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
i v
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 H A I M L I A Y R A K I S A K I L B U P
r a h D a t a n a S s a ti s r e v i n U a w s i s a h a m a y a s ,i n i h a w a b i d n a g n a t a d n a tr e b g n a
Y m a:
a m a
N :Stephanu sEdyWinatro a
w s i s a h a M r o m o
N :084214007
n a a k a t s u p r e P a d a p e k n a k ir e b m e m a y a s , n a u h a t e g n e p u m li n a g n a b m e g n e P i m e D
: l u d u jr e b g n a y h a i m li a y r a k a m r a h D a t a n a S s a ti s r e v i n U
P U W E L B Y D O B E M O S “ S ’ A K A R A B I R I M A N O E C N E U L F N I C I T E O P
” A C I R E M A
Bese traperangka tyangdipelrukan( bliaada) .Dengandemikiansayamembeirkan , n a p m i y n e m k u t n u k a h a m r a h D a t a n a S s a ti s r e v i n U n a a k a t s u p r e p a d a p e k
n a l a k g n a p k u t n e b m a l a d a y n a l o l e g n e m , n i a l a i d e m k u t n e b m a l a d n a k h il a g n e m
,s a t a b r e t a r a c e s n a k i s u b ir t s i d n e m , a t a
d dan mempubilkasikannya di i nterne tatau n u p u a m a y a s i r a d n ij i u lr e p a p n a t s i m e d a k a n a g n it n e p e k k u t n u n i a l a i d e m
i a g a b e s a y a s a m a n n a k m u t n a c n e m p a t e t a m a l e s a y a s a d a p e k y tl a y o r n a k ir e b m e m
.s il u n e p
. a y n r a n e b e s n a g n e d t a u b a y a s i n i n a a t a y n r e p n a i k i m e D
a u b i
D td iYogyaka tra 4 1 : l a g g n a t a d a
P -1-2013
, n a k a t a y n e m g n a Y
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 land spritiua 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
x
T
C
A
R
T
S
B
A
. o tr a n i W y d E s u n a h p e tS AllenGinsberg’ sPoeitcI n lfuenceonAmir iBaraka’ s ” A C I R E M A P U W E L B Y D O B E M O S
“ .Yogyakatra :Depatrmen to fEngilsh s r e tt e L f o y tl u c a F , s r e tt e
L ,SanataDharmaUniverstiy ,2013. a rt n i n a f o y r o t s e h t s i y d u t s s i h t f o d n u o r g k c a b e h
T -poeitc relaitonship
ir i m A n e e w t e
b Baraka anda rtadiitono fpoeitcutterancei nt hemodernAmeircan i ri m A f o n o it p e c n o c e h t r o y ti l a n i g ir o f o e c n e d i v e e h t s e d i v o r p t I . y d u t s y rt e o p n r e d o M f o n o it i d a rt e h t n i s t e o p r e h t o m o r f m i h s e t a it n e r e f fi d t a h t a k a r a B h c r a e s e r s i h t n i , t e o P n a c ir e m
A they are represented by the rtue poe to fBea t t n a v e l e r s i y ti l a n i g ir o s ’ a k a r a B r e v o c s i d e r o T . g r e b s n i G n e ll A , n o it a r e n e G y b d e w o d a h s s y a w l a s i t a h t t n e m e v o M s tr A k c a l B e h t n i n o it n e v n i s i h f o e s u a c e b . s r e ti r w n o it a r e n e G t a e B f o t n e m e v o M t a e
B The approach of the study i s
. m o o l B d l o r a H y b d e r e v il e d c it y l a n a o h c y s
p In Harold Bloom’ s theory tha t
r e h c r a e s e r e h t ,l a n i g ir o e r o m n e v e t e o p a s e k a m t i h g u o h t e l b a d i o v a n u s i e c n e u lf n i s a , ” 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 i ri m A f o g n i d a e r a s e s o p o r p f o n o it a rt s n o m e d
