Using Theory in Essays

[Lost_Souls]

Hello All,

I've got a query about literary theory and the way in which it is applied. I'm just going to write off the top of my head...

I've been doing afair few essays for uni and getting pretty good marks, but I know that applying literary theory to the essays would take them to the next level. Now, this isn't all about "I want better grades"; I'm actually interested in writing and criticism full stop.

If, for example you were writing about a Victorian novel, it seems odd to use late 20th century theories such as structuralism, post structuralism, formalism etc. I know people do this all the time, but in your views, is the choice of approach merely arbitrary, or would you definitely use say, Marxism for a novel about the working poor?

My course went into Lit. Theory in the first year, and then ever since then has been apologising for even bringing it up. The fact that they don't make it easy to integrate into every day critical writing is annoying.

So, do you use theory a lot, a little, never? How do you apply it? Full-on: - "Derrida said... everything is meaningless... therefore...." or as a part of your overall argument: "Which brings to mind the meaninglessness of...."

?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Hi, first of all I am surprised that literary theory is not used throughout your course and that it is not building upon the foundations of your level one work, this seems a strange approach for a university course to take, but anyway.

It is not odd that modern theories are used to examine past literature if you think about it logically. To take things to the absurd it doesn’t mean that gravity didn’t exist before Newton “discovered” it. You should be able to apply most theories to most texts, but trick is to apply the text to the theory and not the theory to the text. You should be able to use theory as a tool to interpret texts, as you would with other basic forms of analysis (liberal humanism) close reading the text, looking for nuances, similes, rhyme schemes, word choice etc, etc. You should use it as an additional method and if used correctly yes it should increase your marks for sure.

So if you were looking at the Victorian novel, say Jane Eyre, you could use structuralism and analyse the structures present within the novel, the parallels, the doubles, the echoes etc. You could also examine in terms of feminism or Marxism quite easily, looking at how a female has to operate and get by in early Victorian society and how the power structures (Marxist) hold power over her, the school, the law and religion in particular. You could even examine the novel through a Freudian, psychoanalytical perspective and possibly through a whole set of others too. The trick is to use theory to suit your purpose. If you had an essay question about Jane’s struggle in the novel then using a feminist or Marxist model is obviously more appropriate than using a psychoanalytical approach.

As David Lodge says (or something like) “theory is becoming an area of learning within its own right and not just as a tool for analysis.” So you could spend ridiculous amounts of time and pointless frustrations trying to fully understand each and every approach. The best way to approach theory as Peter Barry says is to “use theory and don’t let it use you.” The best way to go about theory, if you ask me, is to gradually develop methods that work for you in the main areas of theory. Get something basic and simple like Peter Barry’ Beginning Theory and develop your understanding from there. It is also important, I think to develop your understanding along the lines of your own interests, this way you begin to make theory work for you on a more practical level.

How I apply it totally depends upon the essay question and the text(s) being written on. As ever the essay question is god of course. Sometimes if it is applicable I have analysed the whole essay though a particular “lens” a particular theory, often feminism, though I have used the Marxist, psychoanalytical more than once I think. At other times it is only necessary to weave it into the whole essay like a secondary quotation as you implied above, it just depends upon the situation, use it how it suits you.

So I would develop your knowledge of theory in the area that interests you the most but it would be best to stick with the more prominent theories such as feminism, Marxist, psychoanalytical, reader-response theories and perhaps modernism/post-modernism – though strictly speaking the last aren’t theories as such, more like movements but a good foundation in these will help too. If you have not done so already I would definitely make it your first priority to check out Roland Barthes “Death of the Author” available from Image Music Text or in the bumper Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (the heaviest book I own in more ways than one).

Have fun. :)

[JBI]

You most likely are using vague, and less precise theories when you write, as everyone does, and looking at, for instance, Metaphor, Character, and Plot, or some other such stuff, is a vague theoretical reading, touching lightly on classical theories, and perhaps structuralism, or even deconstructionism, depending on your specific reading, - all close reading is vaguely theoretical.

The point though, is you wish to take it to the next level, and to do such, you most likely really need to focus your essay more.

Generally, when most people read, they come from one major theory, this of course today is almost exclusively deconstructionism, or some variant, as deconstructionism is the most natural way to read, and then blend specific theories, like concepts of female identity, or historical perspective, or racial theories, or whatever. No one theory will really suffice all texts, and generally theorists who read focusing on only one viewpoint are lousy theorists, though it is somewhat safe to write focusing on one viewpoint, assuming you acknowledge it.

But really, I think the easiest theory to get into is probably Feminist theory, as there is such a great deal of scholarship on and about it, and so many feminists readings to build on, or use as examples, or even footnotes. But yes I use theory, as does everyone.

But to use theory, and to quote theorists, are two different things. In first year, I kind of used theoretical ideas, but not exact terms or references to academics, and I think my main focus was on basic schemes and tropes, and structuralist ideas of myth and narrative. But after that, I realized I can go further, and use the basics as a building block for talking about the specific, like, structuring myths, and their relationship to what Frye called Tyrannical Teleology, or some other such stuff. The point is though, you should read critical essays, perhaps not theorists essays right off, but definitely, the one thing I realize between people in my classes who have As, and those with Cs, is that the ones with As generally make at least a vague attempt at reading critical work, whether specific, or general to the related text, and really mature as a writer because of it. Even if you don't drop names or quotes from theory, the theory itself will leak into your viewpoints, and broaden the sense of scope or imagination that will help you to mature as a writer. Plus, reading scholarship really increases the way you approach critical writing, from a stylistic perspective, so it is recommended you devour everything from me anyway. Hope this helps.

