Literary Theory

[DanielBenoit]

Throughout the centuries, what school of literary criticism seems to have been the most prevalent and most sucsessful in properly and distinctively interpriting a text?

Romanticism: Art for arts sake. Aesthetic value is the primary goal.

Formalism: Concerned with only inherient features of the text.

Reader Response: Focus goes beyond the text itself and analyzes the emotional response of the reader.

Structuralism: Analyzes the underlying invariant structure of the text.

Deconstruction: Pursues the meaning of the text to the point of finding inherient contradictions within the text.

Psychoanalytic: Explores the subconscious symbolism within the text. In a sense the opposite of Formalism, for it concerns itself with biographical implication.

New Historicism: Analyzes the text by examining its historical and literary context.

[Virgil]

It's all crap. I'm not voting. How about trying to understand what the author intended and how his aesthetics shape the ideas he's presenting. There is nothing so idiotic as literary theory as taught in universities today. If you want to really understand literary theory go to Aristotle.

[JBI]

It's all crap. I'm not voting. How about trying to understand what the author intended and how his aesthetics shape the ideas he's presenting. There is nothing so idiotic as literary theory as taught in universities today. If you want to really understand literary theory go to Aristotle.

It's the same as literary periods - even theorists don't categorize like that. For instance, Barthes - Deconstruction? Semiotics? Structuralism?

Good luck placing Bakhtin.

[mayneverhave]

It's all crap. I'm not voting. How about trying to understand what the author intended and how his aesthetics shape the ideas he's presenting. There is nothing so idiotic as literary theory as taught in universities today. If you want to really understand literary theory go to Aristotle.

I'm all for an "aesthetic" approach, but I'm not sure at all how we're supposed to know what the author intended. The moment the artist releases the work, it is no longer his, and anything he writes about it afterwards might be interesting, but is completely besides the point.

When writing the appendix to the Sound and the Fury, Faulkner messed up some of his dates, and the sequences of events. Apparently he had not read the novel for over 10 years.

To use a passage from Frye that might help:


For many of the flaws which an inexperienced critic thinks he detects, the answer "But it's supposed to be that way" is sufficient. All other statements of intention, however fully documented, are suspect. The poet may change his mind or mood; he may have intended one thing and done another, and then rationalized what he did. (A cartoon in a New YOrker of some years back hit off this last problem beautifully: it depicted a sculptor gazing at a statue he had just made and remarking to a friend: "Yes, the head is too large. When I put it in the exhibition I shall call it 'The Woman with the Large Head.'") If intention is still thought to be apparent in the poem itself, the poem is being regarded as incomplete, like a fresman's essay where the reader has continually to speculate about what the author may have had in his mind. If the author has been dead for centuries, such speculation cannot get us very far, however irresistibly it may suggest itself.

For an author like Shakespeare, how on earth are we to know what he intended, when, aside from his name on the title page (which is already debatable) and the occasional pun on his own name (Falstaff/Shakespeare?), disappears entirely from his own work.

[Jozanny]

I picked Structuralism just so I can imagine Virgil turning blue:ladysman: and because I enjoy structuralist and post-structuralist anxiety. I also think the canon notion that author intent becomes untouchable for the sake of the text is a tad too inviolate (sorry never!); if that was always the case, editors wouldn't write biographical introductions.

Or in other words, yes, intent can be inferred and probably is more often than we concede.

[LitNetIsGreat]

It's all crap. I'm not voting. How about trying to understand what the author intended and how his aesthetics shape the ideas he's presenting. There is nothing so idiotic as literary theory as taught in universities today. If you want to really understand literary theory go to Aristotle.

I wouldn't dismiss any theory or perspective at all, even if I didn't personally agree with it or like it. I agree that there is a lot of crap that comes with the particular schools within schools of each theory, but it is a bit much to dismiss the entire thing - psychoanalysis crap?

I think it is difficult to say which strand of criticism has given more (and the OP missed Marxist criticism which is a massive one to leave out) though it's not a case of really siding with one particular theory, but using theory to get something more from each text, even if you only use theory 1% of the time, that 1% can still reveal a great deal.

I personally wouldn't class Romanticism or arts for arts as a literary theory in the same sort of category as "structuralism" or "psychoanalysis" and that is one problem with theory, the blurring of boundaries between each of them and the particular theorists within each area etc, it can all get a bit messy.

I think if someone were forcing me to vote I would go, with the options given, I would go with structuralism, simply because that is easily applicable to most, if not all texts much greater degree than the others. Again though, I wouldn't start with the theory and lead to the text, I would do it the other way round.