a how Baraka achieve s hi s own place fo r hi s mind by g n i g n e ll a h
c theprecursor’ sachievement ,byHaroldBloom’st heoryo fpoertyThe . e c n e u lf n I f o y t e i x n A b o r p h c r a e s e r o w t o t n i d e d i v i d s i n o it a rt s n o m e d e h
T lems .They are the
s u c o
f cente rwhichi stheproces sofi denit ifcaitonoft het wopoet sandt heprocess m e h t g n o m a e c n e u lf n i c it e o p f
o .The forme raim i sto identfiy the relaiton d e t s e fi n a m e r a s c it s ir e t c a r a h c d e r a h s e h t e r e h w r o s r u c e r p s i h d n a t e o p e h t n e e w t e b o t s i m i a r e t a l e h T . c i p o t d n a e r u t c u rt s s ti n
i measure the poeitc breaking
n e h t d n a t n e m e v e i h c a s ’ r o s r u c e r p e h t e s i v e r y l e v it a e r c o t t e o p e h t y b d e c n e ir e p x e . y ti l a n i g ir o n w o s i h e v e i h c a o t y fi l p m e x e o t s d n e t , m s i c it ir c l a c it c a r p f o e c n a t s n i n a g n i e b s a , s i s y l a n a e h T s ti s a m e o p f o y d o b a f o g n i d a e r
a poe’t sachievedpoeitcanxiety .A sat heory ,a s f o n o it c n u f e h t s e d u l c n i n o i s s u c s i d e h t ,s i s y l a n a n i d e t a rt s n o m e d e b d l u o w t a h w n a e m a s a e g a u g n a l e v it a r u g if r o , s e p o rt l a c it e o
p s o fdefensemechanism ,andeach r o f r e p o T . s o it a r y r a n o i s i v e r n i h ti w n o it a r e p
o m t he movemen tof t he rtope ,s t he f o g n i d n e d n a , e l d d i m , g n i n n i g e b e h t n i d e t c u d n o c e b d l u o w s i s y l a n a c it a m e t s y s . m e o p e h t f o r e w s n a e h
T thefris tquesiton i saprooft ha tAllenGinsbergi n lfuence s c ir e m A f o l a y a rt r o p s ’ g r e b s n i G f o o it a R e h T . a k a r a B i ri m
A a wa srevised i n t he
n i d n e e h t d n a , e l d d i m , g n i n n i g e
b g o f“SOMEBODY BLEW UP AMERICA.” ri
F sltyBarakas wervedt hei deao fGinsberg’ smindthati snothingintoopposiiton v t n e d n e p e d n i d n a y r g n a n a n i d e t s e fi n a m t I . d n i m n o it a g e n r o d n i
m oice ,aview
a t a s n
o nicAmeirca,andt heunbearableburdeno fanger .Theanswert ot hes econd s ’ a k a r a B f o t l u s e r e h t s a w y ti l a n i g ir o s ’ a k a r a B i ri m A t a h t f o o r p s i n o it s e u q , t s ri F . e c n e u lf n i s ’ g r e b s n i G n o p u y t e i x n
a Baraka’ smind wa san angry voice e t s y s l a t n e m n r e v o g e h t t s n i a g
a m .He showed tha tthe rea lpresident shave been m e t s y s l a t n e m n r e v o g d n a d e r e d r u
m ha sbeen conrto lledbyr uler sandbanker sno t .r e w o p s ’ e l p o e p d n a y c a r c o m e d y
b Thi s rtope wa sthe cilnamen o fGinsberg’ s y b d e w o ll o f s i t a h t d n i m s s e lr e w o
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 x
T
C
A
R
T
S
B
A
. o tr a n i W y d E s u n a h p e t
S AllenGinsberg’ sPoeitcI n lfuenceonAmir iBaraka’ s ”
A C I R E M A P U W E L B Y D O B E M O S
“ .Yogyakatra :Depatrmen to fEngilsh s
r e tt e L f o y tl u c a F , s r e tt e
L ,SanataDharmaUniverstiy ,2013.
