Literature: where lie the boundaries?

[Cassiel240]

I'm studying for my MA in English, and I'm having difficulty with the boundaries of literary study. I'm a little shell-shocked, I think, from a prof I had in my first term who ripped my paper to shreds because I included things he said "weren't in the text." But other things make me question, as well. For instance, I keep running across critics who scold each other for studying things that are "outside the realm of literature" - for instance, one is accused of studying history rather than lit, or religion rather than lit, while using a book simply as a jumping-off point. I understand this to some extent: last term I wrote a paper of Flannery O'Connor's "Wise Blood" in which I had to write at some length about "literary critics" who really obviously only used the book as a springboard for an extra-literary agenda (frequently a homiletic one). I have no problem with using literature that way at times, but I think I agree that such uses do fall outside our territory as literary scholars. My dilemma, then, is in finding where the boundaries actually lie. I don't agree wholeheartedly with New Criticism, though I like it as a lense for some purposes. For getting a solid reading of a work I do think that politics, religion and history provide important information.

Here is a purely hypothetical case for examination. At the moment, I'm studying Paradise Lost. I keep running across references to food that remind me of the Catholic Church's teachings on the Eucharist and transubstantiation (Milton actually uses the word "transubstantiate" in the work). If I refer to the Church's theology on this, however, I'm bringing in information that is outside the work. If it's not in the text, it seems impossible to prove that Milton had any eye to that theology when writing his poem. So I tend to think I shouldn't refer to the Church's theology at all - or, would it be worthwhile to try to do historical research with an end of proving that Milton was thinking of/responding to/reacting against that theology in the work (this is purely hypothetical - I haven't done any research to even find out if that would be worthwhile)? Am I still in the field of literary study if I do this, or have I strayed into history or religious studies?

Does anyone have some good references - articles or books - that talk about this? At the risk of raising too many issues in one post, a concern I have about this is that I feel a little useless if the only point of my studies is to play around within the text itself, unable to relate it to anything in the world that might "make a difference." Am I walling myself off too strictly? Even the most random thoughts on this would be very much appreciated.

[PeterL]

How can anyone discuss literature at all without bringing in things from outside the text? When one reads any text, it is read and understood from the perspective that the reader brought in. If a text mentions gardening, isn't the reader forced to related that to what he or she knows of gardening? That is just one of millions of bits of information that a reader might bring into reading. It is reasonable to expect that the writer also knew many, many things that aren't explicitly stated in the text, but that can be inferred from what the writer did include. Milton knew a lot about theology, but he didn't explicitly state all of those things in "Paradise Lost". You might discuss the biography of John Milton first, what he did before he wrote that; then, with his theological position well established, you can point to the relationship between his religious background and what he wrote. That could go a long way.

[Derringer]

This is a tricky question. It all depends on exactly what your essay is about for one thing. Literature is not really a bounded topic -- if I remember Hayden White is a historian and Aquinas is a theologian and I have seen both in my Norton of Lit. Theory & Crit. Likewise philosophy may as well be literature. If you are interpreting a text, such as a "Lacanian reading" then I would expect atleast some reference to Lacan's work.

I would say that there is no boundaries, but I think this is all really dependent on a specific essay. The real problem is that, say using a Catholic reading changes the way your essay will enterpet Paradise Lost, but it also can change your view of Catholicism. I know I have done Marxist readings and the text has changed what Marxism means to me from what it used to be. If that makes any sense..

[MaryLupin]

Welcome to the wonderful world of professional literature. In defense of your professor, it might be that he is trying to force students to focus on the text rather than the normal tendency of people to stray rapidly into what amounts to a cacophony of personal biases nothing whatsoever to do with the text at hand. (Please read a few of the locked threads in the religious forum here as an example of how fast that happens.) Having said that, as you continue to read critical essays you will find that, in fact, even the most ardent New Critics, still ruminate about meaning attaching their insights about style and technique (etc.) to life outside the text. It is those very things that often make the most compelling essays.

Try, when you are writing, to summarize in one sentence what you want to say about the book and then, if it helps, as you edit your work, with each new sentence ask yourself, does this sentence add to the understanding of the text or is it really just something I like?

Something I found really helpful was compiling a series of short paragraphs, one for each of the major schools of critical theory. I added a few citations of representative papers that had appeared in the academic journals. Once I did that I realized that there was nothing that is not fair game in discussing a text. The only rule (like for all good writing) is that the discussion should actually say something to illuminate the experience of the text. (I.e. you are not writing to illuminate your nature but the text's nature.)