I believe in the value of literary theory in interpreting texts and in opening up art to a greater degree. The art should always come first, though often you get the feeling that for some theorists this is not really the case, they seem more content to argue minor points within particular schools of the same thought and appear to forget about the wider purpose of it. If the art comes first then the use of theory is more than fine by me.

[Madame X]

Deconstruction is by far the most amusing to try to make sense of, even to its own progenitors. :thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up

[Drkshadow03]

No New Criticism?

My own approach is a mix between New Criticism, New Historicism, and Reader Response, which is ironic in some ways because often New Criticism and New Historicism are pitted against each other.

New Criticism = The Text is our first object of study. To understand a work's meaning and features all you need to do is look at the text itself and reading closely.

Reader Response = However, due to the nature of fictional texts, even a close reading will open up multiple interpretations and different reactions in different readings, depending on a variety of factors (background, previous reading experiences, personal tastes, etc.) I am interested in multiple interpretations and perspectives, and in different reactions to texts.

New Historicism: Although I think one begins by looking at the meaning, content, and features of the text itself. It is also worth studying it historical production and reception. What does this text say about the period that produced it? What can you learn about the culture and thoughts of the historical society in which it was produced? What historical events occurred that caused it to be produced? etc.

Basically, I don't really subscribe to anyone theory, but borrow ideas from theories that I think useful and make those ideas work together.

[JBI]

Yes, but DrkShadow, most people end up using variants of New Criticism, especially readers of poetry, because the technical vocabulary came out of there. I suspect though, that nobody adheres to the theories too closely today - they have moved on, but taken the vocabulary and the methodology with them.

[Drkshadow03]

Yes, but DrkShadow, most people end up using variants of New Criticism, especially readers of poetry, because the technical vocabulary came out of there. I suspect though, that nobody adheres to the theories too closely today - they have moved on, but taken the vocabulary and the methodology with them.

Yes, that's true. Good point.

[AuntShecky]

The so-called "New" Criticism (about 70-80 years old) is the most holistic, as a close reading of the text can encompass all of the other literary theories. If "All of the above" had been one of the choices, I would have checked that one.

[kelby_lake]

Is this 'how would we prefer to study a text' or 'which is thought to be most useful?'

[NickAdams]

I don't know how to determine the success of any of the schools. I'm personally interested in aesthetic value and I see some of the schools as extensions of that, but it's hard to go beyond the readers comprehension. Each reader should approach a book as he sees fit. Readers become limited by schools. I read each book differently.

[Mathor]

As JBI has stated, this way of categorizing literature is kind of senseless. I shall not vote, either.

[meh!]

The so-called "New" Criticism (about 70-80 years old) is the most holistic, as a close reading of the text can encompass all of the other literary theories. If "All of the above" had been one of the choices, I would have checked that one.


How can it be considered holistic when one of it's express aims, I thought, was to remove anything that couldn't be considered close-reading. That is to say, in new criticism, reference to historical period, biographical information etc isn't allowed?

[kelby_lake]

Each reader should approach a book as he sees fit. Readers become limited by schools. I read each book differently.

Yeah, surely all books are different? You can't make every book Marxist or whatever.

[Jozanny]

I personally wouldn't class Romanticism or arts for arts as a literary theory in the same sort of category as "structuralism" or "psychoanalysis" and that is one problem with theory, the blurring of boundaries between each of them and the particular theorists within each area etc, it can all get a bit messy.

Well, let's sweep up the mess a little then;), as Romanticism is not a critical methodology Neely, u r right--it was a movement, a revolt against enlightenment hierarchy, which had a profound impact until about the mid-20th century. The OP was a little hasty, obviously.

[DanielBenoit]

Hey, thanks for all the feedback!


the OP missed Marxist criticism which is a massive one to leave out

Yeah sorry, I forgot.:idea:


No New Criticism?

New Criticism is a school derived from Formalism, so, speaking generally, New Criticism is a variant of Formalism.


Is this 'how would we prefer to study a text' or 'which is thought to be most useful?'

Yeah I suppose there has been some confusion in what I meant as far as the relevance these schools of thought have to literature.