ir e c h a l a d a i n i i d u t s k u t n u g n a k a l e b r a t a
L tat entang hubungan i nrta-puiit s k
a r a B i ri m A a r a t n
a a dan rtadis ituturan puiitsnya dalam stud i puis imodern g n a y a k a r a B i ri m A i s p e s n o k u a t a s a ti l a n i s ir o i t k u b n a k ir e b m e m i n I . a k ir e m A
ir e m A n a ri a y n e p e k i s i d a rt m a l a d a y n n i a l ri a y n e p n a g n e d a y n ir i d n a k a d e b m e
m ka
i t a j e s r i a y n e p h e l o i li k a w i d i n i n a it il e n e p m a l a d g n a y , n r e d o
m Bea tGeneraiton ,
g n a y h a l a s a m h a l a d a a k a r a B s a ti l a n i s ir o i l a b m e k n a k u m e n e M . g r e b s n i G n e ll A
m a l a d a k a r a B n a u m e n e p a n e r a k n a v e l e
r Black Art sMovemen t selalu dibayang i h
e l
o keberadaan Bea tMovement dar ipara penuil sBea tGenera iton .Pendekatan .
m o o l B d l o r a H h e l o k it il a n a o k i s p h a l a d a i n i i d u t s m a l a
d Dalamteor ipuis iHarold
, m o o l
B bahwapengaruh itdakdapa tdihindar imeskipunmembuats eorangpenyai r h
i b e l n a k h a
b o irsinal ,penelti imengusulkan pembacaan puis iAmri iBarakayang l
u d u jr e
b "SOMEBODYBLEWUPAMERICA" ,sebaga idemonsrtas ibagaimana n
e m a k a r a
B emukan tempa t send ri i untuk pikriannya dengan menghadapi pencapaian pendahulunya ,melalui teor ipuis iHarold Bloom ;Kecemasan Akan
. h u r a g n e P
s n o m e
D rtas iin idibag imenjad idua rumusan masalah ,yang fokusn ya k
a t e lr e
t pada prose siden itifkas iata sdua penyai rdan prose spengaruh puiit sd i a
r a t n
a penyaritersebut .Tujuan petramaadalah untuk mengidenit ifkas ihubungan n
a d r i a y n e p a r a t n
a pendahulunya pada manfiestas i karakteirsitknya masing -g
n i s a
m dalamsrtuktu rdantopikpuisi .Tujuans elanjutnyaadalahuntukmenguku r n
a h a s i m e
p puiit s yang dialam i oleh penyai r untuk merevisi pencapaian a
r a c e s a y n u l u h a d n e
p kreait fdankemudianmencapaio irsinaltia .s s
il a n
A isnya ,sebaga icontohk iritkprakits ,cenderunguntukmencontohkan g
n a t n e t n a a c a b m e
p “sebadan-puisi” sebaga i kecemasan puiit s yang dicapa i ri
a y n e
p n ya. Sebagait eo ir ,sepe tr iyang akan diperagakan dalam anailsis ,diskus i n
a k
a meilpu itf ungs ikiasan puiits ,atau bahasakiasan sebaga isaranamekanisme a
l e
b - irdi ,danseitapoperasin yadalamr asio r evisioner .Untukmenunjukkangerak t
u b e s r e t n a s a i
k ,anailsi ssistemait sakan dliakukan dar iawal ,tengah ,dan akhi r .
