The Secret Sharer
The works of James Phelan (Reading Secrets) and Michael Levenson (Secret History in 'The Secret Sharer') both take a look at Joseph Conrad's short story, "The Secret Sharer", from two different critical perspectives. Phelan discusses "The Secret Sharer" from the reader-response perspective, and Levenson from the new historicism perspective. It is hard to do direct comparisons on their work because they look at the story from totally opposing views. Phelan and reader-response critics derive the meaning of a story from its psychological context based on the reaction of the reader. Levenson and new historicists choose to ignore a story's psychological context and derive the meanings of the story from a historical event, or events, that lead Conrad to write "The Secret Sharer". In this essay, we will discuss how well each writer represented their critical view in their essay by comparing the thesis of their respective essays, and how well they supported their claims. In an attempt to get an overall idea of how Phelan and Levenson interpret the story, we will look at and compare the theses in their essays. In Levenson's thesis, he very clearly states that he will address the story based on its historical context and not on it
The final point in his essay is the fact that Leggatt's acts aboard the Sephora are never directly addressed. Phelan attributes this to Conrad's ability to make us agree with his assumptions and not form out own judgement that Leggatt is nothing more then a mere murderer. Due to the unclear nature of the thesis in this essay, we are left not knowing what will be discussed. One of the first clear points made is that Phelan himself believes in the approach of rhetorical reader-response. This is a manner in which the author determines the meaning of the text, although he does recognize the fact that some readers may interpret the story differently. He attributes this to differences in people's perceptions, which he refers to as "otherness that has roots in the reader's subjectivity"(131). Although he believes that the reader has a slightly smaller role in determining the meaning of the text, the fact that he does address the reader as having some importance does follow with the beliefs of reader-response critics. He discusses the role of the readers further, where he divides readers into two groups: those that agree with the readers assumptions, and those that don't. Those that don't agree will derive different meanings from the text then those intended by the reader. The second underlying interpretation is the existence of homosexual attraction between the captain and Leggatt. He uses effective quotes to support this point, the most effective of which is the initial description of Leggatt's body by the captain. The language does imply some homosexual content, as well as the language used in other parts of the story, such as descriptions of situations where the captain and Leggatt are whispering to each other. The fact that they are described as being very close to each other in all these situations, and often sharing a bed, denotes a homosexual content to their relationship. Phelan does manage to get back into effective discussion of reader involvement near the end of the essay in saying that his perception of the homosexual subtext of the story may have been brought on by the Gay M
Some common words found in the essay are:
Phelan Levenson, Detecting Secrets, Cutty Sark, Secret Sharer, Contrast Phelan's, Gay Movement, Leggatt Conrad's, Michael Levenson's, Joseph Conrad's, secret sharer, cutty sark, Secret History, aboard cutty sark, aboard cutty, essay discuss, phelan's discussions, story respect, homosexual content, reader-response critics, captain leggatt, events story,
Approximate Word count = 1425
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
