Help with Literary Theory

[jlo]

Hello all,
I am in my first Critical Theory class, and am having somewhat of a hard time. Is anyone familiar with the Eagleton Literary Theory book? Unfortunately, I have no background in theory, and am not even familiar with all of the movements. Eagleton's book is called an introduction, but I would have to disagree. The book assumes you know everything and is hard to understand.

My main question has to do with my first writing assignment for the class. While Eagleton is talking about Formalism, he states that they saw Literature as a "linguistic violence". Is anyone familiar with this term? I'm supposed to analyze a scene from King Lear and explain why it is "linguistic violence" and how this "linguistic violence" would affect readers or audiences of the play. If anyone could shed some light on this, it would be very much appreciated.

[JBI]

He means, I think, that it acts to create hierarchies, and functions as a means of control, if I understand what you say - though, I don't have the book with me, so you'd probably be better off asking your prof.

[jlo]

I have a wonderful professor that won't (really) answer questions.

[jt56225]

Hey there.
I'm in your class. I, too, am having trouble with the assignment. But I guess, and I'm not sure if she discussed this is class b/c I've been sick, in reading the introduction of the book I am seeing that the only place he mentions violence and literature was in reference to a Formalist describing literature as "organized violence committed on ordinary speech" (pg 2)... and the only thing that I can see how that applies to King Lear is Shakespeare himself. And how the language itself was not normal, everyday language and made the contents more difficult to read... or maybe not difficult as much as different and strange.

Anyhow, I have saved a link to this forum... I could use some insight too. Thanks for doing this!

[Gladys]

I'm supposed to analyze a scene from King Lear and explain why it is "linguistic violence" and how this "linguistic violence" would affect readers or audiences of the play.

Lear uses language for savage and brutal ends, for instance, when he says to Cordelia:


Here I disclaim all my paternal care,
Propinquity and property of blood,
And as a stranger to my heart and me
Hold thee from this for ever. The barbarous Scythian,
Or he that makes his generation messes
To gorge his appetite, shall to my bosom
Be as well neighbour'd, pitied, and reliev'd,
As thou my sometime daughter.

We as readers are appalled at a father's rash and destructive words to his favourite daughter, and we pity her.

[jt56225]

that makes sense. thank you for sharing, Gladys. gives me more to think about.

[sw1300]

thank you gladys!!!! that makes so much more sense now!!!

[jlo]

Lear uses language for savage and brutal ends

Gladys, are you sure this is what Eagleton's talking about? The best I could come up with as far as "linguistic violence" is concerned was closer to jt was saying. Perhaps, an assault on language. I think "linguistic violence" is just Eagleton's term of how it is written differently than it would be said, and that makes it Literature, or at least that's what the Formalists thought. If this is true, then it's very obvious that Shakespeare is Literature because of how he writes everything. Couldn't the way he arranges sentences in the first place be considered linguistic violence? I probably should have mentioned more on our assignment. It is my understanding that we are supposed to analyze the scene as a formalist. I thought Formalists never brought any kind of psychology or sociology into it. As a formalist wouldn't we only be concerned with the "form" and not any deeper meaning?

I do appreciate your response Gladys, just a little confused.

[cdw]

I have a wonderful professor that won't (really) answer questions.

Your success in this course might require forming one or more discussion groups so you can discuss among yourselves possible interpretations of the material and thus combine your resources

[JBI]

EDIT: quote removed at the request of the poster.

Literary theory is a legitimate field of study, even from an historical perspective. Nobody who respects the study of texts can disregard at least some study in theory - texts are so bound in it - just look at conceptions of aesthetics derived from classical rhetoric - or better yet, Aristotle's Poetics, assuming we aren't looking else where, for even older sources - as to what extent theoretical is dominant over practical is another matter - but theory and literature cannot be separated so easily.


For the original poster, if you would be so kind as to provide the clipping from the text by Eagleton, I can comment further - the term Linguistic Violence, generally is seen in reference to the feminist movement, and how language is used to assert power - in this case, without the context, I cannot offer you further help.

