Literary Criticism

[Hal]

I'm studying English literature at University and taking a class in Literary Criticism. We're halfway through the class and I have no idea what the professor is talking about. Three days a week for the last four weeks I have sat in the lecture hall and at the end of the class I am just befuddled at what the hell the professor means. I've asked some other people in the class if they know what the professor is talking about. None of them did either.

It's possible I'm just not bright enough to get what the professor is trying to tell me. I don't even understand the text we have for the course.

So far in the class we've gone through structuralism,post-structuralism, new criticism, and psychological criticism. The majority of it has just gone right over my head. And to be honest, most of it sounds like a load of nonsense.

So, anyone want to try to explain this to me? Or perhaps point towards a text that explains it in straight English.

[Lokasenna]

I've always hated theory - though clearly I'm in a minority amongst my peers in that regard. Maybe this is because I was never actually taught theory as an undergrad, and so developed a method of literary investigation that didn't particularly rely on an '-ism' (though in all probability I'm a reconstructed structuralist).

I found Gregory Castle's The Blackwell Guide to Literary Theory to be a useful and readable introduction to all kinds of theory: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blackwell-Literary-Theory-Guides-Literature/dp/0631232737/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376205957&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Blackwell+Guide+to+Literary+Theory

[hannah_arendt]

Contrary do Loki, I liked and I still like theory. Despite the book mentioned, I can recommend "Modern criticism" by Lodge, or Jonathan Culler`s "Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction ".

[Charles Darnay]

I agree with Hannah - and both texts are good. A few other suggestions: Wikipedia (don't discount it). Also, you could try talking to your professor maybe? Do they hold office hours?

Literary theory can be hard. IN essence, it is looking at a piece of literature through the lens of x.

Out of the list you mentioned, psychological criticism (or psychoanalysis) is the simplest. Psychoanalysis takes a work and uses (primarily) Freud's theories to analyze the characters, as if the critic is the therapist and the characters are on his/her couch.

Structuralism and post-structuralism are the most difficult in my opinion - because you need a bit of semiotic background. In essence, a structural critic looks at patterns in a work to come to some conclusion about human society and relations. Structural critics also closely look at language, and we are shaped by it. Again, the Wikipedia article on this is good.

Literary theory and criticism can be really fun, or excruciating. If you have a professor who is just droning on about Sassure and Derrida, Jung and Lacan &c. then you will not get anything out of it. Good professors show how the lenses can be practically applied to texts - even better if they are texts you are familiar with - and then you have the mind blowing experience of seeing something familiar in new light

As for the critics themselves, the same thing applies. Some are really interesting and poignant. Others - like psychoanalyzing Hamlet is pure BS

[Hal]

thanks for the responses. I've purchased the books recommended. I mistakenly said literary criticism when i meant literary theory.

Another question i have about literary theory is at what point does one decide what kind of theorist they are? And do they stick to that theory or do they apply different schools of theory depending on the literature? For instance, Harold Bloom is a Freudian. I've read a lot of his criticism and I've yet to see him apply a Marxist critique for example even to works by Dickens. Terry Eagleton is a Marxist but with a novel like "Lord of the Flies" would he stay clear of psychological criticism?

[Charles Darnay]

It depends. Some critics are certainly known for being part of a school of thought, mainly because of their developments in that school. Eagleton has a huge impact on Marxist criticism. Stephen Greenblatt (in part) created New Historian criticism, but he also has some works in the school of Marxist criticism. I don't know that I would identify Bloom as a psychoanalytic critic. He doesn't seem to settle on one particular view, and often goes on a tirade when he thinks a label is being hastily thrown on.

[hannah_arendt]

I read, used also a very good book written by two polish authors (Anna Burzyńska, Paweł Markowski). Unfortunately it hasn`t been translated to english so far:(

[kelby_lake]

thanks for the responses. I've purchased the books recommended. I mistakenly said literary criticism when i meant literary theory.

Another question i have about literary theory is at what point does one decide what kind of theorist they are? And do they stick to that theory or do they apply different schools of theory depending on the literature? For instance, Harold Bloom is a Freudian. I've read a lot of his criticism and I've yet to see him apply a Marxist critique for example even to works by Dickens. Terry Eagleton is a Marxist but with a novel like "Lord of the Flies" would he stay clear of psychological criticism?

Each critic tries to appropriate texts. I don't like literary theory- instead of simply being a way of looking at something from another angle, it just feels like some sort of political appropriation.

I wonder what the most recent literary theory is? I know that masculinism (which I guess is technically a branch of Gender) wasn't really around until the nineties.