Literature/Criticism

[Arteum]

How much time should one dedicate to reading literature versus time for reading criticism? That is, in what proportion should literature and criticism be read? I think, my proportion is approximately 10:1. Is it bad? :-?

[Shea]

I would have to say that that's my proportion too. Though because of getting ready to start school that will more than likely change. I'd rather find out for myself about the book than completely trust someone else's word for it. Though sometimes a criticism can be handy if you want to avoid a certain style.

[tadpole]

I think it depends. If you're using criticism to develop a thesis for a paper, then it's a good idea to find out exactly how many other critics have tackled the same piece of literature--the notion being that you want to publish and therefore must present new and challenging ideas. But that doesn't mean you have to read every article or book that you find. Sometimes all you have to do is read a summary or abstract or the first paragraph to know that the author's thesis or position will have little to no bearing on your own.

One important benefit of reading a lot of criticism, of course, is that you'll get a very good sense of what other critics think, what themes they find particularly important, etc., all of which should help you (ideally) to develop, articulate and refine your own thesis.

If you're reading for pleasure, however, I certainly don't think you should feel obligated to read criticism unless you want to know what other critics have to say or you had some sort of "trouble." Case in point: I read the first chapter of Toni Morrison's Beloved twice and still felt horribly confused, so I found an article that explained the who, what, where and when of the first chapter. I was then able to read the rest of the novel and discuss it in class without seeking out further help or feeling like a boob who didn't know what she was talking about. :D

[ASA]

To be honest - I think it depends why you read.

And the word 'should' bothers me a lot about your question. When it comes to literature (or any other art form) there is no should. You must do as you please.

[Munro]

I only ever read criticism on a novel if I feel I didn't get as much possible out of reading it as I could've. If I feel like I'm missing something important or if I didn't get something, I read a critical essay or it's introduction. Otherwise, I just read the novel and enjoy it by itself.

[imthefoolonthehill]

I agree with Munro. I get more out of a book if I read it for myself first. Then, if I don't entirely understand some of the symbolism, implied meanings or plot, I will go to a critic.

[AbdoRinbo]

A lot of the Literary Criticism written on Shakespeare is enjoyable. The Joyce scholars have done a pretty good job, too. But any work of criticism entitled 'Feminism in The Stranger' (for example) or 'A Marxist Reading of King Richard III' is going to offer neither food for thought nor a fun read. Then again, one of the best works of L.C. I ever read was on Joyce and Feminism in the 'Cambridge Companion to James Joyce', so it depends on who wrote it as well.