[cdw]

I am not the original poster, but I am familiar with the assignment. Eagleton is using the term "linguistic violence" in a different way from what you suggest. He is describing the ideas of the Russian Formalists, with whom he is apparently not in complete agreement, but whom he credits for beginning the modern field of literary theory.

He uses the term "linguistic violence" to describe their theory that "Under the pressure of literary devices, ordinary language was intensified, condensed, twisted, telescoped, drawn out, turned on its head. It was language 'made strange'; and because of this estrangement, the everyday world was also made unfamiliar." Here,"linguistic violence" refers to violence done to ordinary language, not the expression of violence, although "violence" seems to be a stronger word than is needed here.

To get a glimpse of what Eagleton is describing, Google [Eagleton's theory of "linguistic violence"] and choose the second result [Literary Theory: An Introduction - Google Books Result]; then scroll back a couple of pages and start reading at "Perhaps one needs..." on page 2.

Eagleton seems to have anticipated my (apparently not unique) objection to Literary Theory in his Preface:
"Hostility to theory usually means an opposition to other people's theories and an oblivion of one's own."

Also, Noam Chomsky's comments on Literary Theory in the fifth Similar Thread (below) are worth noting. Someone else in that thread noted that Aristotle has not really been surpassed.

[jlo]

The original text where Eagleton refers to "linguistic violence" is:


The Formalists, then, saw literary language as a set of deviations from a norm, a kind of linguistic violence: literature is a 'special' kind of language, in contrast to the 'ordinary language' we commonly use.

I agree with what cdw is saying. It seems that "linguistic violence" is just Eagleton's term describing why the Formalists called literature Literature.

cdw-are you in our class?

I'm going to keep this thread going for anyone in our class, and anyone else who would like to participate/help. Thanks to everyone who has helped out with their ideas so far.

[ked85]

Hi, I am in the class, and I have been procrastinating on this assignment. Mostly because it is extremely difficult to even get past the reading. She never really discussed linguistic violence in class, so I have been trying to define it for myself. All that I can find on-line about 'linguistic violence' is related to sexism and the use of language to attack women. But I don't think this is what she wants from us. Is she asking us to choose a scene that uses language as violence, or is this about some abstract theoretical concept of being violent against literature? I am so confused, and I feel like this is all over my head. Perhaps we (students in the class) should meet up for more discussion about the topics covered in class. My e-mail is [email protected] if anyone is interested. :brickwall

[Gladys]

"The Formalists, then, saw literary language as a set of deviations from a norm, a kind of linguistic violence: literature is a 'special' kind of language, in contrast to the 'ordinary language' we commonly use."

If so, Eagleton's 'literary violence' is unrelated to aggravation, abuse or assault, but simply refers to how words, sentences, paragraphs, Scenes and Acts in literature (here King Lear) differ from day-to-day communication.

Why not compare the way we communicate with the way, say, Lear and Cordelia speak to each other: their manner, poetic language and use of literary techniques? Assume, of course, that we are Elizabethans in grammar, vocabulary and idiom.

[callmejack]

I, too, am in this class, and have had trouble understanding this assignment because of missed days, due to the fact that I've been ill. Though I have been out, and could be wrong, I remember her saying nothing of literary violence and while I've tried defining it on my own as something along the lines of verbal abuse, I don't think it's really that easy. Especially if she's bringing formalists into the mix. I've read all these previous posts, and while I do appreciate the help (very much so, in fact. Thank you so much for doing this), it really is only confusing me more. I'm still not entirely sure what kind of literary violence I'm supposed to be writing about. Is it the words themselves being violent, or the form of them? And if it's simply their form - exactly what constitudes "violent" literary form?