And...thank you for creating a thread that is actually literary in nature.

[Cassiel240]

Thanks for the input. MaryLupin, have you come across critics you found to be strikingly good examples? I really appreciate the way you have put the problem - asking yourself whether your exploration actually illuminates the text. When I think of the paper I wrote (in my first term back at school after 4 years off from studying literature; I don't know where my head was at that time) I think I can honestly say that under that criteria, I strayed from the text a bit too far. I think I made it do too much of what I wanted it to do, rather than elucidating what it was actually doing.

I wish that professors would talk more about this in their courses. I was in grad school before anyone ever brought up the problem to me, which means that in my undergraduate I either miraculously, unconsciously avoided making this error (of manipulating rather than illuminating the text), or the profs just weren't paying that much attention/didn't think it was important.

[MaryLupin]

I agree with you. I do think that the basic mechanics of writing (from a writers perspective) should be a required course in undergraduate courses for those in Literature Departments. I don't mean composition classes but rather an art of writing class. I took a BA in English (after a MA in Anthropology). I took the degree because I realized that I only really understood books from a readers perspective. It led to an MFA (creative writing), not because I wanted to be a great poet/novelist/essayist but because I really wanted to understand text from the perspective of the one who brings it into existence. It would be hard to overestimate the importance of what I learned about books through struggling to create text of my own.

If you don't have the opportunity of taking a class like that I can point you to some texts that really helped me make the leap across the chasm between the mind of a reader and the mind of a writer. I need a little time to think about it (and about the seminal papers thing) but I am willing to share what I know.

A question: what kind of critical theory attracts you right now? What feels "right?" Lets start there.

[Cassiel240]

Thanks - please do tell me about those texts on bridging the gap (between reader and writer) and those seminal papers when you can. Any information is appreciated.

Right now, New Criticism appeals to me because after my experience in the Fall, it feels safe! Like I said, I think I'm a bit shell-shocked. And I do like New Criticism, to be honest. I think I got more out of doing a close reading of O'Connor's "Wise Blood" than I ever got from reading lots of critics' interpretations of the book. It was extremely revealing. I don't think it's always appropriate, however, and I don't think it can be the end of inquiry, but it worked very well as a starting place. One of the more interesting articles I read about that work was one that placed it in historical context: it was written in the postwar boom of materialism and popular feel-good religion, and the critic showed in what ways the text was a reaction to those conditions. One thing I really liked about that article was that it connected the work to the outside world, making it obvious how it satirized the trends of its era. The critic did refer to O'Connor's feelings about materialism, but I don't think he needed to. If he had spent a little more time attending the text itself, he could have shown its negative comment on materialism without the author's input. I felt that highlighting these characteristics in the text not only illuminated the text itself but amplified its message, making it clear that it is still relevant today. That is what I would most like to be able to do: to show how these texts are really, really important parts of our culture, which shape the way we think. As a teacher, I think that will be an important aspect of how I teach.

I never read a particularly convicing Marxist criticism of that work, or feminist one either (which is a crime, considering how damningly O'Connor portrayed women in that book). There were a few good psychoanalytic ones. I'm learning to look at the books I am reading with an eye to which theories would be the most illuminating, but the learning curve is a bit steep at the moment since I was only given a smattering of theory in my undergraduate.

[chasestalling]

though my education is limited to undergraduate study, i would recommend crossing all the t's and dotting all the i's with regards a given professor's syllabus.

they'll be the ones whose grades a student will depend on to make a path for oneslf after all and besides i daresay that most of us will have a hard time going to sleep at nights if we make them look bad as college professors tend to be a neurotic and wretched lot.

if i have been unconvincing in my endorsement of the literal method of writing essays, check out vladimir nabokov's lectures on literature. they'll be fun reading in and of itself, but they're also paeans to literal reading not unlike new criticism.

[Cassiel240]

chasestalling, thanks for the Nabokov tip, I will check into those lectures. I am a Nabokov fan, myself.
Unfortunately, this particular professor issued no syllabus and clearly does not care how his students make him look as he has tenure and has had tenure for some time (on the last day of class when professors customarily issue course evaluation sheets, he said, "oh, I must have forgot those. Oh well, they don't matter anyway - I've got tenure."). Frankly, he's one of those that make the tenure system look bad. I won't say I didn't learn an incredible amount from him, but it was some very painful learning. I took a B in his class, which is the lowest passing grade for grads. :-p Quite a price to pay.