For clarification: First, I was not asking if you are strictly a deconstructionist or strictly a Romanticist and that is the only way you interpret texts. Rather, I was asking; which school of thought (or method) seems to be, from a philosophical standpoint, the most reasonable: Do you think that the reader should concern him/herself with just the words on the page (Formalism), or should his emotional response be seen as relevant as well (Romanticism)? Should one consider political or social relevance (Marxism or Feminism), even if the text was written way before these ideas even existed. And more fundamentally; does the author’s intent even matter? If not, then biographical analysis is pointless; if so, then Formalism does not do enough in interpreting the text.

I do not think that we should limit ourselves to one school of thought. I certainly believe that the text comes first and foremost, and that worrying about hermeneutic ideology should come last.

Personally, I take whatever I see in the text. If I see themes in A Midsummer’s Nights Dream which are relevant to Marxism, then I’ll take it in. If I have a powerful emotional response to a certain text, one that would serve as relevant in an essay, then I take it in. If there are interesting parallels between a work and the author’s life, then I take it in. Really, creating lines and divisions between theories by rejecting one entirely is ridiculous, for since every text is different, a person can find his/her own meaning inside each one, without the pretension of theory. I would most likely pick “all of the above”, that is, be a relativist (I’ll add that to the poll). I just want to know what you guys think; does the author’s intent matter? Does the text and the text only hold all relevance? etc., etc., etc. . .


edit

By the way, the discussion can be expanded by using the poll as; what approach makes literature more enjoyable? Does social awareness make a text better? Is a highly ambiguous and obscure text like Finnegan's Wake better read by simply enjoying the art of it, or by analyzing its particulars? Do you really need to know anything about the author in order to understand the text at a significant level?

[DanielBenoit]

Well, let's sweep up the mess a little then;), as Romanticism is not a critical methodology Neely, u r right--it was a movement, a revolt against enlightenment hierarchy, which had a profound impact until about the mid-20th century. The OP was a little hasty, obviously.

Sorry, I suppose I confused Romanticism for the Aesthetic Movement of the 19th century, which emphasized on the text as to be judged for aesthetic value and not on external themes such as morality or politics, thus making it the opposite of Marxist or Feminist interpritations. . . . . Sorry for the mess :redface:

[kelby_lake]

The danger is that if you spot feminist or Marxist angles to a story, you turn it into some sort of proof for your own political beliefs.

[Madame X]

Precisely! You’ll find naught but exactly what you set out to. Nothing ventured… :smash:

[meh!]

Marxist criticism is not merely a 'sociology of literature', concerned with how novels get published and whether they mention the working class. Its aim is to explain the literary work more fully; and this means a sensitive attention to its forms, styles and meanings. But it also means grasping those forms, styles and meanings as the product of a particular history. - Terry Eagleton.

Seems fair.

I don't think Marxist critics use books as proof for their own beliefs per se. Having already proved their beliefs, at least to themselves and other so inclined, they then use Marxism to analyse texts. Which, if you have a Marxist slant (as I do), seems fair.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Interesting subject, but a lot of questions there to answer fully!


DanielBenoit

For clarification: First, I was not asking if you are strictly a deconstructionist or strictly a Romanticist and that is the only way you interpret texts. Rather, I was asking; which school of thought (or method) seems to be, from a philosophical standpoint, the most reasonable: Do you think that the reader should concern him/herself with just the words on the page (Formalism), or should his emotional response be seen as relevant as well (Romanticism)? Should one consider political or social relevance (Marxism or Feminism), even if the text was written way before these ideas even existed. And more fundamentally; does the author’s intent even matter? If not, then biographical analysis is pointless; if so, then Formalism does not do enough in interpreting the text.

For the first part I would say all the above and none. I don't like "shoulds" in art, and therefore, I don't like them in criticism. It entirely depends upon the critic, and the text, and the particular situation. I like to think of criticism in terms of arguments. People should be free to argue what they want, and use whatever position or theory as they see fit, in order to strengthen that argument, what anybody else thinks of that is almost irrelevant. Personally I am not a fan of biographical criticism for example, I think that you should base your arguments on the text and not on the author of it, predominately, but then again there are some very convincing biographical readings which would make me a fool to totally dismiss. So in the end I wouldn't dismiss anything, I would be quite open on the matter and take each case as it comes.


I do not think that we should limit ourselves to one school of thought. I certainly believe that the text comes first and foremost, and that worrying about hermeneutic ideology should come last.


Personally, I take whatever I see in the text. If I see themes in A Midsummer’s Nights Dream which are relevant to Marxism, then I’ll take it in. If I have a powerful emotional response to a certain text, one that would serve as relevant in an essay, then I take it in.