u ti i s i u p i r a d
d a a m a tr e p n a a y n a tr e p i r a d n a b a w a
J alah bukt ibahwa Allen Ginsberg h
u r a g n e p m e
m iAmri iBaraka .Raito dar icirtaan Ginsberg mengenai Ameirka i
s i v e r e
t d i awa,l tengah , dan akhi r dar i puis i “SOMEBODY BLEW UP ”
A C I R E M
A .Petrama pikrian Baraka membelokk an pik rian tak berdaya atau n
a a d a it e
k Ginsberg menjad ipikrian oposisi atau pikrian negasi .In idiwujudkan n
a g n a d n a p , n e d n e p e d n i n a d h a r a m a r a u s n a g n e
d akan sfia tsetani Ameirka, dan
k a t g n a y h a r a m a n a b e
b tetrahankan .Jawaban dar ipetranyaankeduaadalah bukit -a
w h a b i t k u
b o irsinaltia sAmri iBaraka merupakan hasi ldar ikecemasan Baraka g
r e b s n i G h u r a g n e p a d a
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
.Ginsberg i sa poe to fBea tGeneraiton Wrtiers .Hi s“Howl” i sthemos t .
n o it i d a rt y r a r e ti l n r e d o m s ’ a c ir e m A e h t n i e n o l a t n e m u n o
m He is a poe tand
n i e c n e r e fr e t n i s ’ n a c ir e m A d n a s t h g ir n a m u h f o y ti l a u q e d e z i c it ir c o h w t s i v it c a
t c a s i H . r a W m a n t e i
V ivism and poerty are acknowledged a sthe icon o fBea t t s il a n o it a N k c a l B d e t o m o r p a k a r a B , d n a h r e h t o e h t n O . t n e m e v o M y r a r e ti L
a t s e y b t n e m e v o
M bilshing Black A tr sMovement sin 1965 in Ha lrem .He wa s f
o e s u a c e b y e s r e J w e N n i 1 0 0 2 e t a e r u a L t e o P a s a d e n i a d r
o hi scontirbuitons i n
. s e it i v it c a y r a r e ti l d n a l a r u tl u c e h t
e r p e h t n
I -research, t her esearcherr ead t heessay o fBea tGeneraiton .The s i m s i v it i m ir p t a e B . m s i v it i m ir P t a e B e h t t u o b a a e d i s ’ y r o g e r G d n u o f r e h c r a e s e r
n a b r u f o e u q it ir c
A -industira lciviilzaitonandasearcht or ecove rauthenitc n a m u h l a u d i v i d n i s n i o j t a h t s u x e n e h t r e v o c s i d e r o t , y ti t n e d i n a m u h
c n a m u h e h t ,s g n i e
b ommuntiy ,nature ,anddivintiy(Gregory ,2009:177). n i m s i v it i m ir P t a e B f o t ir i p s e h t e s n e s o t r e h c r a e s e r e h t d e l n o it i n if e d s i h
T reading
r e h c r a e s e r e h T . ” A C I R E M A W E L B Y D O B E M O S
“ searched the o irgin o fthi s
e h t n i m e o
p Bea twrtiers and found Ginsberg’ spoems .Histo irca lfac tsaid that s
a w g r e b s n i
G Baraka’ sclosef irend . tIi sprovedwhenBarakasaid ,“Therei sonly n
i n a m e ti h w e n
o eN w York Ireally rtust-tha’t sAllen Ginsberg” (Stone ,1964 : )
2
1 . tI showed hi s preference and opened the quesiton abou tin lfuence and .
y ti l a n i g ir
o A tfe rreading Ginsberg’ sand Baraka’ spoems ,the researche rfound B
Y D O B E M O S “ s ’ a k a r a B f o s n o it a c if it n e d i e m o
s LEW UP AMERICA” wtih
I R E M A “ s ’ g r e b s n i
G CA”frominstance sofl anguageand ti smeaning .