[cdw]

jlo - No, I'm not in the class. Someone in the class asked me to look at the assignment. Your decision to start this thread was a good one and I agree that you should keep it open.

ked85 - This assignment is not about sexism or attacks on women. That's an important topic, but it is not what the professor or Eagleton are talking about here. Nor is this about "being violent against literature". The word "violence" is misleading. Violence as it is commonly understood is not relevant to this assignment. Eagleton is referring to unusual usage of language that heightens the impact of what is written.

jack - it's not about violence or abuse; it's about unusual or distinctive. Gladys is on the right track.

Eagleton does not seem to fully embrace what the Formalists are saying, and I would guess that your professor does not either. I believe she is asking you, as an exercise, to apply one of the primary ideas of the Formalists to an analysis of Lear to see what you can make of it. In other words, can you identify ways in which Shakespeare used unnatural linguistic constructions to make what he was writing more compelling and memorable?

Of course, as Eagleton points out and as most observers would agree, there are certain problems in applying this analysis to Shakespeare. Almost everything he wrote is memorable, and even if he used what would have been ordinary language in his day, it would seem strange to us now. You have to filter this out and look for places where he made unnatural and surprising choices.

Literary Theory appears to be an attempt to talk about what makes good writing different from other writing. Whether it actually makes anyone a better writer, or whether it can increase your ability to appreciate good writing, is open to debate. You may have a better answer to those questions in a few months. For many people (certainly for me), it is unnatural and uncomfortable to approach literature from this direction (eg, see third quote below). At the moment I think you are being asked to set aside your reservations and explore whether writing can be improved if an author skillfully uses language in unusual ways.

Here are some pertinent quotes from Eagleton (which you all have). It may make more sense if you read his introduction again. I had to run it through an OCR and may not have caught all the errors.
p 2: On this theory, literature is a kind of writing which, in the words of the Russian critic Roman Jakobson, represents an ‘organized violence committed on ordinary speech’. Literature transforms and intensifies ordinary language, deviates systematically from everyday speech.
p 2: [Such] language draws attention to itself, flaunts its material being...
p 2: ...literature was not pseudo-religion or psychology or sociology but a particular organization of language. It had its own specific laws, structures and devices, which were to be studied in themselves rather than reduced to something else. The literary work was neither a vehicle for ideas, a reflection of social reality nor the incarnation of some transcendental truth: it was a material fact, whose functioning could be analysed rather as one could examine a machine. It was made of words, not of objects or feelings, and it was a mistake to see it as the expression of an author's mind.
p 3: [W]hat all of these elements had in common was their ‘estranging’ or ‘defamiliarizing' effect. What was specific to literary language, what distinguished it from other forms of discourse, was that it ‘deformed‘ ordinary language in various ways. Under the pressure of literary devices, ordinary language was intensifed, condensed, twisted, telescoped, drawn out, turned on its head. It was language ‘made strange’; and because of this estrangement, the everyday world was also suddenly made unfamiliar. In the routines of everyday speech, our perceptions of and responses to reality become stale, blunted, or, as the Formalists would say, ‘automatized’. Literature, by forcing us into a dramatic awareness of language, refreshes these habitual responses and renders objects more ‘perceptible‘. By having to grapple with language in a more strenuous, self-conscious way than usual, the world which that language contains is vividly renewed.
p 4: The Formalists, then, saw literary language as a set of deviations from a norm, a kind of linguistic violence: literature is a ‘special‘ kind of language, in contrast to the ‘ordinary’ language we commonly use. But to spot a deviation implies being able to identify the norm from which it swerves.

[sw1300]

I'm in the class too. You should look at cdw's posts, Jack. he explains literary violence quite well. Basically, literary violence isn't violence on the words. By doing violence to linguistic norms Shakespeare is able to make his point more apparent and noticeable (dramatic). I mean, who would want to read text that was written out like real life? Shakespeare is doing "violence" to the normal language and writing his plays in a different, literary voice. His format makes the story more meaningful. Does that make sense?

cdw, you rock! i understand this so much better now. thank you, i wish you were teaching the class, or at least in it

[Gladys]

Consider, for instance, Lear disowning dutiful Cordelia.



