Lab Activity

Exploring Deconstruction: Reading Poetry Beyond Fixed Meaning

This blog documents my exploration of poststructuralism and deconstruction through a series of readings and practical analyses. I began by watching How to Deconstruct a Text: Sonnet 18 Shall I Compare Thee, which introduced me to the basic principles of deconstructive reading. I then studied Catherine Belsey's discussion of "The Primacy of the Signifier", where she demonstrates how meaning in poetry is created through language rather than fixed reality, using Ezra Pound's In a Station of the Metro and William Carlos Williams's The Red Wheelbarrow. To deepen my understanding, I also read Peter Barry's explanation of "What Post-structuralist Critics Do" and his step-by-step example of deconstruction. Finally, I applied these ideas to Dylan Thomas's A Refusal to Mourn the Death, by Fire, of a Child in London, while also reflecting on my own reading experience. Throughout this blog, I combine my personal responses with insights from poststructuralist theory to show how literary texts generate multiple meanings instead of conveying a single, fixed interpretation.

Sonnet 18: Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?

By William Shakespeare

Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?

Thou art more lovely and more temperate:

Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,

And summer’s lease hath all too short a date;

Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,

And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;

And every fair from fair sometime declines,

By chance or nature’s changing course untrimm'd;

But thy eternal summer shall not fade,

Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow’st;

Nor shall death brag thou wander’st in his shade,

When in eternal lines to time thou grow’st:

   So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,

   So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

Short Deconstructive Interpretation of Sonnet 18

From a deconstructive perspective, Sonnet 18 appears to praise the beloved's eternal beauty, but the poem also undermines its own claims. It says that all beauty fades ("Every fair from fair sometime declines"), yet immediately declares that the beloved's beauty will never fade. This contradiction makes the idea of eternal beauty uncertain.

The poem also claims that poetry can defeat death and preserve beauty forever. However, this immortality depends on language, and language is never fixed it changes with readers and interpretations. Thus, the promise of immortality is not absolute but unstable.

A deconstructive reading shows that the poem contains opposing ideas beauty/decay, time/eternity, life/death, and nature/art which depend on each other rather than remaining separate. Instead of offering one fixed meaning, the sonnet reveals that its central ideas are full of tension and contradiction, making meaning open to multiple interpretations.

Here is my response:

Vanita Baraiya

At first reading, Sonnet 18 appears to be a simple love poem in which the speaker praises the beloved's beauty by comparing it to a summer's day. However, a closer reading shows that the poem is about much more than physical beauty. Shakespeare argues that beauty in nature fades with time, but the beloved's beauty will live forever because it is preserved in poetry.

From a deconstructive perspective, the poem also reveals tensions and contradictions. The speaker claims to immortalize the beloved, but this means that the beloved's immortality depends entirely on the poem and the poet. This creates a subtle power relationship in which the poet gains authority by promising eternal life through writing. The poem therefore celebrates both the beloved and the power of language.

vote

2) In a Station of the Metro

By Ezra Pound

The apparition of these faces in the crowd:

Petals on a wet, black bough.

Here is my thoughts which came in my mind when I read poem:

When I read this poem imagined stepping into a crowded, dark, and noisy subway station. It's chaotic, blurred, and full of strangers. t: Suddenly, out of all that gray blur, a few faces stand out vividly. They look almost ghost or glowing. It’s that exact feeling you get when you are in a crowded place and your eyes lock onto someone for just a second before they disappear into the crowd. The moment i read the second line, the dark subway completely vanished for a split second. Instead, i saw a dark, wet tree branch after a heavy rain, with delicate, colourful flower petals stuck to it.my brain automatically connected the two images. The dark, wet branch is the gloomy, metallic subway station. The delicate petals are the bright, beautiful, and unique human faces scattered throughout that dark place. i probably felt a sense of unexpected peace or beauty. Subways are usually dirty, loud, and stressful. But by comparing people to petals on a wet tree branch, the poem makes a crowded commute feel magical, calm, and deeply alive.

Here is my interpretation rewritten in similar to Belsey's with the help of GPT :

An Interpretation of Ezra Pound's On a Station in the Metro

At first reading, the poem evokes the experience of entering a crowded underground station. The scene appears dark, noisy, and filled with anonymous strangers whose identities merge into a single blur. Then, in a sudden moment of perception, a few faces emerge from the crowd with striking clarity. The word "apparition" suggests that these faces are not simply seen but momentarily revealed, almost ghost-like in their brief appearance before disappearing again into the movement of the crowd.

