VOZES MÚLTIPLAS EM I LOVE MY HUSBAND DE NÉLIDA PIÑON

Abstract

This study, which brings an analysis of the tale I love my husband, by Nélida Piñon, from the work The heat of Things, from 1980, beginning from important theoretical presumption presents some courses of the women in the history of humanity. Inicially relegated under the shadow of History, the woman, according to Duby and Perrot (1995), is perceived by means of records of traces tied to that condition and to the place she occupies socially. In the postmodern world, in view of debates, the writings of the New History made according to Burke (1992), the interest for all of the history of humanity possible, including that of the woman. For Perrot (1995, 2006, 2007), the silence that lurks around the woman was broken beginning from the writing of the women themselves, the reason why we present brief History of the feminine writings based on the theories of Lobo (1999), Teixeira (2001) and Duarte (2003), as well as having to do with the irony as a speech strategy and as a means to criticize or resist the patriarcal restrictions of the epoch. To put into context the decentrament of the subject in the postmodern world, we turn to the theoretics Hall (2000), Woodward (2000), Bauman (1998, 2001, 2005) and Santos (1999). The analysis of the tale perpasses significantly by the conception of the language, of Bakhtin (1981, 1993, 2003, 2006), emphasizing that the axle that directs the thought of this theoretic characterizes itself by the verbal interaction and by the dialogic character of the language. Piñon s speech subverts the vigente order, by questioning the social roles represented by the woman divided, in face of the usage of a language that seeks to break the patterns established, representing artistically the situation of that woman. The importance of Piñon s work in literature written by women authors is presented according to Moniz (1993), 1997) and Zolin (2003). To be means to communicate through dialogue, sinthesizes the dialogue of Bakhtin, besides, the dialogue shouldn t be considered the means, but the aim.