Modern Literary Theory

[Mey]

Hello!

I would like to discuss the topic Modern Literary Theory!

My question is: To what extent are modern literary theories equally applicable to poetry and to prose?

Thank you,

Mey

[JBI]

Depends which. Marxist doesn't work to well on poetry, I would argue, other than attack a poet for being rich, or praise a poet for being poor.

[mayneverhave]

The one I'm most familiar with - and consequently, most in disagreement with - is New Historicism, which has that literary works should be taken in consideration of their time, place, and region in criticism, as opposed to them being taken as individual works.

Although it is all by all means beneficial to examine the context under which a work was created (intellectual interesting, at least), that should not be how we analyze a work.

[barbara0207]

Depends which. Marxist doesn't work to well on poetry, I would argue, other than attack a poet for being rich, or praise a poet for being poor.

Not necessarily. The leftist movement of the sixties and seventies of the 20th century demanded most of all that an author - poet or novelist or playwright - be committed to social and political issues, had to be critical of socitey and its shortcomings. There was a common disdain of 'unpolitical' writers.

But perhaps you weren't too serious about it, JBI. :)

And welcome to the forum, Mey.

[Mey]

The one I'm most familiar with - and consequently, most in disagreement with - is New Historicism, which has that literary works should be taken in consideration of their time, place, and region in criticism, as opposed to them being taken as individual works.

Although it is all by all means beneficial to examine the context under which a work was created (intellectual interesting, at least), that should not be how we analyze a work.
Hello Mayneverhave!

You answered my question: To what extent are modern literary theories applicable to poetry and to prose?

Or

What challenges does modern literary theory present to traditional conceptions of literary originality?

[Mey]

Hello JBI,

BJI you are saying 'But perhaps you weren't too serious about it' you mean I Mey?

[curlyqlink]

I don't know if structuralism is still considered "modern" (aren't we post-postmodern or something these days?), but structuralism and semiotics would seem equally applicable to poetry and prose. Language is all about signs...

[blazeofglory]

There are too many theories, and all have flaws in them. No theories are complete. Theorists and critics are simply useless or worthless beings, and while they have no talents for creativity except for a few cases they take to the domoain of criticism.

A piece of art is complete per se. It requires no criticism at all. In point of fact, literature is something that can give a person a sense or feel of immortality, and it puts us at one with the universal spirit. It is always written for readers and as such it cables the writer to the reader.

[mayneverhave]

Theorists and critics are simply useless or worthless beings, and while they have no talents for creativity except for a few cases they take to the domoain of criticism.


This is, perhaps, excessive. Although I have always been slightly suspect of critics who act in no capacity other than criticism, you must realize, of course, that plenty of writers and poets have written critical essays, backed critical movements, and given lectures criticizing other works (George Orwell, Coleridge on Hamlet, etc.) Critics that write nothing creative but criticism, however, are slightly suspect.

Calling them useless though is a gross exaggeration. Criticism as a whole allows us to form a greater idea and concept of the work we are studying. You don't have to accept everything the critic says, but his/her analysis can help shed light on aspects of the work you might be unaware of or unclear with.

My readings of criticism on Hamlet, for example, has given me a much greater perspective on the play itself. Dismissing criticism as useless is absurd.



Mey, as for what you were asking me. I was just giving a single example of a critical movement that I am aware of. Some methods of criticism are more applicable than others, i.e. Marxist and feminist readings of works that have no clear Marxist or feminist themes. Others, like the one I mentioned, New Historicism, is generally applicable to any work.

[stlukesguild]

There are many times I would agree with blazeofglory... especially when confronted by those egregious examples of critics who are far more interested in pushing their own socio-political causes than they are in the artistic achievements of the artist in question. On the other hand, I agree that a good critic can shed light upon aspects of a work that you may not have noticed otherwise (I love the critical response to one of Harold Bloom's books in which it was suggested that reading his work was like reading the works of the masters by flashes of lightning). I think that good criticism can be an artistic endeavor in and of itself... certainly this is true of much of Walter Pater's writing, Samuel Johnson's, J.L. Borges', and many others. Yesterday there was a post which suggested a certain bias against drama as a literary form. I agree. I would go on to suggest that there often seems to be a bias (by some) against almost any sort of writing except for the novel. Great literature takes many forms: novels, certainly... but also drama, poetry, short stories, biography, history, theology, philosophy, essay, and even criticism.

[mayneverhave]

Yesterday there was a post which suggested a certain bias against drama as a literary form. I agree. I would go on to suggest that there often seems to be a bias (by some) against almost any sort of writing except for the novel. Great literature takes many forms: novels, certainly... but also drama, poetry, short stories, biography, history, theology, philosophy, essay, and even criticism.

I've seen nothing but the opposite. If anything, novels and novelists have traditionally been placed below poets and dramatists - although this could have to do with the fact that novel has only really developed as an undeniably important literary form in the last two centuries.