f o s n o it p e c n o c ’ s t e o p e h t “ s n a e m y ti l a n i g ir O , m o o l B d l o r a H r o F
s e v l e s m e h
a e s e r e h t , y rt e o p f o y r o e h t s ’ m o o l
B rche rfound the creaitve act so fmisreading . e h t o t r o s r u c e r p e h t m o r f s o it a r e h t f o s n o i s i v e r e h t e r a g n i d a e r s i m f o s t c a e v it a e r C g n o rt s f o d n i k a y b d e t c u d n o c s i e r a f r a w c it e o P “ , d i a s m o o l B s a , t e o p d e t a l e b g n i d a e r s i m d e ll a c e v a h I t a h t g n i d a e
r ”( Bloom ,1979:5) .Thesixr evisionaryr aito s d n a s e p o rt f o s i s y l a n a e h t n i d e m r o f r e p y e h T . g n i d a e r f o s t c a e v it a e r c e h t e r a e v it a r u g if r o l a c ir o t e h r e h t s a w h c r a e s e r s i h t n i e p o rt f o n o it i n if e d e h T . g n i p o rt . n o it i d a rt y r a r e ti l e h t n i g n i h t e m o s r e f e r o t d e s u e c i v e
d I twast akenf romKenneth
e m a c e b t i y l n o f i y rt e o p n i s l a e v e r e p o r T “ , e r u t a r e ti l n i m r o f f o n o it i n if e d s ’ e k r u B e h t n i r o n o it n e v n i f o e c a l p
a ltierary rtadiiton called topos” (Bloom ,1979: )2 . ir e s e h t n i w e n g n i h t e m o s s n a e m e c n e u q e s n i d e if it a r g n o it n e v n
I e soff orm .
; l a n i g ir o s s e l s t e o p e k a m t o n d e e n e c n e u lf n i c it e o p “ , m o o l B o t g n i d r o c c A d n a r e tt e b y li r a s s e c e n e r o f e r e h t t o n h g u o h t ,l a n i g ir o e r o m m e h t s e k a m t i n e tf o s a o t ,s a e d i f o y r o t s i h e h t o t , y d u t s f o e c r u o s o t d e c u d e r e b t o n n a c s e it i d n u f o r p s ti e tt a
p rningofi mages”( Bloom ,1997:7). Bloomsaidt ha tpoeitci n lfuenceo rpoeitc e fi l e h t f o y d u t s e h t s i n o i s ir p s i
m -cycleoft hepoe ta sapoe.tI n t hi sstudy ,Bloom f o y t e i x n a e h t h g u o r h t e r o m r e h tr u F . e l b a d i o v a n u s i e c n e u lf n i t a h t d e e r g a l a v m o o l B , e c n e u lf n
i uest hecreaitveact so fmisreading a sawayt o ifnd apoe’t s h f o n o it p e c n o
c im/hersefli nt he rtope sand rtoping.
f I . e c n e u lf n i s ’ g r e b s n i G m o r f e p a c s e t o n n a c e h h g u o h t e u q i n u s i a k a r a B w o h , e l b a d i o v a n u s i e c n e u lf n
i would the researche rrediscoverthe o irginaltiy o f a
r a
B ka’ s“SOMEBODY BLEW UP AMERICA”? To answert he i ssue upon t he s ’ a k a r a B n o p u g n i h c r a e s e h t d e t c u d n o c r e h c r a e s e r e h t , m e o p s ’ a k a r a B n i e c n e u lf n i r e v o c s i d e r o t y ti l a n i g ir
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
e k a h S n e e w t e b l a n o s r e p e d a
m speareancharacters .Shakespearealsousest heword o s l a m o o l B ” .s y a l p e h t d n a s t e n n o s e h t n i h t o b ” , n o it a ri p s n i “ n a e m o t ” e c n e u lf n i “ y lt c e ri d ” g n i k a t s i m “ d n a , ” n o i s ir p s i m “ , ” g n i v r e w s “ d r o w e h t k o o
