Literary theory

[James213]

hey all do any of u think that literary theory makes sense? and is the easisest way to read works of literature?

[muhsin]

Yeah, It does, but it's not the easiest way to convey meassage of a literary work.
Reason: Think of blind people who cannot read but hear, are they not suppose to be included in the literary...affairs or arena I mean. Right?
And many other reasons which time wont allow me to say them now.

[James213]

hmm i like : but can sum1 plz give me more nfo id appreciate it :thumbs_up

[Charles Darnay]

Which literary theory are you looking at here, cause I've read several different philosophies and theories on literature.

[Sabo]

hey all do any of u think that literary theory makes sense? and is the easisest way to read works of literature?

A strange thing to ask. Sure some theories make sense, some more than others. But they are hardly an "easy" way to read literature. What specifically are you aiming at?

[mousemouse]

The point of most literary theories isn't really to make reading easier, but to find a general way of understanding the art. However you can read some other readings or studies of a certain book, which might help you understand a work, and thereby making it easier.
I don´t think there are any literary theorist who believe in one ultimate theory by which all books are interpreted completely. Mostly they seem to concentrate on certain forms of literature or literature from very specific periods of history.

[Virgil]

The point of most literary theories isn't really to make reading easier, but to find a general way of understanding the art.
This used to be true, however, recent literary theories are more social commentary than understanding art. The best literary thoery is still one of the very first, Aristotle.

[Basil]

Still one of the very first? After all these years? :p

[Daniel A. C.]

As was said above, there are a lot of theories regarding literature, but I think the original post was referring the post-modernist/deconstructionist literary theory.

My opinion: I really don't like it. I just finished an English minor at University, and without exception, the courses that tried to incorporate this sort of literary theory were incredibly boring and banal. The ones (particularly with older professors who pre-date this trend of criticism) tended to be much more interesting: no vauge philosophical jargon, we just talked about characters, emotions, plots, style, historical context, compared books, etc.

The best discussion I've read on literary theory was actually in a book of interviews with Noam Chomsky, the linguist and political analyst at M.I.T.:


Don't forget, part of the whole intellectual vocation is creating a niche for yourself, and if everybody can understand what you're talking about, you've sort of lost, because then what makes you special? [...]

So take what's called "literary theory" - I mean, I don't think there's any such thing as literary "theory", any more than there's cultural "theory" or historical "theory." If you're just reading books and talking about them and getting people to understand them, okay, you can be terrific at that, like Edmund Wilson was terrific at it - but he didn't have a literary theory. On the ohter hand, if you want to mingle in the same room with that physicist over there who's talking about quarks, you'd better have a complicated theory too that nobody can understand: he has a complicated theory that nobody can understand, why shouldn't I have a complicated theory that nobody can understand? [...]

I think people should be extremely skeptical when intellectual life constructs structures which aren't transparent...There are some areas, like quantum physics, where they're not faking. But most of the time it's just fakery, I think: anything that's at all understood can probably be described pretty simply.

-Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky

I basically agree with the outlook that can be found in V. Nabokov's Lectures on Literature, in which novels are interpreted and analysed on their own terms, through the discussion on details, characters and stories within the book itself, and not used to try to prove abstract theories of philosophy and history. I've heard it said that novel's aren't codes, they're stories, and I agree!

[Virgil]

As was said above, there are a lot of theories regarding literature, but I think the original post was referring the post-modernist/deconstructionist literary theory.

My opinion: I really don't like it. I just finished an English minor at University, and without exception, the courses that tried to incorporate this sort of literary theory were incredibly boring and banal. The ones (particularly with older professors who pre-date this trend of criticism) tended to be much more interesting: no vauge philosophical jargon, we just talked about characters, emotions, plots, style, historical context, compared books, etc.

I was aware that the original post was referring to post modern and its sister thoeries. I completely agree that it's boring, and not just boring but mostly crap. It's a way for college professors to feel thay are as important as the artists, and that their ****-a-mamy theories are as important as the art.

[Daniel A. C.]

It's a way for college professors to feel thay are as important as the artists...

I think this is pretty much it, in that this sort of academic trend has a lot more to do with the needs of the professors than relevant to what they are studying.

In addtion, I think another problem is that literature is ultimately non-academic, I think: it is about an individual's response to life, and doesn't really involve, as many other disciplines do, groups of people studying some phenomenon of nature or society. Schools like fine arts or music have a lot of technical aspects that necessitates a lot of education, but, especially with our pretty un-stylized literature, literature doesn't really require this. I think this contributes to some individuals feeling a need for a complex theory of literature.

[mono]

Of course, I must agree with all of the previous posts, and I loved the commentary by Chomsky. ;)
All art will always have various theories encorporated, and in an ideal manner, I feel this may serve the purpose of attempting to understand the art with more accuracy, as mousemouse mentioned. This goal, however, seems rather idealistic, and seldom appears as the end of art theories; most theories merely, and I almost hate to use this word, stereotype most literature according to its era, author, social occurrences, origin, etc. In my opinion, most contemporary literary theories follow this 'stereotype' to the crossing of every 't' and the dotting of every 'i.'

[Virgil]

I think this is pretty much it, in that this sort of academic trend has a lot more to do with the needs of the professors than relevant to what they are studying.

In addtion, I think another problem is that literature is ultimately non-academic, I think: it is about an individual's response to life, and doesn't really involve, as many other disciplines do, groups of people studying some phenomenon of nature or society. Schools like fine arts or music have a lot of technical aspects that necessitates a lot of education, but, especially with our pretty un-stylized literature, literature doesn't really require this. I think this contributes to some individuals feeling a need for a complex theory of literature.
If any thing in life, I'm glad I made some impact here. There was a professor here at lit net, his lit net name being Unnamable (you could probably look up his posts by searching his name), where I had a lot of arguments over this issue. He was big into this literary theory stuff, and frankly we didn't see eye to eye on it. I can't believe I actually agree with something that Chomsky says. Literature is art, not a social phenonmena. Yes it is in the context of society, but there are better and more accurate ways to study society than to draw conclusions from literature. The only true way (and this is my opinion) to study art (and therefore literature) is to understand its aesthetics.

[TodHackett]

As was said above, there are a lot of theories regarding literature, but I think the original post was referring the post-modernist/deconstructionist literary theory.

My opinion: I really don't like it.

I've got an MA in Literary Theory. Let me say this: it isn't the theory that stinks, it's the culture. I hated most of the classics at first, too.

I have a different opinion now, but it took some time to realize what I'd learned. Let me illustrate by way of analogy...

Suppose you are in college and studying biology. You are required to take anatomy and botany, both of which are basically weeks of rote memorization-- of organs and tissues; leaves and flowers, and so forth. Even most biologists I know found these classes mind-numbing.

However, without the vocabulary that these classes provided, they simply couldn't go on to the really cool stuff-- discovering medicines and healing injuries. They simply would not have had the knowledge that is necessary to "speak the language".

In the same way, think of literary theory as "learning the language". The problem with the analogy is that, like you said, a person can evaluate literature without knowing ANY theory. Of course, in defense of my analogy, a person can evaluate life without knowing ANY botany or anatomy (Aristotle did). Either way, studying theory helps you see new aspects of the older works.