By the way, stay away from all those post-modernists in the beginning - try and get a vague sense of Derrida, though I don't recommend reading On Grammatology, or, to use another cryptic writer as an example, anything by Julia Kristeva. At least not until you have absorbed the bulk of structuralist thought, as the two movements are inseperable, and it seems you need to be very, very familiar with structuralism before reading primary post-structuralist texts.


Hope this helps, but yes, additional viewpoints and approaches are always good, especially when you combine, or contrast them in the same essay.

[optimisticnad]

Hello All,

I've got a query about literary theory and the way in which it is applied. I'm just going to write off the top of my head...

I've been doing afair few essays for uni and getting pretty good marks, but I know that applying literary theory to the essays would take them to the next level. Now, this isn't all about "I want better grades"; I'm actually interested in writing and criticism full stop.

If, for example you were writing about a Victorian novel, it seems odd to use late 20th century theories such as structuralism, post structuralism, formalism etc. I know people do this all the time, but in your views, is the choice of approach merely arbitrary, or would you definitely use say, Marxism for a novel about the working poor?

My course went into Lit. Theory in the first year, and then ever since then has been apologising for even bringing it up. The fact that they don't make it easy to integrate into every day critical writing is annoying.

So, do you use theory a lot, a little, never? How do you apply it? Full-on: - "Derrida said... everything is meaningless... therefore...." or as a part of your overall argument: "Which brings to mind the meaninglessness of...."

?

I wouldn't fret so much because most people use literary theory in their essays without even realising that they are doing! :D Rule of thumb is: if it's relevant then stick it in. If it's not then don't.

[InfiniteJest]

It all depends how you're using theory, that is, what you expect to get out of it.

If a person believes a particular literary theory is the 'one true way' to understand texts, then it is arguably justified per se to always use one literary theory on all texts (e.g. texts from Plato to NATO could be read from a structuralist perspective, if the reader thought it was a legitimate, that is, the legitimate idea). On the other hand, if a person simply believes literary theory is good in so far as its illuminating/useful then said person can use multiple literary theories on texts or a particular text (e.g. Hamlet could be read from a historicist reading for some scenes [e.g. Catholics in England acted in such and such a way at this point in history, explaining Hamlet's actions] and a psychoanalytical reading for other scenes [e.g. Hamlet acted in such a way towards Gertrude and Claudius because ...]).

The former view, which I think you found suspect, isn't so widespread as most people reason there is no one-size-fits-all literary theory for literature. Universities though often just want to know if students understand a literary theory itself, which can lead to forced readings (like a Derridean reading of a Victorian novel could be). Like you noticed though for particular novels, e.g. novels on the working poor like Steinbeck, sometimes one reading is all you need. So, in this case a staunch Marxist may have their reading vindicated and a pragmatic reader (the latter case above) would probably agree to it.

Personally I agree with the pragmatists view, which makes literary theories like "perspectives", in Nietzsche's sense, so the more perspectives (literary theories) you have the more competent you might be to read a text, because you can read a piece of literature from multiple points of view (like with the Hamlet example above).


Hope this is helpful and gives you another perspective :)

[InfiniteJest]

Just reread a few things and realised I repeated the essence of JBI's post in different words. He pretty much said everything I wanted to say: we are always using theory, the most dominant idea is that there is no one-size-fits-all literary theory for literature and knowing theories & critical writing enriches a person's view (as the person will have a wider view, that is more perspectives).

Many contemporary literary theories have a lot of prerequisites, to reiterate JBI one final time, yet there is much that can be learned and used from these contemporary theories. Derrida has given me personally many large annoyances, but in the end I think he's pretty important and expands upon what I first called a pragmatic/Nietzschean way of reading.


You only get to learn a thinker once, and though it can get very annoying, the unique newness of a thinker's work can't be felt again once you've mastered that thinker. Happy readings & good luck

[Lost_Souls]

Many thanks to you ALL,

Your replies are very helpful and very knowledgable; it seems that you all understand that texts are always read with a theory, and just maked behind 'a reading'. I should clarify, at my college it seems they are too set on Historicist readings of texts, as if the 'when' will explain the 'why'.

Firstly the point about taking the text to the theory is so simple but so easy to forget. I have, in the past, tried to shoehorn theories to fit a particular text whether it like it or not, often using soundbites from theorists essays as chains to strangle the damn thing!

For example right now, I am doing a paper on 1790s sentimental fiction, and as Wollstonecraft is taking on all comers with a proto-feminist-fury, I thought it natural to apply some french feminist ideas about the body and language from Cixous or Irigaray. So far so good. Linking the Enlightenment ideas of natural femininity to 1980s ideas of strength in difference is well, enlightening!

Feminism does seem to be the easiest, as I can see the point (something often lost when examining form alone) and its practical and varied in its approaches. With the other 'famous' theories maybe it is ignorance of them that stops me using them.

So, based on your recommendations, I have got Barry's book from the library and bought the Rivkin Anthology and 'Critical Theory Today: A User-friendly Guide' - which, despite the Sesame Street name, has rave reviews.

So. THANK YOU :thumbs_up