t fromSonne t87
r e v o l a c i n o ri n a s
a -esteeming o rover- ites maiton ,in orde rto explain the word r o n o it a l e r s ’ r e ti r w y n a f o y r o g e ll a e h t s i 7 8 t e n n o S t a h t d e m i a l c e H ” . e c n e u lf n i “ .r e n n u r e r o f n w o s ’ e n o s a n e k a t e r u g if a n i d e i d o b m e s a y lr a l u c it r a p , n o it i d a rt y ti l a n i g i r O . 2 e h t n i t e o p a r o f e c a l p a s i y ti l a n i g ir
O ltierary rtadiitont ha tapoe tdfiferen t n e e w t e b y ti l a n i g ir o f o e c n e t s i x e e h t n o e t a b e d a s i e r e h T . t e o p r e h t o n a m o r f .s e i d u t s y r a r e ti l f o n o it i d a rt m o r f e l p o e p d n a s e i d u t s l a r u tl u c m o r f e l p o e
p People
o e c n e t s i x e e h t n i f e il e b t o n d i d s e i d u t s l a r u tl u c m o r
f fo irginaltiy .On the othe r
e h t n i e u s s i l a rt n e c e h t e m a c e b y ti l a n i g ir o n o it i d a rt y r a r e ti l e h t m o r f e l p o e p d n a h . s m e o p d n a s t e o p n e e w t e b n o it a l e
r Thedeifniitono fo irginaltiyi n t hisr esearch i s e r e v il e d s i h c i h w n o it i d a rt y r a r e ti l f o y d u t s e h t m o r f n e k a
t d by Harold Bloom .In
y r o e h t s ’ m o o l
B fo poerty ;T h Ae nxiety o fIn lfuence ,o irginaltiy wa sexplained a s t e o p e h
t ’ sconcepiton ;“thepoe’t sconcepiton soft hemselve sarer evealedt hrough s m e o p r i e h
t ”( Bloom ,1979 :3). y ti l a n i g ir o , n o it i n if e d s i h t n
I o fcetrain poem i ssearched through ques t n
o p
u thepoeitci n lfuenceint heltierary rtadiiton .Becauseaccordingt o Bloom ,to h ti w l a e
d poeitc in lfuence need no tmake poet sles so irginal ;a so tfen i tmake s tt e b y li r a s s e c e n e r o f e r e h t t o n h g u o h t , l a n i g ir o e r o m m e h
t e rand ti sprofundiite s
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 poeitc in 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 int hesame ilnewtihWallaceStevens ,Har t Crane ,andJ ohnAshbery.
e o j d u C . R n y w l e
S is anothe rnamewhichshouldbew irtten 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
y g e t a rt
s .Thoseway screated suchurgency .Cudjoealso r ead t hi spoembased on e
h t y b n e v i g e u l c e h
t p to be , yquoitngthepoemast hebasi so fhisf u trhe ranalysis . c
il p x e s 't e o p e h t h g u o h tl
A aiton o fhi stex ti sno/tshould no tbe taken a s fl
e
s -eviden t rtuth ,anyonewho wishest ounderstand wha tBarakai sabou t o t d e ir t e h t a h w t u o b a s y a s e h t a h w f o l u f d n i m n u e b t o n n a c m e o p s i h t n i
c o f e m e h t g n i y lr e d n u s ' m e o p e h t " s y a s e H . .. m e o p s i h n i e v e i h c
a use son
g n i e b e c n i s m s ir o r r e t c it s e m o d m o r f d e r e f f u s e v a h s n a c ir e m A k c a l B w o h
, y r e v a l s l e tt a h c S U o t n i d e p p a n d i
k … histo ircally ,and att hi sveryminute .