Having said that, let me also say that there is a lot of crap theory out there. A LOT. This is mainly because (surprise!) the culture in many academic circles values the appearance of brilliance over the substance of same.

And so, unfortunately, finding the gems means wading through the muck.

[TodHackett]

Literature is art, not a social phenonmena. Yes it is in the context of society, but there are better and more accurate ways to study society than to draw conclusions from literature. The only true way (and this is my opinion) to study art (and therefore literature) is to understand its aesthetics.

I agree with the latter point and disagree with the former. I maintain that works are ALWAYS moored in and relevant to social contexts-- both of the author and of the reader/viewer, and often a slough of people in-between. Also, there are some amazing arguments out there that suggest that the entire category of "The Aesthetic" is itself a social construction. Take a look at some of Danto's essays (I recommend his essay on Lichtenstein-- "Aesthetics and the work of Art") and Eagleton's _Ideology of the Aesthetic_.

Still, I think there is something like "The Aesthetic" in every culture, and understanding "The Aesthetic" in all its permutations is certainly helpful to both artist and critic.

[TodHackett]

Some recommended works in literary theory (for beginners):

Culler, _Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction_

Chandler, _Semiotics for Beginners_: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/semiotic.html

Dr. Kristi Siegel's Website: http://www.kristisiegel.com/theory.htm#myth

[Jean-Baptiste]

Not to go directly against the current here, but I think that deconstruction can have its place in the consideration of literature; it may be helpful in discovering the impact that literature has on society and the impact of society on literature. Deconstruction, in my limited view, seeks to break a work into its many, and sometimes contradictory facets, in order to determine in a sylogistic manner the validity of the very aesthetic itself. This does not necessarily mean that once a piece is proved invalid, or unsound that it must be dispensed with--especially in works of fiction--but simply makes clear the intimations inherent in the work. I cannot think that a work of fiction, having been deconstructed is then left to waste in fragments. It can always be reconstructed; it doesn't even require any thought to be reconstructed.
In any case, this is one of the joys of literature--that any who will may take it as they will, and discuss it as they will. The great thing about the multitude of literary theories floating around is that they can almost all be applied to anything at any given moment by nearly anyone. To decry one or another theory seems simply an attempt to silence the discussion.
Of course, I agree with Virgil's point about professors (though thankfully I've had no such professors, yet) and feel that it's often the case that a particular theory itself may be used to silence discussion. Both vices have no place in art.

[penelopea]

A young buzzard is flying up and down my valley,calling for its parents to feed it, but they have long gone.
There is no theoretical discussion that can can compare with the basic desire to know what happens next.
Turn the page/scroll down.

[Daniel A. C.]

In the same way, think of literary theory as "learning the language".

I agree in part with what you're saying here, but I don't think this is the whole issue, because I think even after one has learned the terms of literary theory, the theorizers are still either extremely vauge, or they are just fancifying mundane statements.

There are literary terms to learn, no doubt - like what comedy and tragedy is in a classical sense, the mechanics of poetry (iamb, caesura, villanelle, etc.), and so forth - but, as in biology and any other discipline, once you've got the terms down, there's no real mystery to understanding pieces that use them.

I don't think the same goes for literary theory - even after you have a sense of how the terms are used, it is still pulling teeth to try and figure out what the author is saying, or to figure out why that would be considered an important thing to say.

On the other hand, I haven't given the whole field a lot of attention, so it may be true that there are gems hidden among the trash, I've just never seen them. I do wish, however, that this sort of thing wouldn't clog up the literature faculites everywhere: if people have things to say about philosophy, history or society, there are departments for that - why can't literature faculties be ordered more around the model of the music or fine art type of school.

(Just for fun, no insult to those who like literary theory, has anyone seen this postmodern essay generator - just keep refreshing the page to generate new & never before seen postmodern essays: Postmodern Essay Generator (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo)
You can also generate adolescent poetry and band names!)

[stlukesguild]

It's a way for college professors to feel thay are as important as the artists, and that their ****-a-mamy theories are as important as the art.

SLG- Unfortunately... I find believe that this is exactly the problem a great deal of the time. I must admit that I have read my share of literary (and art) criticism... but I found a great deal of it to be nothing more than pretentious crap. There are exceptions. I might think of the essays by Samuel Johnson, Coleridge, William Hazlitt, John Ruskin, Emerson, Walter Pater, Virginia Woolf, Harold Bloom, Edward Hirsch, Roger Shattuck, etc... Many of these qualify as works of literary art in and of themselves. What makes them interesting or of value to me is that in most cases they are not the expression of some inane vague theory cloaked in pseudo-intellectual garb, but rather, they are the expressions of persons in love with art or literature who have the ability to share with the reader what it is that they love (or hate).

Don't forget, part of the whole intellectual vocation is creating a niche for yourself, and if everybody can understand what you're talking about, you've sort of lost, because then what makes you special? [...]

So take what's called "literary theory" - I mean, I don't think there's any such thing as literary "theory", any more than there's cultural "theory" or historical "theory." If you're just reading books and talking about them and getting people to understand them, okay, you can be terrific at that, like Edmund Wilson was terrific at it - but he didn't have a literary theory. On the other hand, if you want to mingle in the same room with that physicist over there who's talking about quarks, you'd better have a complicated theory too that nobody can understand: he has a complicated theory that nobody can understand, why shouldn't I have a complicated theory that nobody can understand? [...]

I think people should be extremely skeptical when intellectual life constructs structures which aren't transparent...There are some areas, like quantum physics, where they're not faking. But most of the time it's just fakery, I think: anything that's at all understood can probably be described pretty simply.

-Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky

SLG- I love the Chomsky quote. If my own field (visual arts) there has long been the discussion of the "Emperor's New Clothes" analogy. Unfortunately, contrary to Daniel A.C.'s supposition ("...why can't literature faculties be ordered more around the model of the music or fine art type of school?...") the visual art's are just as weighed down with absurd theory as literature. Early Modernism and Abstraction obviously benefitted from intelligent criticism that helped explain what artists were doing to a baffled audience... but a great deal of today's critical art theory leaves even many "experts" (artists, curators, other art critics, etc...) equally baffled, and in conjunction with works of "art" that in many ways seem to be nothing more than a bad joke, there is the sense that such criticism simply seeks to veil incompetency and stupidity with a complicated language and terminology.

I should note that I agree whole-heartedly with Danile A.C.'s complaint:

"...it may be true that there are gems hidden among the trash, I've just never seen them. I do wish, however, that this sort of thing wouldn't clog up the literature faculites everywhere: if people have things to say about philosophy, history or society, there are departments for that -"

Harold Bloom would agree with you even more than I.

"Take a look at some of Danto's essays..."

SLG- Aaack! Danto! Aaack! Aaack! :rage: He has to be the biggest idiot ever to write about art and be taken seriously. I love his elevated claims for Duchamp: "What Duchamp did was instill philosophical reflection in the heart of artistic discourse." Of course this completely ignores the historical basis of Duchamp's work (rooted in the French tradition of the studio joke, a good many of his works were essentially great jokes). It also seems to suggest that there was no philosophical reflection in art prior to Duchamp. Rembrandt, Michelangelo, etc... were mere craftsmen, I guess. Whereas Danto's predecessor, Clement Greenberg erred in the direction of "pure" formalism, with the notion that art could be understood and judged and valued solely in terms of visual, formal relationships, Danto takes the exact opposite approach, placing the idea at the heart and negating formal concerns, as one might expect from a philosopher/writer as opposed to someone with an art background. This makes him the appologist of every art school conceptual "wannabe" making art out of feces and urine. I should, I suppose, embrace his theory, because it essentially means that all my art school paintings may just be "masterpieces" if seen in the right context. The ideas were great... they were just crappily realized... but that doesn't matter any more, according to Danto.