The Greek tragedies are commonly regarded as the foundation of Western literature. Shakespeare, who (of course) wrote not novels, but verse, drama, and comedy - his works, for the most part, considered the greatest of all literature. Enter the nearest library to you and it's almost guaranteed that criticism on Shakespeare alone will outdo any other writer in volume - my university library has over a shelf of criticism on Hamlet alone.

The epic poets - including Homer, Dante, and Milton - all wrote verse, verse regarded as, each individually, summits of high literature.

Of course, the novel really emerged in the 19th and 20th century. The 20th century (of which I am more familiar) produced Faulkner, Joyce, Proust, Orwell, etc - all of whom are regarded mainly as novelists. Although Ulysses is one of the most oft written about works of the century, T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Yeats - all of these poets were just as critically regarded (if not more so) than any of the aforementioned novelists. The Waste Land, for one, may be the most written about of the century. Let's not forget 20th century dramatists like Beckett, Shaffer, Pinter, Osborne, Shaw, and Synge.


Whatever. My point is, until relatively recently, the form of literature was verse. Although novels have really come into their own as a literary form, poetry and drama criticism still occupies a large section of every college library.

[JBI]

Written about and read are different things. Either way though, I don't know of many people who read essays for kicks. I personally do (I take pleasure in Virginia Woolf's, Lionel Trilling's, and Orwell's to name a few modernist ones, but the art form, as it was, is slowly dying out.

[Kafka's Crow]

Coming back to the theory, literary theory. I strongly suspect anybody who would label any interpretive system as one hundred percent sufficient; on the other hand calling critics useless is also highly undesirable. Criticism is the purpose that brings us all together on this forum. There are traditions in which books are read without being understood or 'criticised' (specially in many religions) but to read is to understand and I feel a lot of sympathy for religious texts that are written and read in foreign, exotic or ancient languages and are read by ordinary people in those languages without being understood at all. You can not do worse injustice to a text.

A professional critic is someone who understands a text and is good at putting his point across for further discussion. This discussion keeps texts alive for future generations. A lot of effort, research and dedication goes into the making of these critical texts.

Literary theory ensures that various aspects of of a text are brought to light. Some theories (Marxism, feminism, to name but only two) try to look at texts from a certain angle and try to interpret the texts from that angle alone. I have problems with such theories as they diminish a multi-facet work of art to a single point. I have always been very uncomfortable with such theories. There is a large number of theories or systems of interpretations and there are large number of themes in great literature. We have problems with new-historicism but it does fit certain works. Eleanor Prosser's Hamlet and Revenge is one of the best interpretations of Shakespeare's play written in that tradition. Samuel Beckett's works are very very self-deconstructing. I have spent almost half of my life reading Beckett and deconstruction side by side. The key is open-mindedness. Adhering to one system and one system only and applying one yardstick to each and every work of art is bigotry and fundamentalism.

All theories are equally applicable to poetry and prose, hence they are called 'literary theories' and not poetic or prosaic or novelistic theories etc. People like Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton are keeping Marxist theory alive in a post-Soviet, postmodern age. Nothing really ever dies completely. All todays realities will become a part of tomorrow's consciousness. Maybe Marxism does not seem to be as prominent a part of the zeitgeist now as it did about thirty or forty years ago, still it has not died out completely. The Spectre of Marx is still with us. Although even postmodernism has met its future and anti-postmodernism of Badiou and Meillassoux are leading an assault against the leading theories of the last quarter of the twentieth century, deconstruction is still very much with us. Believing that the zeitgeist is a monolithic mono-dimensional facade is erroneous. All that was thought since the dawn of civilisation is with us in one form or another, implicitly or explicitly. This gives the human intellect and expression its enormous diversity and complexity. You find what you look for but what you find is not the total and complete picture. Reality is complex, too complex to be completely understood by any single philosophy, theory, religion or any other intellectual apparatus. Yes theory is equally applicable to poetry and prose. Yes there are poets and prose writers whose writings can be read in the light of certain theories but at the end of the day we must keep our minds open for different and unlimited number of possibilities and interpretations.

[PeterL]

You can apply literary theory to anything, if you want to go to the trouble. Some things lend themselves more readily to those methods.

[curlyqlink]

No theories are complete.

Knowledge is never complete. Only ignorance can be complete.

[lakeside_girl]

i think kafka's crow's(strange typing) post was anything i could have added and more. i just wanted to ask if anyone had ever read this weird little idea that twain started a satanist(i'm guessing they mean it more as humanist, but not sure) movement with alot of the 'deep thinkers' of the time. it was common among these circles to hear the phrase 'mark twain satanist'....i guess i should google it.

[hannah_arendt]

The one I'm most familiar with - and consequently, most in disagreement with - is New Historicism, which has that literary works should be taken in consideration of their time, place, and region in criticism, as opposed to them being taken as individual works.

Although it is all by all means beneficial to examine the context under which a work was created (intellectual interesting, at least), that should not be how we analyze a work.

The work should be analyzed with the context without any doubt. However, it is very interesting how we, nowadays, look at old saxon poetry for instance what can be a very good intelectual play.