The second line replaces the underground station with an entirely different image: delicate flower petals resting on a wet, black tree branch. The transition is immediate and unexpected, inviting the reader to connect the two scenes. The dark, rain-soaked branch becomes analogous to the gloomy, metallic environment of the subway, while the petals resemble the bright, fragile, and individual human faces that momentarily stand out against the darkness.

The poem's power lies in the sudden transformation of an ordinary urban experience into an image of natural beauty. A place usually associated with haste, noise, and impersonality is reimagined as something peaceful and aesthetically beautiful. The comparison encourages the reader to perceive human faces not merely as part of a crowd but as delicate and unique presences whose beauty is intensified by the darkness surrounding them.

The poem also depends upon the fleeting nature of the moment. Just as flower petals are fragile and temporary, the faces appear only for an instant before disappearing once more into the crowd. The meaning of the poem therefore arises from this brief visual encounter, where two seemingly unrelated images become united through the reader's imagination. Rather than offering a detailed description of either a subway station or a flowering tree, the poem captures a single moment in which everyday reality is transformed into an experience of unexpected beauty.

Here is a chat link with GPT

Interpretation of other sources:

1. The crowded metro station

Your interpretation imagines entering a dark, noisy subway full of strangers whose identities blur together. Most critics describe the setting in a similar way. They explain that Pound deliberately places the reader in a busy Paris metro station where people constantly appear and disappear. The station represents modern urban life, filled with movement, anonymity, and fleeting encounters.

2. "The apparition of these faces"

You interpret the word "apparition" as making the faces seem ghost-like, appearing briefly before disappearing again. This is exactly how many literary critics understand the word. They argue that "apparition" suggests both a simple appearance and a ghostly vision, emphasizing how people in a crowd seem unreal, temporary, and impossible to hold onto. The poem captures a single passing moment rather than a permanent image.

3. The image of petals on a wet, black bough

You describe how the subway scene suddenly transforms into the image of flower petals resting on a rain-soaked branch. Critics make the same observation. They explain that the delicate petals symbolize the beauty and individuality of the human faces, while the wet, black branch suggests the dark surroundings of the underground station. The poem encourages readers to connect these two seemingly unrelated images through imagination.

4. Finding beauty in ordinary life

You say that the comparison transforms a dirty, stressful subway into something peaceful and beautiful. This closely matches published interpretations. Critics often argue that Pound's purpose is to reveal unexpected beauty within ordinary modern life. Rather than presenting the city as ugly or mechanical, he discovers moments of grace and natural beauty hidden within everyday experience.

5. The fleeting nature of the moment

Your interpretation emphasizes that both the faces and the petals exist only for a brief instant before disappearing. This is one of the central ideas identified by literary scholars. Critics explain that the poem captures a single flash of perception, showing how beauty often exists only momentarily. The poem values this instant instead of trying to explain or analyse it in detail.

6. The relationship between the two images

You naturally connect the subway station with the rain-soaked tree branch in your imagination. Critics describe this as the defining feature of the poem. They note that Pound never writes the word "like"; instead, he places the two images side by side and allows readers to create the connection themselves. This technique, called juxtaposition or super-position, is one of the main characteristics of Imagist poetry.

7. Imagism and simplicity

Most literary sources also emphasize something your interpretation suggests indirectly the poem's extreme simplicity. Pound reduced a much longer draft to only two lines because he believed every unnecessary word should be removed. Critics point out that the poem contains no verb and almost no explanation, forcing readers to experience the image directly rather than being told what to think. This economy of language makes the poem one of the greatest examples of Imagism.

Overall comparison

Overall, your interpretation agrees with the major ideas found in literary criticism. You correctly recognize the ghost-like quality of the faces, the symbolic comparison between petals and people, the contrast between the dark subway and natural beauty, and the importance of the brief moment of perception. Your most original contribution is the way you vividly describe your own mental experience while reading: first seeing the crowded subway, then instantly watching it dissolve into the image of a rain-soaked tree branch. Most published analyses discuss the poem's imagery in an academic way, whereas your version explains how the transformation actually happens inside the reader's mind, making your interpretation more personal while remaining consistent with established criticism.