"...understanding "The Aesthetic" in all its permutations is certainly helpful to both artist and critic..."

SLG- Ah... but is it now? Did Shakespeare or Milton or Blake need to understand "the Aesthetic" in all its permutations? Did Michelangelo, Titian, or Picasso (who had a limited mastery of the French language in which all the latest theory of his day was written)? At times the artist and the academic overlap... but I think Picasso had it right when he declared:

"When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning. When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine." :brow:

[Jean-Baptiste]

SLG, I like that quote from Picasso.

[Hyacinth Girl]

I have an MA in Lit, and I have to admit that literary theory is one of my favorite things. I'm sorry that many of you find literary theory to be(for the most part) the domain of pretentious academics trying to create a niche for themselves. I agree that some critics take themselves too seriously (a crazy little Frenchman comes to mind), and they seem to almost ATTACK a text in order to make some obscure point and prove their worth/brilliance, but I think that, in general, literary theory can be a great way to enhance a reading. Michel Foucault (I'm paraphrasing here) described theory as a bunch of tools that a reader could use and discard as he found necessary/fit. I like that. Some theories work for me, some don't (I'm terrible with Marxist theory, but I think deconstruction can be either fun or abusive depending upon the treatment of the text), some I apply to most things I read, some I only apply to certain texts. I think the important thing is not to value the theory over the text itself. . . theory is for exegesis, not for irrevocably deconstructing or unlocking a text (both terms I find aggressive and invasive) in order to prove your mental prowess.
Also, it seems to be that most of the theory discussed here is postmodernist
. . . what about the earlier theories, like reader-response theory, critics like Wolfgang Iser? What about Henry James and TS Eliot? Out of fashion, perhaps, but I still think it is useful in looking at a text with new eyes or from a different angle. The old styles can be used in new ways in order to create something edgy, but valid.
In the end, I think literary theory is about using what works for you and with the text at that time in order to create new/alternate readings that enhance, not destroy, the text. As TodHackett said earlier ". . . .unfortunately, finding the gems means wading through the muck."

[stlukesguild]

I sort of like Roger Shattock's Candor and Perversion, which while not literary criticism, per se, does offer many intriguing insights into literature, literary criticism, art and art criticism, and education. I especially liked some of his "Nineteen Theses":

III. There may be more than material nature and human nature. Words like spiritual and transcendent and ineffable may refer to more than mere yearnings. Much around us remains unknown.

V. ...The most compelling literature concerns persons whose feelings, thoughts, and actions engage us in the lived time of mortality. Ideas and abstractions, which systematically separate themselves from persons and from time, do not form the essence of literature, and do no surpass it.

VI. Works of literature are written by individual authors using existing language with reference to material nature and human nature. The doctraine known as textuality makes a triple denial of these entities. Textuality denies the existence of the natural world, of literature, and of authors.

VIII. In order to affirm literature in its full humanist sense, let us eschew the freestanding word text. Its indescriminate word today provides evidence of deadening stylistic conformity. Rather, let us take advantage of the full range of terms like book, work, poem, play, novel, essay, passage, chapter, and the like... let us refrain from endorsing, indirectly and inadvertently, the doctraine of textuality by chanting "text" in every other line of what we say or write.

XVI. In literary study as in everyday life, we have entered the Age of Appliances. More and more scholars and critics write and teach by applying an ideology ofr methodology to a cultural "text". This reliance on appliances tends to eliminate the experience and the love of literature."
;) :brow: :goof:

[Petrarch's Love]

As a graduate student I've been exposed to a fair amount of literary theory, and I alternate between thinking of it as a specialized tool and a necessary evil of my future profession as teacher and critic. :lol: Some of it really is just specialized language that professionals use to make it easier to discuss certain ideas, just the way scientists or engineers no doubt have specialized terms they use when they talk shop. Some people do indeed use this as an excuse to make themselves sound pretentious and only succeed in making themselves incomprehensible...but I won't go off on that tangent.

Since this thread was started by someone asking if it was a good idea to approach literary texts through theory, I think I would say it greatly depends. If I were advising a student who hadn't done much reading. I think I would tell him/her to stay clear of literary theory and begin by reading a lot of literary texts first. Don't sit down to read a novel or a book of poetry with a book of literary theory next to you. Sit down and enjoy the story, the way the words go together, the way it makes you react. Devolop your own sense of different writing styles and ideas. If it's a dificult text you might want annotations to gloss things, or you might be interested in reading a little biography of the author or a bit of historical background, but don't fuss with postmodernism right away.

If, on the other hand, you're someone who's read quite a lot of literature and enjoyed it, and you're finding yourself becoming curious about thinking in new ways about a specific work, or about literature in general, then that's the time when theory might become of interest. I think a lot of people make the mistake of approaching theory as some sort of be all and end all approach that will give you the key as to how to read, or as something profound in and of itself. I find the best way to think about theoretical works is as ideas that you can take into consideration and bounce your own ideas off of in order to think more deeply about the hows and whys of literature (or art or whatever it is). It's basically the opportunity to read the ideas of some fairly intellegent people who have thought a lot about a given subject and put their two cents into a book or article. Reading these ideas can sometimes stimulate an inner discussion, helping you raise questions about issues you may not have considered before, and allowing you to take another person's viewpoint into account and figure out where you stand against that viewpoint. The whole point of theory really is just to keep the discussion alive, meaning that, like any discussion, it has a fair amount of filler and nonsense and pretension. It also sometimes has something of interest that might make someone think about a text in a slightly different light.

[Petrarch's Love]

It's a way for college professors to feel thay are as important as the artists, and that their ****-a-mamy theories are as important as the art.

I wish I knew fewer examples to support that statement. :D They're not all like that though. There are a lot of profs who wade through the theory and stick with the lit., and even more brilliant profs who find a way to use theory in meaningful ways to help people relate to literature. Naturally when I finish my own dissertation, however, I'll expect people to acknowledge it as the heartbreaking work of staggering genius it will no doubt be. :lol:

[stlukesguild]

Aaack! Aaack "texts!" "texts!" :rage: I'm going to become the "Text" monitor! :goof: :brow:

As a graduate student I've been exposed to a fair amount of literary theory, and I alternate between thinking of it as a specialized tool and a necessary evil of my future profession as teacher and critic. Some of it really is just specialized language that professionals use to make it easier to discuss certain ideas, just the way scientists or engineers no doubt have specialized terms they use when they talk shop. Some people do indeed use this as an excuse to make themselves sound pretentious and only succeed in making themselves incomprehensible...


If I were advising a student who hadn't done much reading. I think I would tell him/her to stay clear of literary theory and begin by reading a lot of literary texts first. Don't sit down to read a novel or a book of poetry with a book of literary theory next to you. Sit down and enjoy the story, the way the words go together, the way it makes you react. Devolop your own sense of different writing styles and ideas...

