The exegesis is a discussion of female agency in three novels: The Hunger Games, The Circle and Bumped. The strongest parts of the exegesis are the sections on the actual novels. These sections give an outline of the novels and the roles of the female protagonists. However, the aims of the exegesis are unclear. In the first paragraph Tania writes: ‘this exegesis specifically engages with the interplay between media and female agency in recent dystopian novels.’ And then later, she writes that she will look at the way that female agency is conceptualized in the three novels, through the lens of Judith Butler’s concept of ‘performativity’, and whether ‘the agency afforded them can exist outside restrictive archetypes.’ This is ambitious for
…show more content…
Tania writes: “This paved the way for the forming of female archetypes…’ but then argues that its within patriarchy that ‘women are defined by archetypes.’ How did Piercy and Atwood challenge the existing archetypes in their novels? Did their protagonists have agency?
The discussion of ‘performativity’ also underdeveloped. Tania writes ‘Hence female agency can only be afforded once the protagonists become aware of their own performativity’ but without a broader discussion of ‘performativity’, ‘agency’ and of the novels this statement is rendered meaningless. There is some discussion in the following section of these concepts – and the claim that “Female protagonists must question these [cultural] norms to afford themselves agency,” however the discussions that follow on the individual novels don’t focus on how the writers achieve this, if they do at all.
The focus on media is interesting but the claim made in the conclusion: ‘these writers critique the influence of mass media and its ability to reinforce dominant discourses, ultimately lending its way to forcing females to ‘perform’ within a historical norm…’ hasn’t been demonstrated in the exegesis. It might have been better to start with this at the beginning of the exegesis and then to focus on how the three writers have achieved this in the actual
Tania writes: “This paved the way for the forming of female archetypes…’ but then argues that its within patriarchy that ‘women are defined by archetypes.’ How did Piercy and Atwood challenge the existing archetypes in their novels? Did their protagonists have agency?
The discussion of ‘performativity’ also underdeveloped. Tania writes ‘Hence female agency can only be afforded once the protagonists become aware of their own performativity’ but without a broader discussion of ‘performativity’, ‘agency’ and of the novels this statement is rendered meaningless. There is some discussion in the following section of these concepts – and the claim that “Female protagonists must question these [cultural] norms to afford themselves agency,” however the discussions that follow on the individual novels don’t focus on how the writers achieve this, if they do at all.
The focus on media is interesting but the claim made in the conclusion: ‘these writers critique the influence of mass media and its ability to reinforce dominant discourses, ultimately lending its way to forcing females to ‘perform’ within a historical norm…’ hasn’t been demonstrated in the exegesis. It might have been better to start with this at the beginning of the exegesis and then to focus on how the three writers have achieved this in the actual