Here is link of chat and sources

3) The Red Wheelbarrow

By William Carlos Williams

so much depends

upon

a red wheel

barrow

glazed with rain

water

beside the white

chickens

Here is my interpretation :

The very first thing my eyes hit is that word "red." My mind instantly paints a classic, metal wheelbarrow. It's bold, and it stands out against everything else. The Shiny Wetness: Then I read "glazed with rain water." I don't think about what it means; I just see the texture. I see the way light bounces off the wet metal. It looks clean, smooth, and fresh like that moment right after a heavy rain clears up and the sun peeks out. The Pop of White: Finally, my eyes move "beside the white chickens." My mind places those fluffy, bright white birds right next to the red metal. The contrast is sharp and satisfying to look at. My Subconscious Feelings While I am looking at this picture in my mind, a few quiet feelings pop up

A Belsey-Style Analysis of William Carlos Williams's The Red Wheelbarrow

William Carlos Williams's The Red Wheelbarrow appears, at first glance, to present nothing more than a simple description of ordinary objects:

At first reading, the poem seems to insist on the importance of everyday reality. The opening statement, "so much depends upon," immediately creates the expectation that something significant will follow. Yet instead of introducing a great idea or dramatic event, the poem offers only a red wheelbarrow, rainwater, and white chickens. The apparent simplicity of these objects encourages the reader to believe that the poem merely celebrates ordinary life.

However, as Catherine Belsey argues in her discussion of The Red Wheelbarrow, the poem does not simply present objects from the external world. Instead, it isolates these images from the ordinary context in which they would normally exist. The wheelbarrow, the rainwater, and the chickens are separated from the sounds, smells, mud, labour, and movement of an actual farm. What remains are carefully selected signifiers that invite the reader to construct meaning through language rather than through direct reference to reality.

The signifiers themselves produce a network of associations. The adjective "red" immediately attracts attention because it is vivid, bright, and visually striking. The "white chickens" provide a sharp contrast, making both colours appear even more intense. The "rainwater" gives the wheelbarrow a glazed appearance, suggesting freshness, clarity, and brightness rather than the dirt and wear one would expect on a working farm. These colours and textures exist less as realistic details than as carefully arranged poetic images.

The poem also depends upon differences. The strong contrast between red and white, between the solid wheelbarrow and the living chickens, and between the stillness of the objects and the implied activity of farm life creates meaning through opposition. The reader is encouraged to notice these differences instead of imagining a complete farmyard scene. Language isolates the objects, allowing them to function symbolically rather than merely descriptively.

The opening phrase, "so much depends upon," is particularly significant because it never explains what depends on the wheelbarrow. The poem deliberately withholds that information. As a result, the statement remains open-ended, inviting readers to imagine multiple possibilities. Does the wheelbarrow represent agriculture, human labour, simplicity, survival, beauty, or something else entirely? The absence of a clear answer prevents the poem from settling into a single interpretation.

The poem's form further contributes to its meaning. The unusually short lines slow the reader's pace, encouraging careful attention to each individual word. Even the division of compound words such as "wheel/barrow" and "rain/water" interrupts ordinary reading habits, making familiar objects appear strange and newly significant. Rather than moving quickly through the description, the reader pauses over each signifier, allowing language itself to shape perception.

The poem's rhythm is equally simple and carefully patterned. Each brief stanza creates a balanced movement that resembles quiet observation. There is no elaborate rhyme or musical ornament, yet the repetition of short phrases produces a calm, meditative effect. Like the vivid colours, the poem's rhythm encourages the reader to experience the objects aesthetically rather than merely recognize them as practical items.

According to Belsey's approach, the poem therefore demonstrates the primacy of the signifier. Although it appears to describe real objects, it is language not reality that creates the poem's meaning. The wheelbarrow that exists in the poem is not an ordinary farm tool but a poetic construction shaped by colour, rhythm, spacing, and carefully selected words. The farm itself almost disappears, replaced by a world generated through language.

Thus, The Red Wheelbarrow is not simply a realistic description of everyday objects. It transforms ordinary things into poetic signifiers whose meaning remains open, suggestive, and dependent upon the reader's associations. Like Ezra Pound's In a Station of the Metro, the poem demonstrates that poetry does not merely reflect reality; it recreates reality through the power of language, allowing words themselves to become the primary source of meaning.