If, on the other hand, you're someone who's read quite a lot of literature and enjoyed it, and you're finding yourself becoming curious about thinking in new ways about a specific work, or about literature in general, then that's the time when theory might become of interest. I think a lot of people make the mistake of approaching theory as some sort of be all and end all approach that will give you the key as to how to read, or as something profound in and of itself. I find the best way to think about theoretical works is as ideas that you can take into consideration and bounce your own ideas off of in order to think more deeply about the hows and whys...

Yes... Undoubtedly much of what you say here is true. The experience of any art by the novice is not the same as that of the more experienced... of the scholar... or of the artist. As a visual artist I must admit that my experience of art... my way of looking at art is quite different than that of the average viewer. We may be awed by a magician who seemingly saws a woman in half before our very eyes, but the experienced magician understands the illusion. As an artist I am not so easily impressed with certain "tricks" of the trade... but there are other elements that I am highly atuned to. Just as was suggested in the Picasso quote above, my perception... the artist's perception of art is quite different from the scholar/critic's perception. The painter Philip Pearlstein was engaged in graduate with one of the most noted art historians then teaching in New York. This historian invited Pearlstein on a trip to Italy to be involved with certain conservation work. Pearlstein expressed a degree of reluctance, being engaged in preparing a body of work for an exhibition. The professor cornered him, telling the young artist, "You need to choose. Don't you know that the art historian and the art critic are the enemies of the artist?!" Unfortunately... many artists walk the line between artist and scholar, and need to be able to put on one form of thinking or another.

To return to literary criticism, I agree that it has its worth in offering you another possible way of thinking about a work of art... after you have first done a fair deal of reading or works of literature. As an artist myself I am more than somewhat reluctant to abandon the centrality of the author and focus upon deconstructing a "text" in light of this or that theory. The biography of the artist, the historical background, annotations to things mentioned with which you may not be familiar (can anyone read Dante without such?), references to other artists or works to which the author/work in question may have been responding/referring to certainly... Shakespeare or Milton reduced to an example of Marxist, Feminist, Freudian (etc...) theory I can do completely without. This does not mean that questions of sexism or social power structures, etc... cannot be broached... rather it means that I would hope to always read literature for the aesthetic pleasure it affords first and foremost... no matter how experienced I may become... and not merely as a means to illustrate some arcane philosophical theory or to rectify some percieved social injustice. Does that make me a Modernist as opposed to a Post-Modernist reader, if not something even more reactionary? ;) Perhaps it makes me more like what Virginia Woolf had in mind when she spoke of the "common reader"?

Naturally when I finish my own dissertation, however, I'll expect people to acknowledge it as the heartbreaking work of staggering genius it will no doubt be. :lol:

Oh, unquestionably... as long as you acknowledge my artistic genius when I have my first one-person exhibition next year. :brow:

[TodHackett]

There are literary terms to learn, no doubt - like what comedy and tragedy is in a classical sense, the mechanics of poetry (iamb, caesura, villanelle, etc.), and so forth - but, as in biology and any other discipline, once you've got the terms down, there's no real mystery to understanding pieces that use them.

I don't think the same goes for literary theory - even after you have a sense of how the terms are used, it is still pulling teeth to try and figure out what the author is saying, or to figure out why that would be considered an important thing to say.

Part of the problem here is that each critc understands terms differently. But even this teaches students a valuable skill-- namely, how to read more carefully, and with more nuance. Many beginning students are mired in a common, 20th-century sensibility that often treats words like equivalencies; that is, they think of words as interchangeable and inorganic parts, being strictly defined by dictionary definitions and not by the contexts in which they appear. Eliot's "What is a Classic?" comes to mind-- one way to read this essay is as Eliot defining the term, "classic", in the context of his essay and in that context only. In the essay, Eliot makes pains to say that we mean something very different when we speak of "classic" children's books or "Classical Studies". I read that essay for a theory class, BTW.

I think that this sort of thinking is tremendously useful, not only for literary studies, but for other fields as well. It teaches us that things we took to be equivalent aren't, which is a VERY disquieting notion for a society whose science is based on forces or reactions in balance, whose politics is based on personal equality and whose economy is based on numerical currency. I think that part of the backlash against theory (GOOD theory) springs from the fact that it threatens certain fundamental social paradigms.

Still, despite everything, I believe that most theory professors are basically egotists at heart. I still maintain, also, that there is a LOT of crap theory out there, with a few diamonds in the rough.

[TodHackett]

I sort of like Roger Shattock's Candor and Perversion, which while not literary criticism, per se, does offer many intriguing insights into literature, literary criticism, art and art criticism, and education.

Ahh, and now we see it! Why is Shattock's work not literary criticism? Why is it not "theory"? Who decides what is and isn't literary criticism? What is and isn't literature?

Welcome to the first chapter of Culler's book (_Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction_)! You have just posited one of the central questions posed by literary theorists. Certainly, from the look of it, Shattock deserves the same sort of attention as Benjamin or Danto, right? Why did I read Benjamin and Danto for my theory classes, but never Shattock? Clearly, you have issues with Danto-- clearly, also, you know the visual arts better than I do (I've never put on a "one-person exhibition". But then, there is a difference between artist and critic...). So why should I consider your point invalid (I don't, BTW)?

It's these sorts of questions (one could even call them "power struggles") that many critics-- including Eagleton, Foucault, Jameson and Adorno-- focus on in their writings. And where did I read these authors? You guessed it-- theory classes.

[stlukesguild]

I think that this sort of thinking is tremendously useful, not only for literary studies, but for other fields as well. It teaches us that things we took to be equivalent aren't, which is a VERY disquieting notion for a society whose science is based on forces or reactions in balance, whose politics is based on personal equality and whose economy is based on numerical currency. I think that part of the backlash against theory (GOOD theory) springs from the fact that it threatens certain fundamental social paradigms.

Oh I quite agree with this. Theory/criticism often/usually involves some degree of value judgement... and to many this smacks of "elitism". We have probably all heard someone suggest that they don't believe we can judge art or literature as they are all forms of "self-expression" and as each person is unique there is no way to compare this persons "self-expressiveness" with that of another. As you suggest, our political system (in theory) is based upon a similar notion of equality, and such elitism often disturbs people. Unfortunately... from my perspective... art is clearly rooted in "elitism"... in value judgements. There are good, bad, and great artists/writers no less than there are good and bad baseball teams (damn Yankees!). Where I have problem with critical theory is when the focus shifts from the work as art to value judgements based upon political correctness, gender, racial or other social issues... or hermetic philosophical theories which must be mastered before one can be thought worthy of offering judgements on a work of art/literature (and I suppose I should add music).

[Petrarch's Love]

Aaack! Aaack "texts!" "texts!" :rage: I'm going to become the "Text" monitor! :goof: :brow:


Every one of my art friends (practicing artists, art historians, and art theorists alike) starts getting prickly the minute I mention the word "text." Is it being applied in a much more threatening way in the art world or something? Perhaps you could explain it. For lit. people it's often just a convenient way of referring to numerous types of literary works, encompassing novels, stories, poems, sermons and meditations, etc., and a common word we throw around in general, when for example comparing different historical "texts" of a work, or when doing editing work. I know sometimes referring to literary works as "texts" does open things up to a New Historical approach to including written material that is not traditionally considered canonically "literary." I also know how incredibly annoying it is when people start acting as though the text is in some way subservient to the theory, but I'm not sure that has anything to do with word choice, more the tone in which it's said. "Text" most often seems fairly innocous to me, like saying "work" or "piece" when referring to a painting or sculpture, but maybe I'm missing something?