Yes, that's about how I would see it. Though criticism like anything else is a specialism. There are bound to be theorists who need to focus upon one theory, or even one particular aspect of each theory, in order to maximise that specalism or personal interest. Thus it is only natural that you have feminist theorists, gay and lesbian theorists, Freudian-psychoanalytical, Lacan-psychoanalytical theorists etc, etc.


If there are interesting parallels between a work and the author’s life, then I take it in. Really, creating lines and divisions between theories by rejecting one entirely is ridiculous, for since every text is different, a person can find his/her own meaning inside each one, without the pretension of theory. I would most likely pick “all of the above”, that is, be a relativist (I’ll add that to the poll). I just want to know what you guys think; does the author’s intent matter? Does the text and the text only hold all relevance? etc., etc., etc. . .

No I can't understand rejecting theory, why throw any tools away? Poor Virgil has already thrown away the entire box! I don't particularly like, or trust the authorial intention, as it can be easily undermined by reading that intention through psychoanalysis; but I wouldn't dismiss even that out of hand.


what approach makes literature more enjoyable?

It depends on the person. For me I just use them like tools in a tool box, the spanner works with the nuts and the screwdriver works with the screws. I quite like psychoanalysis, Marxist, Feminist amongst others, but I have no real attachment to any particular one of them, they are a means to an end, with the end being the art.


Does social awareness make a text better?

Iit can do, understanding the context can make things a little clearer, but then it is not essential to enjoying the art.


Is a highly ambiguous and obscure text like Finnegan's Wake better read by simply enjoying the art of it, or by analyzing its particulars?

I have not read Finnegans Wake, but with complicated texts or works which are older or set in a different culture it can greatly help to read around a little. For example in Greek tragedy understanding a the role of the chorus prior to reading or watching (I wish) will make it more enjoyable, but again nothing's essential I think.


Do you really need to know anything about the author in order to understand the text at a significant level?

No, you don't need to know anything about the author to enjoy the work, you only need to think about anonymous texts to know that, sometimes it can even taint how we read something. I know though when I have particularly enjoyed a work or two by an author I am often very curious to read about them, sometimes the interest in the author can even outgrow the texts themselves, but there is no need to read about the author.

[mayneverhave]

No, you don't need to know anything about the author to enjoy the work, you only need to think about anonymous texts to know that, sometimes it can even taint how we read something. I know though when I have particularly enjoyed a work or two by an author I am often very curious to read about them, sometimes the interest in the author can even outgrow the texts themselves, but there is no need to read about the author.

As I take it you are something of a Milton connaisseur, this question might be apt: doesn't your knowledge of Milton's blindness change the way you read the opening invocation in Book 3 of PL? Most likely, it increases your pleasure in reading it; you are pathologically involved in Milton's dilemma.

It seems to me that this thread is ignoring the discrepancy between the actual experience of reading poetry versus the reading of poetry with an objective, critical eye.

For example, take these lines:


When have I last looked on
The round green eyes and the long wavering bodies
Of the dark leopards of the moon?
- Yeats, Lines Written in Dejection

On the level of personal involvement - of my experience of reading the poem - these lines strike me in an affecting way, as I was in a relationship with a green eyed girl at the time of reading them. Those feelings, therefore, rely on my own history to the exclusion of everyone else's. My experiences have nothing to do with the poem, and are quite besides the point.

I would agree with Neely. If Shakespeare's entire biography were to suddenly become available to us, it would most certainly be interesting, but it would be irrelevant to Shakespeare criticism.

[LitNetIsGreat]

mayneverhave As I take it you are something of a Milton connaisseur, this question might be apt: doesn't your knowledge of Milton's blindness change the way you read the opening invocation in Book 3 of PL? Most likely, it increases your pleasure in reading it; you are pathologically involved in Milton's dilemma.

Yes there are many personal references to Milton's blindness amongst his work, take for example the Samson Agonistes where the protagonist is blind himself and yes basic biographical information does increase the understanding of it a little, or rather you see another aspect of it, in the same way as if you see things in terms of the other theories, but it hardly takes away the pleasure of the poetry if you know nothing of Milton. I am not saying be ignorant of the social or biographical or even the theoretical perspectives, but you don't need to know the artist to enjoy the painting!

The best approach I think is to get a good grounding in as many theoretical perspectives, social and biographical angles as you can. This will ensure that you can start to interpret works on more levels, giving you a fuller experience in some respects.


On the level of personal involvement - of my experience of reading the poem - these lines strike me in an affecting way, as I was in a relationship with a green eyed girl at the time of reading them. Those feelings, therefore, rely on my own history to the exclusion of everyone else's. My experiences have nothing to do with the poem, and are quite besides the point.