Here I disclaim all my paternal care,
Propinquity and property of blood,
And as a stranger to my heart and me
Hold thee from this for ever. The barbarous Scythian,
Or he that makes his generation messes
To gorge his appetite, shall to my bosom
Be as well neighbour'd, pitied, and reliev'd,
As thou my sometime daughter.

Disclaiming paternal care is hardly something to boast about. Better to say my daughter has cut herself off by her heartlessness. Propinquity and property of blood is a grandiloquent way to say, "She's no longer family". Similarly a stranger to my heart and me is a very flowery way of saying, "I don't like her now"; and "for ever" is a very long time.

To say he that makes his generation messes | To gorge his appetite, creates a lively image, and would seem excessive in any conceivable every-day conversation. That this barbarous Scythian could be well neighbour'd, pitied, or reliev'd is inconceivable, and almost damages language itself. An ungrateful and wicked daughter we understand from daily intercourse, but a sometime daughter!

[jlo]

All of this information is great. Thanks everyone.

As far as the Elizabethan goes, we are not allowed to use any sources other than Eagleton and King Lear for this assignment. Another classmate and I were discussing the possibility that this may mean; we are supposed to analyze the language as Formalists versus our modern language instead of Elizabethan...Both would be great, but being unable to cite anything else to back up comparisons of a language we do not speak might be a bad idea.

[cdw]

Not only is it infeasible for non-specialists to compare Shakespeare's writing to the ordinary language of his day, but you might plausibly argue that to do so would be to address the question "Why was King Lear literature?". To instead discuss why it is still literature, it may well be necessary to compare his writing to contemporary language.

[jlo]

That's exactly what I'm having a hard time grasping. We're supposed to analyze a scene, but we're supposed to do it as a Formalist. So, if I were to single out literary devices like meter, or syntax, it's obvious that Shakespeare uses these. What does that prove? That hardly seems like an "analysis". Analysis and Formalism seem to be at odds with each other to me...I'm confused about what questions my paper is answering, or what I'm arguing.

Is the assignment (in laymen terms) why is King Lear literature? That seems ridiculous.

Now that I understand the context Eagleton is using "linguistic violence" in, I'm just confused about where to begin my analysis.

[cdw]

I would consider some of Gladys' suggestions, although I'm not sure I agree with her analysis because I think she is still clinging to meaning. I understand the temptation to do that because I too find meaning more attractive than Formalism. However, the assignment asks you to take the point of view of the Formalists, bizarre as it may be.

Note that in the quotes I included above that Eagleton (when describing the Formalists) keeps emphasizing language: "Literature transforms and intensifies ordinary language", "language draws attention to itself", "a particular organization of language", "The literary work was neither a vehicle for ideas, a reflection of social reality nor the incarnation of some transcendental truth", "made of words, not of objects or feelings", "it ‘deformed‘ ordinary language in various ways", "forcing us into a dramatic awareness of language", "By having to grapple with language in a more strenuous, self-conscious way than usual", "literary language as a set of deviations from a norm".

What you need to do is ignore most of the great things you find in Shakespeare (characters, plot, irony, eternal truths) and focus solely on how he uses language to potent effect, how he bends it to his will, how he shapes it into something extraordinary. Ignore everything else, especially meaning; look at language.

Did Shakespeare have to say "shall to my bosom Be as well neighbour'd, pitied, and reliev'd" or "thou my sometime daughter"? Would a normal person speak that way? If not, how would he speak? Is Shakespeare's expression of these ideas distinctive? Is it more or less compelling than ordinary speech? Does Shakespeare's choice and arrangement of words make his writing more exciting, more compelling, more memorable? Why?

[blazeofglory]

You should start from Aristotle to post modernism and it is lengthy and exasperating read. I think if you want to have a cursory read you had better refer to Wikkipaedia wherein you will have the basics of it and with that you can go for higher literary theories from classicisms, neoclassicisms, romanticisms, modernism, post modernisms, realism, surrealisms, magic realisms, existentialisms, the entire lineage, gamut of literary theory