This does not mean that questions of sexism or social power structures, etc... cannot be broached... rather it means that I would hope to always read literature for the aesthetic pleasure it affords first and foremost... no matter how experienced I may become... and not merely as a means to illustrate some arcane philosophical theory or to rectify some percieved social injustice.

This I agree with, and I should note, lest I be misunderstood, that I in no way meant to imply that theory was in some way part of a step to becoming a more "experienced" reader. A person could probably read absolutely no literary theory (and by "theory" I specifically mean the very abstract philosophical stuff with no real connectaion to a text or even to the historical context of the text) and still manage to be an intelligent and insightful reader of literature. If anyone's going to get anything out of theory, however, it's probably going to be a more experienced reader. I should hope that any reader would enjoy reading for the sake of the pleasure it affords first and foremmost, and it's been my observation that the very best scholars usually do.


Naturally when I finish my own dissertation, however, I'll expect people to acknowledge it as the heartbreaking work of staggering genius it will no doubt be. :lol:

Oh, unquestionably... as long as you acknowledge my artistic genius when I have my first one-person exhibition next year. :brow:

Was that not a foregone conclusion? Naturally your exhibit will be pure genius :nod: (unlike my dissertation which, in all seriousness will probably be forgotten not only by the world but by myself within a few weeks of completion :lol: ) A one-person exhibition, that's pretty exciting. Hope it's a big success. :)

[Virgil]

Every one of my art friends (practicing artists, art historians, and art theorists alike) starts getting prickly the minute I mention the word "text." Is it being applied in a much more threatening way in the art world or something?
Oh, I get more than prickly when I hear it. It does bother me too. A telephone book is a text, and the New Historicists, in theory, give it equal weight to a Joyce's Ullysses. And what bothers me more is that I sometimes catch myself saying it too. Aaaahhhh! :flare:

[Petrarch's Love]

Ah, so it is the New Historicist claims that are getting everyone in a bother. I rather thought that was it. It's true that New Historicists have used the ambiguity of the term "text" to their advantage, but really the term has been in the past, and still is used in fairly uncontroversial ways. One reason especially for using the word text as a word to differentiate pieces of literature from literary theory is that "text" has long been used (I'm not sure how long, but at least since the 18th century) as a term specifically referring to the original work as distinct from annotation, commentary, or other secondary stuff. It was this sort of connotation I had in mind (and I think I tend to use the word "text" more when I'm using it to mean the original source as opposed to the secondary theory), but I now recognize that recent literary theory has made this a somewhat more loaded term than I intended. For the record I am distinctly not of the opinion that phone books and things of that ilk are literature. :lol:

[stlukesguild]

TH- "Ahh, and now we see it! Why is Shattock's work not literary criticism? Why is it not "theory"? Who decides what is and isn't literary criticism?..."

SLG- Actually, the reason for my distinction between Shattuck's writing and writing that is clearly set out as "literary criticism," is the fact that Shattuck's work in question (Candor and Perversion) is a collection of essays touching on a variety of subjects: art, literature, and education among them. Emerson, T.S. Eliot, Virginia Woolf, Samuel Coleridge all wrote essays that discuss literature... that are essentially "literary criticism," but as that was never their central reason for their writing (although it seemingly becomes so for Coleridge after burning out his "muse") I guess I simply wouldn't refer to them initially as "critics".

TH- "...Why did I read Benjamin and Danto for my theory classes, but never Shattock?..."

SLG- I might ask myself the same question. Why was I assigned Benjamin (although his "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" is quite worthwhile in raising issues of the art "object"), Danto, Greenberg, Foucault, and Baudrillaud (save me Saint Jean!)... yet not Donald Kuspit or Robert Hughes who offer some opposing views/theories...? Perhaps what bothered me about theory in the arts is that they were not presented as "theories"... meaning they were often presented as the only unassailable means of understanding/quantifying the work of art in question. Then again, I was a student during the high PC era of the early '90s (showing my age :p).

[stlukesguild]

PL- Every one of my art friends (practicing artists, art historians, and art theorists alike) starts getting prickly the minute I mention the word "text." Is it being applied in a much more threatening way in the art world or something? Perhaps you could explain it.

SLG- I don't know that I could explain other artist's bristling at the term... I don't have too many artist friends/acquaintences who are actually all that inclined toward literature at all. I could offer a supposition, however. The term "Text" seems to neutralize the work in question. When one repeatedly refers to a given work as "the text", rather than "the play", "the poem", the novel", "the essay" (let alone "Dante's poem", Shakespeare's play"...) it seems to suggest that one is denying the individuality of the work... and the creator. When the point of the critic seems more about pushing this or that socio-political agenda than actually responding to the work of the artist, I find this disturbing. I don't think "Text" has an equivalent in the visual arts. There is "work" and "art object", but I haven't read that much art criticism that has abandonned "painting", "sculpture", "print", "installation" etc... in favor of a generic substitute.

PL- Was that not a foregone conclusion? :nod: Naturally your exhibit will be pure genius (unlike my dissertation which, in all seriousness will probably be forgotten not only by the world but by myself within a few weeks of completion :lol:) A one-person exhibition, that's pretty exciting. Hope it's a big success. :)

SLG- Of course while my exhibition will last for mere weeks and be seen (if I'm lucky) by a few hundred art afficionados from my locale, you have the hope for immortality afforded by Google! :brow: I was just browsing through all the dissertations available on obscure British poets of the 16th century. :p

[Petrarch's Love]

SLG- I don't know that I could explain other artist's bristling at the term... I don't have too many artist friends/acquaintences who are actually all that inclined toward literature at all. I could offer a supposition, however. The term "Text" seems to neutralize the work in question. When one repeatedly refers to a given work as "the text", rather than "the play", "the poem", the novel", "the essay" (let alone "Dante's poem", Shakespeare's play"...) it seems to suggest that one is denying the individuality of the work... and the creator. When the point of the critic seems more about pushing this or that socio-political agenda than actually responding to the work of the artist, I find this disturbing. I don't think "Text" has an equivalent in the visual arts. There is "work" and "art object", but I haven't read that much art criticism that has abandonned "painting", "sculpture", "print", "installation" etc... in favor of a generic substitute.

I'll agree with you about it sounding generic in certain contexts. I don't think I usually use the term "text" if there's a more apt and specific term available that would suit like "poetry" or "novels," or I use the appropriate title for whatever the specific poem is. Rather than saying "Shakespeare's text, The Tempest ," for example, I would say "Shakespeare's play, The Tempest," just as you would probably refer to "Michelangelo's statue The David." (The only exception is when I did editing work and my supervising editor referred to the Shakespeare play I was working with as "the text.") Perhaps there isn't really an art equivilent to the term "text." I think the closest equivilent is probably "artwork." "Text" is usually used to refer to original work as opposed to secondary writings, and usually original work that is not of a specific form or genre. If a literary critic were to say "theory is never more important than the text," for example, he/she is saying "theory is never more important than the poems, novels, essays, prose works, sermons, etc. that theory is written about." I imagine an artist would say "theory is never more important than the artwork," so that's probably the closest equivilent term.


