Do you agree with this quote?

[kelby_lake]

'We must wash literature off ourselves. We want to be men above all, to be human' (Antonin Artaud)

Though Artaud's drug problems probably escalated so that his feelings didn't make much sense, I sort of understand when he condemns 'literature'- often we just lump things into what we consider literature and it loses its meaning; it becomes just another title on a scholar's bookshelf. We come up with all these analysis viewpoints- Marxist, feminist...- and what do they really mean? How do they relate to what it means to be human?

[Bluebeard]

We can dismissively shrug off Marxism, feminism, and other "analysis viewpoints" as overburdening or irrelevant, but that simply reflects a lack of engagement on our part in the "scholar's bookshelf"--which is only elitist because of sociopolitical forces and structures, not because of some inherent alienation of humanity. To be human is to be capable of transcending mere biology and pursuing beauty. Exploration and understanding, the true pursuits of criticism whether it fails or not, embody "what it means to be human." However, the opportunity of this pursuit is generally only available to those with the means or the luck to discover it, and that is dehumanizing, overburdening, irrelevant. Confounding the exploration itself with the politics that debase it lead to such petty positions as Artaud's.

[LitNetIsGreat]

We can dismissively shrug off Marxism, feminism, and other "analysis viewpoints" as overburdening or irrelevant, but that simply reflects a lack of engagement on our part in the "scholar's bookshelf"--which is only elitist because of sociopolitical forces and structures, not because of some inherent alienation of humanity. To be human is to be capable of transcending mere biology and pursuing beauty. Exploration and understanding, the true pursuits of criticism whether it fails or not, embody "what it means to be human." However, the opportunity of this pursuit is generally only available to those with the means or the luck to discover it, and that is dehumanizing, overburdening, irrelevant. Confounding the exploration itself with the politics that debase it lead to such petty positions as Artaud's.

Wow, beautiful! That is pretty spot on mate, hat raised to you.

[backline]

...To be human is to be capable of transcending mere biology and pursuing beauty. Exploration and understanding, the true pursuits of criticism whether it fails or not, embody "what it means to be human." ...


Dang!
That's quite a good perspective. I like that a lot!
Thanks!

:thumbs_up:thumbs_up

[lichtrausch]

Exploration and understanding, the true pursuits of criticism whether it fails or not, embody "what it means to be human." However, the opportunity of this pursuit is generally only available to those with the means or the luck to discover it, and that is dehumanizing, overburdening, irrelevant.

I don't understand what exactly is dehumanizing about that.

[JBI]

was the ellipsis after feminist done by you to shorten the text, or a carried over ellipsis? It's amazing though, how people jump to Marxist and Feminist criticism first though - it seems everyone does - perhaps a carry over of the red scare, and a general dislike for feminist perspectives that comes with a culture that portrays anyone who is feminist as somewhat of a *****, and somewhat of a 'masculine' (that is, based on western assumptions of masculinity) figure with unshaven armpits and legs, and army boots, which anyone with half a brain knows isn't true. Still the quote doesn't really seem to distinguish anything between different modes of feminist, or even Marxist (though, Marxist criticism is pretty much dried up already) criticism.

What about, for instance, the difference between Cixous' idea of feminine identity needing to break away from male language and social constructions, to show what is truly female (I think that means what it is to be 'human', at least for half the world). Or perhaps Butler's notion of gender being an act, and the characters merely filling in roles to establish there sense of "human identity", mostly through putting on new personae until one fits. Or perhaps Showalter's Gynocriticism (which seems washed up already, as to an extent Cixous' does), which seeks to dig up expression of what it is to be "female" from literary archives.

As for the rest, I think the ... says a lot, and am waiting to hear if it was done by the poster or the speaker.

[kelby_lake]

Yes ... are mine :)

There are other criticisms but none bandied about so much as marxism and feminism. If they are relevantly applied, they DO give more pleasurable insight into the novel/poem/play, but often it seems to be people trying to inflict their personal beliefs on something or just labelling it.

Maybe it's because I tend to sympathise with men in literature.

[Chava]

I certainly think that much literature can be read without trying to understand it through someone else's ontology, since essentially we read for our own enjoyment. However, regarding a book through an alternative viewpoint, be it the authors own intention, or be it a construct of the time in which it was written, can help one gain valuable insights into what the original 'intention' was.
I always heard my teachers tell me, 'You must understand this in relation to the time it was written', and even if I figured A Doll's House was making lots of sense to me, viewing it in a different ontology, and a different perspective made me think even more about the context and intentions of the author.
Marxisist and feminist analyst viewpoints have not necessarily been artifically constructed, or pulled out of the air, so I do think there is plenty to gain from contextualising literature.

[kelby_lake]

I think first the literature must be linked to the person, and then the society and the era. In secondary school, we seem to forget that literature didn't come from times- it came from people.

[stlukesguild]

we seem to forget that literature didn't come from times- it came from people.

Yes. Art is produced by individuals... not abstractions, not social classes, not even nations/cultures. Art may mirror the belief systems of the societies form which the artist springs (or not) but ultimately it is the product of the individual creator.