First Impression

My Interpretation: I immediately visualize the red wheelbarrow and experience the poem as a vivid mental picture.

What Other Literary Sources Say: Most critics agree that the poem creates an immediate visual image and focuses attention on a single ordinary object.

The Colour "Red"

My Interpretation: The colour red instantly catches my attention and becomes the centre of the image.

What Other Literary Sources Say: Critics argue that the bright red wheelbarrow is intentionally vivid, drawing the reader's eye and emphasizing visual perception. The contrast with white strengthens this effect.

Rainwater and Texture

My Interpretation: I imagine the wheelbarrow shining after rain, appearing smooth, clean, and fresh.

What Other Literary Sources Say: Literary critics note that "glazed with rain water" gives the object a painterly, polished appearance, making it seem artistic rather than merely practical.

White Chickens

My Interpretation: The white chickens create a pleasing visual contrast with the red wheelbarrow.

What Other Literary Sources Say: Critics commonly state that the red-and-white colour contrast is one of the poem's central artistic features, increasing the vividness of the image.

Emotional Response

My  Interpretation: I describe quiet subconscious feelings without identifying a fixed emotion.

What Other Literary Sources Say: Many critics argue that the poem creates calm, contemplation, and quiet appreciation rather than expressing a specific emotional message.

Meaning of "So Much Depends Upon"

My Interpretation: I focus more on the visual experience than on explaining what depends on the wheelbarrow.

What Other Literary Sources Say: Critics generally agree that Williams deliberately leaves this phrase unexplained so readers create their own interpretations. Some connect it with farming, survival, art, or perception itself.

Ordinary Objects

My Interpretation: I see beauty in a simple everyday scene.

What Other Literary Sources Say: Critics identify the poem as a classic example of Imagism, where ordinary objects become worthy of careful artistic attention.

Form and Line Breaks

My Interpretation: I mainly focus on the mental picture rather than the poem's structure.

What Other Literary Sources Say: Many scholars argue that the unusual line breaks slow reading, isolate each word, and make readers pay attention to language itself.

Language and Meaning

My Interpretation: I response is based on the immediate visual and emotional experience.

What Other Literary Sources Say: Catherine Belsey and poststructuralist critics argue that meaning is produced by language and signifiers rather than by direct reference to reality. The wheelbarrow becomes a linguistic construction rather than simply a farm tool.

Here is a chat with sources

A Refusal to Mourn the Death, by Fire, of a Child in London

Dylan Thomas

Never until the mankind making

Bird beast and flower

Fathering and all humbling darkness

Tells with silence the last light breaking

And the still hour

Is come of the sea tumbling in harness

And I must enter again the round

Zion of the water bead

And the synagogue of the ear of corn

Shall I let pray the shadow of a sound

Or sow my salt seed

In the least valley of sackcloth to mourn

The majesty and burning of the child's death.

I shall not murder

The mankind of her going with a grave truth

Nor blaspheme down the stations of the breath

With any further

Elegy of innocence and youth.

Deep with the first dead lies London's daughter,

Robed in the long friends,

The grains beyond age, the dark veins of her mother,

Secret by the unmourning water

Of the riding Thames.

After the first death, there is no other.

Here is my thoughts which came in my mind when I read poem:

Before even starting the poem, the title hits me hard. I immediately imagine a terrible scene: London during the war, fires everywhere, and a young child dying. my first thought is probably, "Why is the poet refusing to mourn? That sounds heartless!" It makes me curious and a bit uncomfortable. In the first stanza, I don't even get to the child yet. Instead, I hit with big, cinematic images: What I probably imagined: I likely pictured a massive, silent void or the world spinning in deep space. It feels heavy, religious, and grand like the beginning or the end of the world. I might have pictured a single, perfect drop of water reflecting the light, or walking through a quiet field of yellow corn. Even if I didn't know the exact meaning my mind likely felt a sense of peace here. It feels like going back to the earth. The poet is saying he won't weep or cry until he himself dies and returns to nature probably realized, "Oh, he isn't being cruel." I feel that he thinks her death is too massive and "majestic" for standard, generic sad words. Telling a basic, clichéd story about "a young innocent life cut short" actually makes her death feel smaller than it was. He wants to respect her by staying silent. I likely pictured the little girl sleeping peacefully deep underground, wrapped up safely by the earth , while the dark waters of London's famous river flow quietly above her. The very last line is famous: "After the first death, there is no other." It leaves my mind with a haunting but oddly comforting thought. You imagine that once I pass through the scary door of death, i united with everyone who has ever died, and I can never be hurt or die ever again. She is safe now. The very last line is famous: "After the first death, there is no other." It leaves your mind with a haunting but oddly comforting thought. i imagine that once you pass through the scary door of death, I united with everyone who has ever died, and I can never be hurt or die ever again. She is safe now.