Of course while my exhibition will last for mere weeks and be seen (if I'm lucky) by a few hundred art afficionados from my locale, you have the hope for immortality afforded by Google! I was just browsing through all the dissertations available on obscure British poets of the 16th century.

Ah! An eternity in Google hadn't occured to me, but since two of my papers are already online waiting to ambush the hapless Googler and lull him/her into a hopeless state of boredom, I suppose you've got a point. To think that my future dissertation on obscure 16th century British poets could someday wend its way to such fame! :lol:

[Zooey]

Theory isn't necessary to enjoy literature, but I think it's pretty important--if not essential--for a deep and comprehensive understanding of it.

I took a class on lit theory, and it wasn't easy, and not always satisfying in the same way a lit class is. But once I found the theories that I respond to and find fascinating, theory has become engrossing, enlightening, (and dare I say it?) enjoyable.

[Bastet]

Hello everyone!
Petrach's Love, I agree with you that whenever a more specific word is available for a piece of literature, it is preferable than the term "text". However, I also gotta admit that I see nothing wrong with that term, especially when talking in general, like in the good examples that you provide. I do literary criticism in Spain, and sometimes I write in English, and we use the term in both languages "text" and "texto" without a second thought. It is interesting to see how it affects other people though. That's what I like about this forum. Isn't literary interaction great?? ;)

[penelopea]

Its a great academic exercise,but has little to do with the creation of literature.

[bhekti]

In order to understand a text, one has to read the text, that is, to do something to the text so that the text finally imparts itself to one's understanding. Therefore, reading can also be defined as an activity of cognition, of making-sense.

Reading process demonstration reveals the relationship between text, reading and reader. Although each of these things is of different kinds from the other (text is an object, reading is an activity, reader is a cognitive object, or, a subject), they are mutually dependent on each other. To say anything about a text, for example, a reader requires reading activity. To be able to understand a text, the reader needs the text’s (elaboration of) intertextual resources to be the supplement that would manage the arrangement of the text ‘s intelligibility or readability. From this simple description, it can be said that the existence of a text is realized after the existence of a reading activity which is realized after the existence of a reader who is realized after the existence of the text. There is a triune relationship among text, reading and reader.

There have been many studies conducted to reveal the relationship between text and reader. The result of these kinds of studies can make people conscious of their position in a reading enterprise, of the capacity they have as readers. People may be aware of what they are able to do as readers. This kind of awareness, in turn, capacitates people to do a deliberate cognition engineering: now, the un-truth can be (re-)signified to be truth and a truth to be an un-truth, just according to the reader’s desire. This “truth” engineering, then, eliminates the border between truth and lie. The knowledge of the mechanism of reading enables people to deliberately practice activities such as textualization, deconstruction, and (re-)signification to attain the accomplishment of an interest.

The knowledge of the mechanism of reading process, to say something positive, may also enable people to make a reflection on their life. To be sure, life is a highly immense and complex composition of texts, and living is a highly immense and complex enterprise of reading. The quality of one’s life depends on the quality of one’s reading upon the surrounding phenomena of life. How one signifies life determines what becomes and will become of one’s self.

[bhekti]

... I don't think I usually use the term "text" if there's a more apt and specific term available that would suit like "poetry" or "novels," or I use the appropriate title for whatever the specific poem is. Rather than saying "Shakespeare's text, The Tempest ," for example, I would say "Shakespeare's play, The Tempest," ...


I found a play text in a collection of short stories. Today Is Friday is the only text within The Complete Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway, the Finca Vigia Edition that evidently bears the form of play. This fact stimulated me to wonder whether there had been an accident in the compilation process, or something else. Hemingway wrote two plays: The Fifth Column (1938) and Today Is Friday (1926). The Fifth Column, however, is not included in The Complete.

Then I asked myself: why do I think of an accident? Why should I consider the fact that there is a text in the form of a play within a collection of short stories an accident, an anomaly, a sort of prohibition? In short, how should I, as a reader, be annoyed by such fact? These awareness led me to the problem of the status and the role of literary genre in literary study.

The fact that there is a play text in a collection of short stories annoyed me very much because I was educated to treat a particular literary text as an instantiation of a particular literary genre: a text is a poem, or a narrative, or a play as it fulfills the genre categorization of being a poem, or a narrative, or a play. If I treated Today Is Friday not as a play, then I would be violating a convention.

However, I found Roland Barthes who argued:
Just as Einsteinian science demands that the relativity of the frames of reference be included in the object studied, so the combined action of Marxism, Freudianism, and structuralism demands, in literature, the relativization of the relation of writer, reader, and observer (critic). Over against traditional notion of the work, for long – and still – conceived of in a, so to speak, Newtonian way, there is now the requirement of a new object, obtained by the sliding or overturning of former categories. That object is the Text (Barthes, 1996)

In the work-paradigm, literary convention, such as genre categorization, is treated as something innocent, natural, taken-for-granted. Its normative function manifests with authoritative, if not authoritarian, force. The paradigmatic shift from “work” to “text” results, as a matter of consequence, in the relativization of the convention. Once relativized, the convention does not have the power to subdue the text into categorization; the literary work becomes free from any kinds of authority; it is now restored to its "primordial" identity, namely text. The treatment of Hemingway's Today Is Friday not as a play is not a violation towards any conventions. Concerning genre categorization, it is not being ignored or nullified; its function is only deferred deliberately in order to achieve a certain purpose.

What do you think?

PS: I am describing half part of my graduation thesis that was turned down by the board.

[stlukesguild]

Theory isn't necessary to enjoy literature, but I think it's pretty important--if not essential--for a deep and comprehensive understanding of it.

Why? Are you suggesting that if I haven't read Foucault, Baudrillaud, Artur C. Danto, Walter Benjamin, the critical essays of T.S Eliot, etc... then I can't have a "deep and comprehensive" understanding of it? Hmmm... I don't recall Shakespeare having read anything by literary theorists. Do you suppose he had a "deep" understanding of what he was writing? Did the Greeks who first listened to Homer's great epics somehow miss out because they were unaware of all the Freudian interpretations to be found? I will acknowledge that literary theory (I actually prefer literary "criticism", but I'm being picky:brow:) may open the reader up to new interpretations... but then again, any number of things may spur such. I don't know how many times my reading of one work of literature may cause me to rethink how I percieved a work read prior.

[stlukesguild]

In order to understand a text, one has to read the text, that is, to do something to the text so that the text finally imparts itself to one's understanding. Therefore, reading can also be defined as an activity of cognition, of making-sense.

Reading process demonstration reveals the relationship between text, reading and reader. Although each of these things is of different kinds from the other (text is an object, reading is an activity, reader is a cognitive object, or, a subject), they are mutually dependent on each other. To say anything about a text, for example, a reader requires reading activity. To be able to understand a text, the reader needs the text’s (elaboration of) intertextual resources to be the supplement that would manage the arrangement of the text ‘s intelligibility or readability. From this simple description...

:lol: :lol: :lol: This is satire... right? (Or a passage from Tristam Shandy that I'm somehow unfamiliar with :goof: )

[bhekti]

:lol: :lol: :lol: This is satire... right?