[chasestalling]

sounds like someone i know.

ciao

[Midas]

You come across, Cassiel240, in your writing as someone of above average educational ability - at least in your particular area of Academia's liberal arts. I would have, therefore, expected you to have sussed out the real cause of your dilemma, and worked out the action required to resolve the problem.

But then perhaps you did, but seek assurances from others views.

There are two distinct, and oft opposing, parts to the concern - one is the need to appease the dictates of academia in order to pass an examination.

This usually means burying any personal impulse to challenge the system. (one of the hardest parts with which I had to wrestle). Here, we have to accept the guidance of the one who is the most familiar with what is required to pass that exam - in other words, what criteria the current examiners will use to make their judgements. There are various common- sense ways to assure ourselves of this.

The other part is how we feel, and how we wish to shape our future. This we can develop, fully, once we have discarded the constraints imposed by the need to gain those wall decorations called diplomas that tell us, and the world, we have paid the price.

For example, irrespective of what any so called critic may say, common- sense, backed by a rudimentary knowledge of history, would tell us that religion was a dominant force throughout the world down from the Victorian era.

As we go back earlier we find that the Christian bible was the one book upon which anyone who had any reading ability was weaned. It influenced speech, it influenced the daily life of most, and probably all, writers. Even non believers were influenced by it, directly, and indirectly because it influenced life around them. There was no escape. How can we, therefore, divorce it from 'Western' classical literature?

However, if our professor guides, or our research on how current examiners see things informs, us where the parameters lie, we should avoid, or temper, any references we may be tempted to make from our own view of what is logical, and relevant, that cause us to step outside those boundaries.

How we see things, and project our views, later, is another matter, This is why we get conflicting ideas, and arguments among those who have passed through the system. It tells us we don't all see everything the same way.

We are individuals, we have our own thoughts, and what academia does is make us aware of the thoughts and arguments of many enlightened minds from which we can form our own, once we too have passed the requirements, and conformity, of the system.

Hope all goes well for you. Happy studies.

[Redzeppelin]

I think others (MaryLupin especially) have addressed your initial question thoroughly; nonetheless, I'll put in my two cents. I teach AP English to high school seniors and earned my BA and MA in English literature. In general, when I ding a student's paper for going "outside" the text, what I am objecting to is the student's attempt to draw a conclusion that has no textual "anchor." Example: I might have the students examine a piece from Sandra Cisneros' House on Mango Street where one of the young female characters lives in an abusive relationship. Students will often comment that the girl has "low self-esteem" because she stays in this abusive relationship - but such an assumption is more their gleaning of pop culture more than examining the text closely; in such an instance, I tell them they have gone outisde the text and made assumptions that the text does not convincingly support. There are a number of reasonable conclusions that certain situations or details in a text can point to, but they must have some sort of reasonable text "anchor" in order to be defensible.

That may or may not be your problem - but I think when a teacher criticizes a paper for going "outside" the text, it is because they see a focus that is more on what the text seems to point to more than what it actually says.

That may or may not have been helpful. If your argument logically anchors to the text, there's little to which a professor can reasonably object.

[MaryLupin]

Thanks - please do tell me about those texts on bridging the gap (between reader and writer)...

A free weekend finally being here I thought I would begin to address this part of your question. (I suspect that on the way what will happen is that the other part of your question--critical approaches--will appear as if by magic.) For me the best learning tool I have is other writers. I am going to suggest that I show you what I mean rather than simply explaining it. To do that we will need an essay in common which will be the basis of our discussion. I would like to suggest on of my favorites. It is called "Mrs. Virginia Woolf: A Madwoman and Her Nurse." The author is Cynthia Ozick. Not only is it a brilliantly written piece of prose, it is also on a topic (Viginia Woolf) of which I am sure you have some familiarity. However, should you have an essay you adore let me know what it is. I will get a copy and read it.

Does this work for you?

By the way...the essay I mention appears in at least two texts. The first is called What Henry James Knew and the second is called Art & Ardor: Essays by Cynthia Ozick. Both, of course, are by Ozick.

[Cassiel240]

Mary, thanks! I will get that essay as soon as I have the chance and read it. I look forward to discussing it.