Here is a version that combines my own reading with Peter Barry's deconstructive method.

A Deconstructive Interpretation of A Refusal to Mourn the Death, by Fire, of a Child in London

When I first read the title, I immediately imagined London during World War II—a city burning after bombings and a small child dying in the fire. My first reaction was surprise and discomfort because the title says "A Refusal to Mourn." It made me wonder why the speaker refuses to mourn such a tragic death. At first, this refusal sounds cold or heartless, but as I read the poem more carefully, I realized that the refusal itself becomes the central mystery of the poem.

1. Verbal Stage: Contradictions and Paradoxes

Following Peter Barry's first stage of deconstruction, I notice that the poem is full of words that contradict one another.

The opening words, "Never until," immediately create uncertainty. "Never" suggests something will never happen, while "until" suggests that it eventually will. The two words pull in opposite directions, making the meaning unstable from the very beginning.

Another striking contradiction appears in the phrase:

"Fathering and all humbling darkness."

Normally we associate life with light and death with darkness. However, Thomas reverses this traditional binary opposition. Darkness is not presented as something evil or destructive. Instead, it becomes the force that creates life ("fathering") while also bringing everything to an end ("humbling"). Darkness is therefore both creator and destroyer at the same time.

This reversal made me imagine a huge silent universe rather than simply a dark night. Instead of fearing darkness, I began to see it as the place from which everything begins and eventually returns.

The greatest contradiction appears in the final line:

"After the first death, there is no other."

The phrase seems impossible. Calling something the "first" automatically suggests a second, third, or fourth. Yet the poem immediately denies that possibility by saying "there is no other." Language therefore defeats itself. The statement both promises repetition and cancels it at the same time.

This contradiction leaves me with two possible meanings. It may mean physical death happens only once, making all later suffering meaningless. At the same time, the wording itself refuses to settle into one definite meaning.

2. Textual Stage: Shifts, Breaks, and Instability

Barry explains that deconstruction also studies shifts in the poem's movement rather than only individual words.

The poem constantly changes its focus.

The first stanza does not immediately speak about the child. Instead, it moves through enormous images of creation, nature, darkness, sea, birds, flowers, and the end of the world. While reading it, I imagined vast cosmic scenes rather than a single human tragedy. The poem delays the actual subject of the child's death.

The second stanza shifts again. Suddenly the imagery becomes religious and natural at the same time: "Zion," "synagogue," water, and corn appear together. I imagined a peaceful drop of water and a quiet field of corn. Instead of focusing on grief, the poem seems to return everything back into nature.

Another important shift occurs when the speaker says:

"Shall I let pray... or sow my salt seed... to mourn."

Here the poem briefly becomes personal. The speaker questions whether ordinary mourning is even appropriate.

Then the third stanza suddenly arrives at the actual event:

"The majesty and burning of the child's death."

Only after two stanzas does the child finally appear. This delay makes the death feel larger than an ordinary personal tragedy. It becomes part of something universal rather than an isolated event.

The final stanza shifts once more. The focus moves away from the speaker toward London itself, history, nature, and the flowing Thames. Time no longer moves in a straight chronological order. Instead, the poem moves between cosmic beginnings, present tragedy, and eternal history.

These repeated shifts prevent the poem from offering one stable viewpoint. Every time I think I understand its meaning, the poem changes direction.

3. Linguistic Stage: Language Cannot Fix Meaning

Barry argues that language itself becomes unreliable.

The title promises mourning, yet the poem refuses mourning.

The speaker appears to honour the child, yet refuses to write an ordinary elegy.