:D :D :D ..he he he



..(Or a passage from Tristam Shandy that I'm somehow unfamiliar with :goof: )

Tristram Shandy? Why, yes, of course! I somehow got it from its unfamiliar part, imagination. :D

[Virgil]

Theory isn't necessary to enjoy literature, but I think it's pretty important--if not essential--for a deep and comprehensive understanding of it.

I would agree with this if theory was to explicate the art. My impression is that traditional criticism does do that. However something happened in the modern era to transform criticism to theory, and not just theories, but convoluted theories that have nothing to do with the art itself, or anything that even passed through the artist's mind. The modern theories try to understand the mental or psychological state of the author or worst try to understand the state of the culture. It almost doesn't even consider the art in itself. To talk of a Marxian understanding of Shakespeare (and there are many "Marxian" perspectives out there on Shakespeare - I'm not making it up) to me is the ultimate stupidity. First of all, Shakespeare could not have even envisioned Marx from his perspective. Second we take an economic theory and apply it to literature? Huh? Third we take someone who was wrong about economics, wrong about history, and try to apply it to understanding art. Duh?

[Zooey]

I would agree with this if theory was to explicate the art. My impression is that traditional criticism does do that. However something happened in the modern era to transform criticism to theory, and not just theories, but convoluted theories that have nothing to do with the art itself, or anything that even passed through the artist's mind. The modern theories try to understand the mental or psychological state of the author or worst try to understand the state of the culture. It almost doesn't even consider the art in itself. To talk of a Marxian understanding of Shakespeare (and there are many "Marxian" perspectives out there on Shakespeare - I'm not making it up) to me is the ultimate stupidity. First of all, Shakespeare could not have even envisioned Marx from his perspective. Second we take an economic theory and apply it to literature? Huh? Third we take someone who was wrong about economics, wrong about history, and try to apply it to understanding art. Duh? As my theory prof kept telling us over and over throughout the semester, theory is a tool, and I think that's where its value lies.

Granted, there are some theories that are more concerned with what the literature says about the culture it came out of more so than what it is as a work of art, but that's because those theories are basically cultural theories whose principles are then applied to specifically literature (and I'd say Marxism definitely falls into that category).

However, I think you misrepresent theory in general--Formalism (or New Criticism), for example, focuses solely on the text as a work of art, and it seems that there's a misunderstanding on what, say, a theory like Marxism is trying to accomplish. Indeed, there are volumes and volumes of Shakespeare Marxist criticism, but I don't think any of them would fault Shakespeare for not writing with specific Marxist principles in mind. Rather, I think their purpose is analyze what Shakespeare's take on specific issues were (Shakespeare's plays are teeming with issues of class interaction, for example, which is ideal for Marxist criticism).

In a lot of ways, taking an approach like that is able to demonstrate how literature--no matter how old--still has relevant and meaningful things to say about modern life.

[stlukesguild]

...there are volumes and volumes of Shakespeare Marxist criticism, but I don't think any of them would fault Shakespeare for not writing with specific Marxist principles in mind. Rather, I think their purpose is analyze what Shakespeare's take on specific issues were (Shakespeare's plays are teeming with issues of class interaction, for example, which is ideal for Marxist criticism)...

But then the problem again is that the focus is not upon the artist's intentions and what the art sought to express, but rather upon external social issues. While these may be interesting, I often get the feeling one might plug any "text" into the theory and then let the deconstruction begin. It seems as if the theory... the social issue is more important than the work of art. By the same token, might one not merely plug a work of literature into any theory? Thus we get the Feminist Shakespeare, Shakespeare and Gender Issues, Freudian Shakespeare, Marxist Shakespeare... and down the road I can envision Southern Baptist Shakespeare, Shakespeare as Neo-Con, Islamic Shakespeare, etc... etc...

In a lot of ways, taking an approach like that is able to demonstrate how literature--no matter how old--still has relevant and meaningful things to say about modern life.

But is this why we read old literature? I value what is different about literature from other times... other nations... other cultures. Yes... the great writers often deal with certain eternal themes (love, death, jealousy, spiritual longing, fate, cruelty, etc...) but I don't need to imagine Milton or Shakespeare or Dante as having something to say about Marxism, Feminism, Fredianism or the Bush Administration for them to be of the greatest worth. I often think that these theories are were originally developed by those who don't honestly believe that the "mere" aesthetic enjoyment of art is worthy in itself. Art, to them, seems to need to have some social value, and I can just imagine their hairs standing on end if they were to be forced to read Oscar Wilde's Introduction to A Picture of Dorian Gray:

The artist is the creator of beautiful things.

To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim.

The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.

The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.

Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.

Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.

There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.

The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.

The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass.

The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium.

No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved.

No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style.

No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything. Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art.

From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician.

From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type. All art is at once surface and symbol.

Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.

It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.

Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself.

We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it.

The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.

All art is quite useless.

[bhekti]

... I often get the feeling one might plug any "text" into the theory and then let the deconstruction begin.
But, isn't that how the process of understanding or making-sense or enjoyment naturally works in human mind? (the theory itself is a "text")


It seems as if the theory... the social issue is more important than the work of art.
I think the issue is not about which one is more important, but about the fact that human is a creative textual creature who plugs many "texts" (kept as knowledges)in his/her head into the "text in front of his/her eyes, resulting in a new "text" called (his/her) understanding/opinion.


I often think that these theories are were originally developed by those who don't honestly believe that the "mere" aesthetic enjoyment of art is worthy in itself. Art, to them, seems to need to have some social value, and I can just imagine their hairs standing on end if they were to be forced to read Oscar Wilde's Introduction to A Picture of Dorian Gray...

What "mere aesthetic enjoyment of art" is like? Is it communicable through language?

[Zooey]

...there are volumes and volumes of Shakespeare Marxist criticism, but I don't think any of them would fault Shakespeare for not writing with specific Marxist principles in mind. Rather, I think their purpose is analyze what Shakespeare's take on specific issues were (Shakespeare's plays are teeming with issues of class interaction, for example, which is ideal for Marxist criticism)...

But then the problem again is that the focus is not upon the artist's intentions and what the art sought to express, but rather upon external social issues. While these may be interesting, I often get the feeling one might plug any "text" into the theory and then let the deconstruction begin. It seems as if the theory... the social issue is more important than the work of art. By the same token, might one not merely plug a work of literature into any theory? Thus we get the Feminist Shakespeare, Shakespeare and Gender Issues, Freudian Shakespeare, Marxist Shakespeare... and down the road I can envision Southern Baptist Shakespeare, Shakespeare as Neo-Con, Islamic Shakespeare, etc... etc...

In a lot of ways, taking an approach like that is able to demonstrate how literature--no matter how old--still has relevant and meaningful things to say about modern life.

But is this why we read old literature? I value what is different about literature from other times... other nations... other cultures. Yes... the great writers often deal with certain eternal themes (love, death, jealousy, spiritual longing, fate, cruelty, etc...) but I don't need to imagine Milton or Shakespeare or Dante as having something to say about Marxism, Feminism, Fredianism or the Bush Administration for them to be of the greatest worth. I often think that these theories are were originally developed by those who don't honestly believe that the "mere" aesthetic enjoyment of art is worthy in itself. Art, to them, seems to need to have some social value, and I can just imagine their hairs standing on end if they were to be forced to read Oscar Wilde's Introduction to A Picture of Dorian Gray:

The artist is the creator of beautiful things.

