Your thoughts on this quote.

[kidvisions]

This was the topic of one of my "literary theories" exams, and I found this quote really ambiguous to be an exam question. I want to know your thoughts on it, and if you were asked to write a paper in two hours how would you write it?

Here is the quote:
The development of structuralist theory of narrative manifests how the analysis of a system pf "meaning" poses certain problems the solutions to which ultimately come up against a barrier, that of accounting of the "presence" of meaning, of justifying the presumption that meaning is derivable from the system rather than vice versa" Art Berman, From the New Criticism to Deconstruction.

Thank you!

[dark desire]

Structuralist theory divides narratives into separate categories and states that meaning is generated through the interplay of various choices the author makes out of different categories. For example imagine protagonist + conclusion of the story. Protagonist can be rich/poor, male/female, old/young and conclusion can be tragic/comic, direct/indirect etc. One selection can be - a poor young female ends in a direct comic situation after a chain of events. The structuralist theory claims that meaning is generated through this selection.

The problem, according to post-structuralist theory, is that the categories male/female, old/young, rich/poor etc are not meaningful in themselves. They derive their meanings from other narratives that the reader is aware of. Every category, in which a structuralist theorist divides a narrative in turn depends upon meaning in the consciousness of the world. Thus the structure does not bring meaning to the narrative. Meaning already exists in the reader's mind and/or the perception/understanding of the world. Author creates structures in the text based on meanings already existent in the world. Thus the post-structuralist claim that all text in the world comes from meaning that is already existent in the world.

Before the modernist movement, there was meaning in the world. Out of the despair caused by modernity existentialists said there is no meaning in the world and they expressed it through the texts they wrote. These were innovative achievements in writing.

Till then academia judged works of art only on the basis of a humanist philosophy. This changed with the rise of structuralism. Theorists no longer looked for the humane element of the written work; they aspired to look at its structure.

Structuralists probed the source of meaning in text. They made categories (I don't really know if somebody actually made these categories or not. Roland Barthes talks about structure is The Fashion System but he talks about structures in fashion magazines there) and saw texts as structures.

A startling discovery took place while probing the structures of the texts that the categories themselves are not stable structures. Out of this came a lot of experimental works in which authors mixed different types of storytelling into each other – fantasy + realism became magical realism. Then authors added political satire to it. Some added visibly superficial sentimentality to it. These works generally have a twisted and forcefully self-conscious language.
And now we are back where we started. There is some meaning in the world and there is some meaning in the text. But it is not grounded anymore, it is only floating in the air. Believe whatever you want kind of a thing.

[mtpspur]

Wow--so very sorry but this is way over my depth. I just read to be entertain and occasionally stirred up. If I underestand this all correctly the detective writer DaqshiellHammett applied this to his Continental Op stories--simple version being what people in the story SAID rarely matched what they DID--and you looked for the best solution based on your own instincts. Of course I could be totally wrong and this was a good opportunity to post 'something' and get admin off my back about posting.
Feel free to ignore.