Words connected with religion "Zion," "synagogue," "pray," and "blaspheme" appear beside images from nature such as water, corn, sea, flowers, and darkness. None of these systems completely explains the child's death.

Even the phrase:

"The majesty and burning of the child's death"

contains tension. "Burning" suggests violence and destruction, while "majesty" suggests beauty, dignity, and greatness. The child's death becomes both horrifying and sacred at once.

The final line again demonstrates language's instability:

"After the first death, there is no other."

The sentence appears simple but refuses one final interpretation. It can mean that death happens only once. It can suggest spiritual eternity. It can imply that death ends suffering. Yet it also contradicts itself grammatically because the word "first" naturally implies further deaths.

The language therefore never settles into one complete truth. Instead, meaning remains open, uncertain, and continually postponed.

My Overall Interpretation

Initially, I thought the speaker's refusal to mourn was cruel. However, after reading the poem carefully, I understood it differently. The speaker refuses ordinary mourning because ordinary language cannot match the greatness of the child's death. Any conventional elegy would reduce her death to a familiar story of innocence lost.

The poem itself demonstrates this impossibility. Every important word contains contradiction. Darkness creates life. Death becomes majestic. Silence speaks. The "first" death has "no other." These paradoxes show exactly what Peter Barry describes: the poem undermines its own surface meaning and refuses to produce a single stable interpretation.

By the final stanza, I imagine the little girl no longer as a victim of war but as someone peacefully reunited with nature and eternity. Yet even this interpretation cannot become final, because the poem's language continually opens itself to new meanings rather than closing them.

From a deconstructive perspective, the poem does not simply express grief. Instead, it questions whether grief, language, religion, and poetry are ever capable of fully expressing death. Meaning remains unresolved, and that unresolved quality is precisely what gives the poem its lasting power.

Here is a link of chats with gpt

Comparison with Other Critical Sources

The title ("Refusal to Mourn")

My Interpretation: At first I thought the speaker sounded heartless, but later realized he refuses ordinary mourning because the child's death is too great for conventional words.

What Google Sources Say: Most analyses say the title is deliberately ironic. The speaker is not emotionless; he refuses a conventional elegy because ordinary mourning cannot express such a loss.

Historical background

My Interpretation: I imagined London burning during World War II.

What Google Sources Say: Critics identify the poem as a response to the bombing of London during the Blitz in World War II.

Darknes:

My Interpretation: I saw darkness as the place where life begins and ends rather than something evil.

What Google Sources Say: Critics explain that "all humbling darkness" represents both creation and death, making darkness a universal force rather than merely something frightening.

Nature imagery:

My Interpretation: I imagined returning peacefully to nature through water, earth, and corn.

What Google Sources Say: Literary critics argue that the child becomes part of the natural cycle and returns to Mother Earth.

Religious imagery

My Interpretation: I felt Zion, the synagogue, water, and corn created peace rather than strict religious doctrine.

What Google Sources Say: Critics say Thomas blends Christian, Jewish, and natural imagery to suggest a universal spiritual order rather than promoting one religion.

Language and mourning

My Interpretation: I argue that ordinary language cannot do justice to the child's death.

What Google Sources Say: Many analyses make the same point: writing a conventional elegy would diminish the uniqueness of her death.

The final line

I interpret "After the first death, there is no other" as meaning the child is safe and cannot be hurt again.

What Google Sources Say: Critics usually leave the ending open. Some read it as belief in eternal life, others as the finality of death, while still others emphasize its deliberate ambiguity.

Here is link of chat and sources

Aspect	Other Critics	Your Interpretation
Historical context	World War II and the Blitz	Imagined London during wartime
Refusal to mourn	Rejects conventional elegy	Ordinary words diminish the child's death
Nature imagery	Death returns to nature	Peaceful return to the earth
Religious imagery	Universal spirituality	Felt peaceful rather than doctrinal
Deconstruction	Contradictions create unstable meaning	Identified major paradoxes effectively
Reader response	Usually limited	Strong personal imagination throughout
Ending	Multiple possible meanings	Prefers "She is safe now," though acknowledges uncertainty

References: 

A Refusal to Mourn the Death, by Fire, of a Child in London

Catherine Belsey's book 'Poststructuralism,

Peter Barry's Beginning Theory.