To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim.

The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.

The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.

Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.

Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.

There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.

The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.

The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass.

The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium.

No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved.

No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style.

No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything. Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art.

From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician.

From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type. All art is at once surface and symbol.

Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.

It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.

Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself.

We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it.

The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.

All art is quite useless. I guess when it comes down to it, theory is indeed useless for somebody who holds an aesthetic, "art for art's sake" view of art, and has no real interest in what it has to say about society or other issues that are central to theory.

[stlukesguild]

I guess when it comes down to it, theory is indeed useless for somebody who holds an aesthetic, "art for art's sake" view of art, and has no real interest in what it has to say about society or other issues that are central to theory.

I don't imagine 'art pour l'art' as completely negating all content from a work of art except for concern with formal artistic elements (although I am aware that certain formalist critics such as Clement Greenberg might have taken this stance). Rather, I imagine 'art pour l'art' as rejecting the notion that one might apply non-aesthetic issues as a criteria for artistic judgement. I personally find it absurd... misleading... perhaps even dishonest to use works of art as a means of illustrating certain socio-political concerns that are not an express part of the work or intention of the artist. The key word here might be "use", for such an approach seems to merely "use" literature/art as a means to "educate" an audience to one's agenda rather than to explore what said work has to offer... to be surprised... perhaps challenged... even outraged at times. Is it any more fair (not to mention logical) to judge Shakespeare, for example, upon 20th century notions of morality, religion, equity, economics, etc... than it might be to judge Flannery O'Connor or Philip Roth based upon a rigid Islamic interpretation of the same? I suppose such might offer a sort of intellectual game faintly reminicent of J.L. Borges: imagine James Joyce as interpretted by a medieval theologian, Picasso within the context of the late Roman Empire, Led Zeppelin as envisioned by the Vikings... :banana:

As an artist myself I may be a bit more defensive with regard to the "use" of art as a means of illustrating other's agendas. What the artist was attempting and how well or not it was realized is my first concern. I am wary of art being judged upon non-art criteria for many reasons among which is a fear of the potential for censorship from such. This does not mean that I imagine we should ignore the themes or content present in a work of art and merely focus upon formal elements. I have posted a rather long quote by Walter Pater (one of the true spiritual fathers of 'art pour l'art') from the conclusion to his Renaissance here before which expresses my reasons for loving literature... and all art... in a manner far better that I might:

The service of philosophy, of speculative culture, towards the human spirit, is to rouse, to startle it to a life of constant and eager observation. Every moment some form grows perfect in hand or face; some tone on the hills or the sea is choicer than the rest; some mood of passion or insight or intellectual excitement is irresistibly real and attractive to us,–for that moment only. Not the fruit of experience, but experience itself, is the end. A counted number of pulses only is given to us of a variegated, dramatic life. How may we see in them all that is to seen in them by the finest senses? How shall we pass most swiftly from point to point, and be present always at the focus where the greatest number of vital forces unite in their purest energy?

To burn always with this hard, gemlike flame, to maintain this ecstasy, is success in life. In a sense it might even be said that our failure is to form habits... While all melts under our feet, we may well grasp at any exquisite passion, or any contribution to knowledge that seems by a lifted horizon to set the spirit free for a moment, or any stirring of the senses, strange dyes, strange colours, and curious odours, or work of the artist’s hands, or the face of one’s friend. Not to discriminate every moment some passionate attitude in those about us, and in the very brilliancy of their gifts some tragic dividing of forces on their ways, is, on this short day of frost and sun, to sleep before evening. With this sense of the splendour of our experience and of its awful brevity, gathering all we are into one desperate effort to see and touch, we shall hardly have time to make theories about the things we see and touch. What we have to do is to be for ever curiously testing new opinions and courting new impressions, never acquiescing in a facile orthodoxy of Comte, or of Hegel, or of our own...

One of the most beautiful passages of Rousseau is that in the sixth book of the Confessions, where he describes the awakening in him of the literary sense. An undefinable taint of death had clung always about him, and now in early manhood he believed himself smitten by mortal disease. He asked himself how he might make as much as possible of the interval that remained; and he was not biassed by anything in his previous life when he decided that it must be by intellectual excitement, which he found just then in the clear, fresh writings of Voltaire. Well! we are all condamnes, as Victor Hugo says: we are all under sentence of death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve–les hommes sont tous condamnes a mort avec des sursis indefinis: we have an interval, and then our place knows us no more. Some spend this interval in listlessness, some in high passions, the wisest, at least among "the children of this world,” in art and song. For our one chance lies in expanding that interval, in getting as many pulsations as possible into the given time. Great passions may give us this quickened sense of life, ecstasy and sorrow of love, the various forms of enthusiastic activity, disinterested or otherwise, which come naturally to many of us. Only be sure it is passion–that it does yield you this fruit of a quickened, multiplied consciousness. Of such wisdom, the poetic passion, the desire of beauty, the love of art for its own sake, has most. For art comes to you proposing frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moments’ sake.

Another... far more brief quote... from Anna Quindlen, from her essay, How Reading Changed my Life suggests much the same:

Books are the means to immortality:
... Through them we experience other times, other places, other lives. We manage to become much more than our own selves. The only dead are those who grow sere and shriveled within, unable to step outside their own lives and into those of others. Ignorance is death. A closed mind is a catafalque.

A poster here (MarySue) on another thread says much the same thing:

...a good book is a portal to another universe... Read a good book and you're inside someone else's head. You're able to see through someone else's eyes, and with a new and unique perspective you can take a "virtual reality" tour of somewhere else. And along the way you get to meet some fascinating new friends...

I disagree with my friends at times... with regard to religion... politics... economics... art... However, they remain my friends... I do not judge them based upon these criteria, use them merely to reinforce my perceptions, or dismiss them and refuse to spend any more time with them because they have failed to echo all that I believe. Such, as best as I can convey it, are my thoughts upon literature/art. :)

[PeterL]

[COLOR=DarkRed]
As an artist myself I may be a bit more defensive with regard to the "use" of art as a means of illustrating other's agendas. What the artist was attempting and how well or not it was realized is my first concern. I am wary of art being judged upon non-art criteria for many reasons among which is a fear of the potential for censorship from such. This does not mean that I imagine we should ignore the themes or content present in a work of art and merely focus upon formal elements. I have posted a rather long quote by Walter Pater (one of the true spiritual fathers of 'art pour l'art') from the conclusion to his Renaissance here before which expresses my reasons for loving literature... and all art... in a manner far better that I might:


I like your post. You expressed much of what I think of postmodernist literary theory. I have some disagreement with the paragraph above. An author has little control over what a reader will take from reading the author's work. People always and everywhere interpret written works based on their own experiences and points of view. Even the author may interpret the work differently reading it some time after writing. The best that an author can do is to point the reader toward the conclusions that he wants the reader to have. Even doing that will not succeed with readers who think only in their own terms.

On the other hand, the author will show something of himself or herself, even when the work is intended to convey something else. I am of the opinion that the most one can learn from a written work is something about the author's way of thinking and views toward what the book is about.