrtiannicaEncyclopedia ,Wal lSrtee t s
a
w t lhe ocaitonoft hechie f ifnanciali nsttiu iton soft heUS;t hemodern myth o f s
e h c ir k c i u q o t e t u o r d n a s n o r a b r e b b o r s u o i c a p a
r .Wal lSrtee tatt he il s ne above
s a
w t dhe evi lbehindt hegenocideoft heI ndian sandwastedt heblacknaiton. a
e d a m a k a r a
B tesserao fGinsberg’ silne s8- “9 , Ameircawhenwli lyoube ”
? s e h t o l c r u o y f f o e k a t u o y l li w n e h W / ? c il e g n
a (Ginsberg ,1956 , ilne s8- )9 .
r e m A t a h t e p o h a d a h d n i m s ’ g r e b s n i
G icacouldbeangeilcand hones.t Baraka’ s d
n i
m con rtasted i ta sseen in riony o fAme irca tha ti sporrtayed a sGod ,who ,
g n i h t y r e v e d e n if e d d n a d e t a e r
y e h t d n a y l g u u o y y a s o h
W the goodlookingest” (Baraka ,2001 , ilnes 54 -49) .In a
k a r a B , s e n il e s e h
t ciritcized Ginsberg’ smind da sn hi identtiy a sthe Ameircan h
s i w e
J tha twa spefrec tand good l ooking. Barakacreated aspacef o rhismind a s aciritco fthei deao fpefrectnessandgoodl ooking.
, d n i m s ’ g r e b s n i G f o n o it e l p m o c e h t s
A Baraka’sm indperformed i njusitce y
b e d a m s a w t a h t r o r r e t l a e r e h t d n
a Wal lSrtee tpeople, t heUS Governmen tand l
a i c a r e h
t organizaito .ns T shati teserrao fGinsberg’ silnesi n10- 41 . ?
e v a r g e h t h g u o r h t fl e s r u o y t a k o o l u o y l li w n e h W
? s e ti y k s t o r T n o il li m r u o y f o y h tr o w e b u o y l li w n e h
W 11
? s r a e t f o l l u f s e ir a r b il r u o y e r a y h w a c ir e m A
? a i d n I o t s g g e r u o y d n e s u o y l li w n e h w a c ir e m
A 31
'Ims icko fyouri nsanedemands . 0
1 s e n il , 6 5 9 1 , g r e b s n i G
( - )1 4
n
I these ilne sGinsberg’ smindi deailzed Ameircawhich acknowledged t hes o fin y
r o t s i h e h t n i y rt n u o c e h
t ,vicitms ,andt heneedsf o rgood AsianPoilcy .Baraka’ s tessera showed t he t ear sand t hegrave in hi squesiton sabout t he people behind
y r o t s i h l u f n i s d n a r a w n a m u h e h
t a sthe compleiton o ranswer o fGinsberg’ s t
n e m e g d e l w o n k c
a .
s n o it a c if it n e d I e h T .
2 o fRa itos int heMiddle n
I the second pa tr ,Baraka calle d the memory o fAmeircan occupaiton r
e h t o n a d r a w o
t counrty and the falied o pf residen ita leleciton system ,a sseen i n r
e d n u s e n il e h
t 85 - 27 . Baraka eu d s thewords “stole” “, force”, “own” ,“got” ,and ”
n u r
“ to ifguratet heoccupaiton andt error .Int hese ilnes ,Baraka’ smind accused o
e p e h
t plewho own t he bulidingsand go tmoney from t heslave ship and army . d
n i m s ’ a k a r a
1 7 s e n il n i n e e
s - 27 .The word “ efak ” w sas h i atten iton toward governmenta l m
e t s y
s o fpresidenita leleciton .Fo rBaraka’ smind,t hesystemdidno tprovide the l
a e
r president .Thes ystemprovidedther ule randt hebanke rt ocon rtol et h lawand e
h
t money. In t he se ilnes, Barakaf orced himseflt o completeGinsberg’ smind in b
o r s i
d i ngthe“angeilc”bys howingt hef lawoft hes ystem. e
b o t d e t n a w d n i m s ’ a k a r a
B dfiferentf romGinsberg’ smindint het ermo f m
s ir o r r e t d r a w o t r e n n a
m .Thet errorf o rGinsberg’ smindwa sAmeircanemoitona l a
h t e fi
l twa srun by The Time Magazines ,a sseen in the ilnes 24 - 05 . Thi s w
e n i z a g a
m a sin lfuenita lfo rGinsberg’ smind a sseen in the ilne sabove .He s a f l e s m i h d n u o f e h , e r o m r e h tr u F . s s e n s u o ir e s d n a y ti li b i s n o p s e r t u o b a d e n r a e l
9 4 s e n il n i n e e s s a , e n i z a g a m e m i T d a e r e h r e tf a t s u j a c ir e m A . r
M - .5 0 The
rt r o p s i e n i z a g a M e m i T f o s s e n s u o ir e
s ayedbyEncyclopediaBrtiannicaa samedia t
a h
t wa sarranged in “depatrments” coveirng naitona land internaitona laffaris , .s tr a e h t d n a , s k o o b , s tr o p s , n o i g il e r , w a l , e n i c i d e m , e c n e i c s , n o it a c u d e , s s e n i s u
b tI
f o n o it a l u c ri c a d e n i a tt
a more than 175,000 by 1927 ,and became the mos t .s
e t a t S d e ti n U e h t n i e n i z a g a m s w e n l a it n e u lf n
i
t c e ri d e h t s a w ” y n n u f u o y k n i h t o h w “ 4 6 e n il t a s n o it s e u q s ’ a k a r a B
y n n u f t o n e r e w s m e l b o r p e s o h T . g r e b s n i G o t n o it s e u
q . Th ye wereseirous .Baraka
n i m s u o ir e s a s a d n i m s i h d e m r o f r e
p d t ha tangry aboutthef akepresiden tandhi s r
a w f o s s e n i s u b d n a r o r r e t c it a m e t s y s e h t s a w t I . r o r r e
t porrtayed i “n emoitona l
e fi
l ” o fAmeirca ,a sseen i n t he word s“t he army” ,“slave ship” ,“opium” ,“fake t
n e d i s e r
p ” ,“ther ule rand t hebanker”. They dl ee t h wa ragainstt erro irsmto own n
i