S U e h t t u o h g u o r h
t (Cudjoe ,“Onewayofr eading “SOMEBODYBLEW ”
A C I R E M A P
U ” ,Decembe r14th2002 .) j
d u
C oesaw t hi spoem related wtih t hewrtier’si nteniton abou t“wha thet ired t o m
e o p s i h t n i e v e i h c
a .”
s ’ n i k s a R h a n o J f o e c a f e r p e h t n i , a ti l u y a
S Ame ircan Scream used
s ’ g r e b s n i
G “AMERICA” to talk abou tthe relaiton o fthe cold-wa rand ltierary A
“ . y ti v it a e r
c me ircawhen wli lwe end t hehuman war?”and “Go fuck yoursel f ”
b m o b m o t a r u o y h ti
w w erethedriects entences fromGinsberg’ s“AMERICA” to .
n o it a l e r s ti m r o f r e
p S he explaine d tha tGinsberg became Mr .Ame irca in thi s r
e m A f o s o o b a t e h t ll a p u d e n e p o d n a m e o
p ica ;queer ,communis,tr eadMarx ,and ,
a n a u ji r a m d e k o m
s made him very conrtoversia l fo r the society . Therefore ”
A C I R E M A
“ oc uldn’ tber eadonp irme-itmeTV (Raskin ,2004 :xii- )x . iv
n o it u l o v e R A “ , d e lt it n e s i s e h t e t a u d a r g r e d n u r e h n i y h t e n r e b A a i v il O n i h ti
w A Revolu iton :Af ircan Ame ircan and Women Bea tPoets”acknowledged o
p r e h t o o w t d n a a k a r a
B et sa sepigones .She said i n t he conclusion ,“The mos t , b r o s b a o t n o it a n i m r e t e d s u o i c a n e t ri e h t s i d n a s a w s t e o p e s e h t f o t c e p s a t n a tr o p m i
e f fi d e g n e ll a h c d n a , t c e lf e
r ren t aspects o f society .Wtihou t this , poerty and ”
. e m a s e h t e b t o n d l u o w a c ir e m
A Abernethy in the conclusion declared tha t a
c ir e m A d n a y rt e o
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 ’ sessay 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 ,paritculalry 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 n u o r g k c a B l a c i h p a r g o i B /l a c i r o t s i H n o w e i v e R . C
a k a r a B i r i m A . 1
w e i v r e t n i ,s e l c it r a , e ti s b e w l a i c if f o s i h n i n e tt ir w s a w y h p a r g o i b s ’ a k a r a B
d e d u l c n o c r e h c r a e s e r e h T . s k o o b d n a s t n e m u c o
d tha tAmri iBaraka formelry
n w o n
k a sLeRo iJones ;a poet ,edtior ,play wrtiers ,musica lciritc ,and socia l .
4 3 9 1 t a n r o b s a w e H . t s i v it c
a Hisf ather ;CoyetteLeRoyJone ,si saposta lworke r .
r e k r o w l a i c o s a s e n o J s i o L a n n A r e h t o m s i h d n
a H ehad ilvedont hesrtee ta shis
g n i n n i g e
b in NewYorkCtiy ,associaitngwtihwrtier so tfen connectedt ot heBea t t
n e m e v o m y r a r e ti
l int hel ateo f1950s(Lawlor ,2005 :11).
h g i H r e g n ir r a B m o r f n e e t x i s e g a t a 1 5 9 1 n i s r o n o h h ti w d e t a u d a r g s e n o J
i y ti s r e v i n U s r e g t u R d e d n e tt a e H . y e s r e J w e N , k r a w e N n i l o o h c
S n Newark on a
y ti s r e v i n U d r a w o H o t d e r r e f s n a rt r e t a l t u b p i h s r a l o h c
s wherehedidno tcomplete
n i t n a e g r e s a s a w s e n o J . e e r g e d
a ai rforce. In 1957 ,he wa sdischarged from tr
a n a n a g e b d n a e c i v r e s y r a ti li
m isitc lfie in Greenwich Village (Lawlor ,2005 : )
1 1 .
