UNIVERZITA PARDUBICE
Fakulta filozofická
Katedra anglistiky a amerikanistiky
Posudek vedoucího bakalářské práce
(Literárně-kulturní)
Autor práce:
Studijní obor:
Název práce:
Akademický rok:
Vedoucí práce:
Oponent práce:
Lenka Oláhová
AJOP
Gender in works by Betty MacDonald
2013/2014
Daniel Sampey, MFA
Mgr. Petra Smažilová
Kritéria hodnocení
Všeobecná
charakteristika
Hodnocení
1-2-3–4
Splnění zásad zpracování práce a naplnění stanoveného cíle
Logická struktura práce
3
Vyváženost teoretické a praktické části
Kvalita uvedení do širšího kontextu
Teoretická část
Tematická relevance teoretického úvodu k cíli práce
2
Vhodnost využití primárních zdrojů pro podporu/ilustraci argumentace
Praktická část
Rozsah a hloubka vlastní analýzy
3
Relevantní a srozumitelná argumentace a interpretace
Práce s odbornou
literaturou
Kvalita, množství a relevance zpracované literatury
Kritický přístup ke zdrojům
3
Dodržení doporučených pravidel a norem formální úpravy (směrnice FF UPa)
Formální stránka
Kvalita vědeckého aparátu, příloh, tabulek a obrázků
3
Dodržení bibliografických norem ČSN ISO 690
Gramatická přesnost a komplexnost
Slovní zásoba
Jazyková úroveň
Koheze a koherence
Interpunkce a stylistické aspekty
3
Slovní vyjádření k hodnocení bakalářské práce:
This draft of the BP is generally at a higher level than the previous one in terms of information and
analysis; the main problem remains that the theoretical concepts outlined in the opening chapters are
not used directly enough in the analytical chapters. While the theory has clearly influenced the points
made in the analysis, specific links have not been made, thus the exploration of gender in the works
remains on a superficial level, i.e. the points made rarely rise above what is generally accepted in
western cultures regarding gender and society. Thus the BP seems to content to reify outdated
stereotypes (“Girls learn to cook, how to behave as a ‘lady’ and that there duty is to make their
husbands happy.” p.26) that have been discarded by western cultures in general and in the United
States in particular for decades (the implication being that gender “problems” have been solved). A
clearer connection to the deeper, more nuanced arguments about gender, culture and literature in, say,
Friedan (mentioned once on p. 31), Joan Scott or Fiedler could have lent depth to the analysis. For
example, comparisons of MacDonald’s works to later or contemporary gender representations could
have been interesting, e.g. how MacDonald sometimes uses humor to transgress received stereotypes.
Starting from the beginning, even in the Introduction the focus could have been made clearer, e.g.
what is meant exactly by “our society” (p. 4)? This is telling: throughout the paper the viewpoint seems
to vacillate between the notion of some vague, western “our society” and the specific unique conditions
in the United States of the 1950s. This lack of focus hurts the cohesion of the paper. Also, here and
elsewhere the text is far too general and seems to take itself more seriously than is supportable by its
rather mundane analytical conclusions (“Because human memory is short …” p.4).
In the theoretical chapters clear frameworks are presented, e.g. gender analysis (Candida), gender as
methodology (Baym, Fiedler), and “woman’s writing” / “woman’s reading” (Sunderland); as stated
above these theories seem to have only indirectly influenced the analysis, and specific terms and
theorists are seldom mentioned. Having said this, the BP author has attempted to isolate specific
cultural aspects to analyze: childhood (p. 26-27), farm life (p. 28-32), “job segregation and
discrimination” (p.32-36) and “related issues” (p.36-38). This is done adroitly, with the BP author
providing interesting insights and clear, concrete examples. But this raises the question of why the
literary theoretical background belongs in the BP if it is not used more directly in the analysis.
Finally, the language occasionally falls below the C1 standard, although usually not to the point which
the text cannot be understood. Problems include basic usage of determiners, use of prepositions,
inaccurate orthography (sometimes British conventions are used even though the BP is about books
from the US), and typographical errors that could have been avoided with careful proofreading. Also,
at times Czech punctuation is used, e.g. imprecise commas and inverted quotation marks, as well as
Czech sentence structure, e.g. the use of long, detached relative clauses and incorrect word order. This,
however, does not occur too often.
It is clear that from her research the BP writer has been able learn and communicate information about
how gender is represented in literature (in theory) and culture (in the chosen works). It is also clear
that she has thoroughly explored MacDonald’s books on several levels. The basis is here for a master’s
thesis on a similar topic if the BP author chooses to continue her studies.
Návrh otázek a podnětů pro diskusi při obhajobě: see above
V ý s l e d n á k l a s i f i k a c e*
(možnosti klasifikace - výborně, velmi dobře, dobře, nevyhověl)
dobře
Doporučuji / Nedoporučuji bakalářskou práci k obhajobě.
Dne:
11.5.2014
...........................................................
Podpis vedoucího práce