I would agree with Neely. If Shakespeare's entire biography were to suddenly become available to us, it would most certainly be interesting, but it would be irrelevant to Shakespeare criticism.

Yes definitely we bring so much to a text and that changes too over time of course.

I also agree with your comments about Shakespeare, I am interested in him, but it only amounts to a footnote compared to that of his work. I also dislike endless biographical debates about the "mistress" of the sonnets or the real identity of the "youth". (Oh, unless you can turn it into a piece of literature like Wilde did in "The Portrait of Mr W.H." which in that case is OK:blush:).

[DanielBenoit]

I don't like "shoulds" in art, and therefore, I don't like them in criticism.

Couldn't have said it better! Literary theory should merely be a means of discovering different perspectives or interpritations of a text.



I would agree with Neely. If Shakespeare's entire biography were to suddenly become available to us, it would most certainly be interesting, but it would be irrelevant to Shakespeare criticism.

Yes definitley, but that wouldn't be the case in a psychoanalytic study of Shakespeare. Man, I would love to know what the relationship between Falstaff and Hal meant in the context of Shakespeare's life!

[NickAdams]

I guess readers-response is the most prevalent, because each of the other schools started out as such (a readers response) and it's what the common reader goes by. Like, dislike, good, bad, these reactions are the most common and are born from readers response. The other schools attempt to understand the the text as such or measure it to their ideological ruler and the text is either relevant or irrelevant.

[NickAdams]

Literary theory in a strict sense is the systematic study of the nature of literature and of the methods for analyzing literature.One of the fundamental questions of literary theory is "what is literature?", though many contemporary theorists and literary scholars believe either that "literature" cannot be defined or that it can refer to any use of language. Specific theories are distinguished not only by their methods and conclusions, but even by how they define a "text."


Theory differs from criticism.

[kelby_lake]

edit: By the way, the discussion can be expanded by using the poll as; what approach makes literature more enjoyable? Does social awareness make a text better? Is a highly ambiguous and obscure text like Finnegan's Wake better read by simply enjoying the art of it, or by analyzing its particulars? Do you really need to know anything about the author in order to understand the text at a significant level?

Of course social awareness helps you understand a text. As does historical awareness and literary awareness (i.e. what was happening in literature when it was written?)

[JBI]

Literary theory in a strict sense is the systematic study of the nature of literature and of the methods for analyzing literature.One of the fundamental questions of literary theory is "what is literature?", though many contemporary theorists and literary scholars believe either that "literature" cannot be defined or that it can refer to any use of language. Specific theories are distinguished not only by their methods and conclusions, but even by how they define a "text."



Good to no, know (though your definition, in the strict sense, is wrong); there is no need to advertise here however.

Literary theory is not, in a strict sense, a systematic study of the nature of literature and the methods for analyzing literature, as you claim, that is merely one facet of literary theory. Narratology, for instance, is theoretical, but is pragmatic in the sense that it is an applied set of terminology and structures to a tradition of texts - it takes the fact that there is a tradition of narrative for granted, and thereby theorizes over it.


The bulk of literary theorists aren't out to "define a text", or ask "what is text". They are out there a) to seem important (generally), and b) to try and come up with some phenomenon they can justify through literary texts. Trauma Theory, when applied to literature, isn't questioning what is literature, but really, what is trauma, what is testimony, and what is a) the effect of writing on the author, and b) what is the effect of reading on the audience. That doesn't exactly question what is text.

In truth, very few people question what is text, when you think about it - Kristeva touches on it, but ultimately she is more absorbed into Semiotics and nonsensical Deconstructive ramblings.

Really, you may be able to pass your TExES with that answer, but good luck using it outside of that context - theory for the most part is specific to certain types of literature, most notably to Western Literature (Western being what is defined as "West" in discourse) - the theoretical approaches, and perceptions of literature are relative to the tradition, always. Aristotelian forms only hold to models for Aristotle - other dramatic forms are generated from other sources, and therefore aren't really approachable from that theoretical perspective.

In all honesty though, most of it is mediocre BS. Occasionally you get a good theorist, like Frye, or Empson, or Bakhtin, but generally, when it comes down to it, they are better known for their application of their unique styles - Frye for reading Blake and The Bible, Empson for reading English lyric poetry, notably Renaissance works, and Bakhtin for reading Dostoevsky, and, more importantly, Rabelais.