, e fi l c it s it r a s i h f o g n i n n i g e b e h t n
I he wa sthe edtio ro fYugen ,a ltilte , a m ir P i d e n a i D h ti W . n o it a r e n e G t a e B e h t f o s r e ti r w y n a m d e r u t a e f t a h t e n i z a g a m
e
h edtied Floaitng Bear , a mimeographed poerty newslette r tha t lfou irshed i
e n a t n o p s t i f o e s u a c e
b ty and i mmediacy .A tfert hedeath o fMalcolm Xi n 1965 , f l e s m i h e t a r a p e s o t m i h d e l ti d n a d e g n a h c s a w t n e m e v o m y r a r e ti l t u o b a n o i s i v s i h
k c a l B e h t g n i d n u o f y b t n e m e v o M s tr A k c a l B e h t d e h s il b a t s e e H . s t a e B e h t m o r f
r e t a e h T y r o tr e p e R s tr
e h t d e s i v e r d n a e m a n l a u ti ri p s e h t d e p p o r d y lt n e u q e s b u s ; 7 6 9 1 n i ) d e s s e l B (
t a N k c a l B n i d e c n u o n e r a k a r a B , 4 7 9 1 n I . a k a r a B i ri m A e m a c e b g n il l e p
s ionailsm
e r a l c e d d n
a dhimsel fa saMarxist-Leninist (Lawlor ,2005 :11). f
o s k r o w y lr a e e h
T Baraka were hi sdeclaraiton .Preface to a Twenty s i h l a e v e r h c i h w s m e o p s i h f o n o it c e ll o c t s ri f s i h s i ) 1 6 9 1 ( e t o N e d i c i u S e m u l o V
ll i W . s t a e B e h t o t n o it c e n n o c e s o l
c iamLawlori n hi sbookBea tCutluresaid t ha t e h t e r e w g r e b s n i G n e ll A d n a , r e d y n S y r a G , e r u l C c M l e a h c i M , s r e n e i W n h o J
e fi w s i h r o f n e tt ir w e r e w s m e o p e m o S . s m e o p s i h d e t a c i d e d e h m o h w o t e l p o e p
d n a , l a i c o s , y r a r e ti l e r a s t c e j b u s r e h t o e h t t u b r e t h g u a d d n
a poilitca lsubjects .Hi s
d e h s il b a t s e , s c i m e d a c a d r a w o t n o it a n m e d n o c e h t e b o t d e u n it n o c n e h t s k r o w
.s k c a l b s s a l c e l d d i m d n a , s e ti h w , s w e J , s e it ir o h t u
a He irdiculed hypocirsy ,
e h , s t a e B e h t m o r f fl e s m i h d e t a r a p e s e h h g u o h T . t c u d n o c e v i s s e r p p o r o , e c n a r o n g i
me tthem again wtih Allen Ginsberg a tthe 92nd Srtee tY in New York Ctiy (Lawlor ,2005 :11- )1 . 2
g r e b s n i G n e ll
A i sa very in lfuenital fo r Baraka . I ti s proved in hi s a
c e h t e o p f o e c n e r e f e
r lled i n some i nterviews t ha twere documented i n a book e
v n o c d e lt it n
e rsaitonwtihAmri iBaraka .WhenDavidOsmanaskedhimaboutt he o
r f A g n i e b f o e c n e u lf n
i -Ameircan to speech pattern in hi s w iritng , Baraka “
, d e r e w s n
a Icould hardlyhelp ti .Therearecetrain i n lfuence sonme ,a saNegro l
p p a t ' n d l u o w y l n i a tr e c t a h t , n o s r e
p yt oapoe tilkeAllenGinsberg . Icouldn' thave e
c n a t s n ir o f " , h s i d d a K " m e o p t a h t n e tt ir
w …Everything app ile s- - everything in e
r a e r e h t , y ll a c i g o l o i c o S . e fi l r u o
y dfiferen tin lfuences ,dfiferen tthing stha t 'Ive w
o n k e n o o n r o n e ll A t a h t , w o n k I t a h t , n e e
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 sandhenoitced t 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 man fiested 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 sha irng 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
