Literary theory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Unless you have to learn literary theory for college, Tueday, I wouldn't bother with it. It has nothing to do with real appreciation of literature. Literary theory is what college professors do to feel important.

---

Well, being a College Professor, who "does" literary theory not to feel important, but to enhance my understanding and enjoyment of a text, I must express my dissent, Vrgil. There may, indeed there are professors and not just professors who do exactly what you say, but that is surely not the fault of theory as such? Do you really regard Achebe's Famous essay on Conrad for example, no matter if you agree with it or not as Theory done to feel important? What would you call Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own or Three Guineas other than theory and do you regard that as useless? What are the essays of activist writers like Fanon, foucault etc if not Theory and are they not literature simultaneously? Rol;and Barthes and Italo Calvino are placed among theorists as is Todorov- but it is hard to find more interesting literary reading than Mythologies or Camera Lucida or The Literature Machine.
If you demonize theory before reading it then of course you are wastingyour time- but then by that logic, all "literary criticism" from Socrates owards should be dumped. Theory with a capital T I agree is merely a showingoff name applied to criticism. but theory as it actually is and should be taught is precisely the same as teaching Longinus on the Sublime, or Auerbach's Mimesis- texts I for one am certainly not ready to abandon. Don't tar all theory and all professors with the same brush, please!

Thank-God for this thread (really). I have an opinion on literary theory, but that's not important now. I have to use lit theory on a test I'm taking in a month, and I have never studied it. If I did study it, I have forgotten about it because it's not important to me (I remember only those things that are meaningful; my brain discards other data as useless material).

Can anyone suggest a *single book*, a "Literary Theory for Dummies* that I could review for this test? Also, the study guide suggests the test writers are interested in modern authors, while I am not, and thus - again - my brain has discarded all that material. Any suggestions on how to brush up on that would also be helpful.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NickAdams

I have Deconstruction in a Nut Shell, but haven't read it yet. Has anyone else?

---

Derrida...ouch! I wrote a post grad paper on that, as I was writing it I briefly lost the will to live :lol:


I recommend: Terry Eagleton: "Literary Theory"- Countess! here you go!

Lit Theory topics include: Structuralism, Post Structuralism, Marxism, Feminism and some classical stuff (think Plato) and Leavis on crit.

As a grad student finishing up his Masters degree in English at a very Theory-Oriented university department, I am afraid I have agree with Virgil that Theory is mostly a waste of time, a way for literary professors to justify their existence.

I mean that in all seriousness. If you study the history of literary theory you'll notice a great deal of it involves trying to make the study of literature more "scientific" and "systematic" whether it's American New Criticism with its insistence that texts be treated as an object or Structuralism with it transforming all texts into archetypal structures. I would argue a great deal of literary theory was created from the angst most professors felt when trying to justify their importance in higher education to those practicing science. It was a way of making the discipline more scientific, more analytic, more structured, less opinionated and subjective, less a matter of tastes (see we can teach a method now that applies to all texts!). Ironically all this theory only made the people from "hard" science disciplines mock the humanites even more because most theory turned out to be shoddy linguistics and pseudo-philosophy.

I would differentiate between Literary Theory and Theory (which has implications for literature to be sure). Literary Theory is the type of stuff Harold Bloom often writes, which deals with specific literary topics as why we should read, how authors produce their works. Camille Paglia with Sexual Personae would also fit in the first category. Foucault, Derrida, and their ilk would fall into the second category.

Add on the fact that it often becomes an excuse for overly politicizing one's reading, not to mention encourages downright funky interpretations. It wastes the student's precious time that could be spent actually reading real literary texts or an author's biography or even actual literary criticism (an interpretation of the books or its symbols/motifs/characters). Some critics like the extremely conservative Elizabeth Kantor believe Literary Theory of the Capital "T" variety prevents you from actually understanding or appreciating a text. It's a vaccine against the appreciation of literature.

All of that aside, the main point is this: the average person doesn't do literary theory when they read a book, when they discuss a book away from university. Really only college professors care much about Theory, which serves as a barrier between them and how normal people actually read.

Even undergrad students who pass through the academic system I suspect will regard Derrida and Foucault with nightmares more than esteem praise. They might not have felt that way had they actually been reading Literature instead of Theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

As a grad student finishing up his Masters degree in English at a very Theory-Oriented university department, I am afraid I have agree with Virgil that Theory is mostly a waste of time, a way for literary professors to justify their existence.

I mean that in all seriousness. If you study the history of literary theory you'll notice a great deal of it involves trying to make the study of literature more "scientific" and "systematic" whether it's American New Criticism with its insistence that texts be treated as an object or Structuralism with it transforming all texts into archetypal structures. I would argue a great deal of literary theory was created from the angst most professors felt when trying to justify their importance in higher education to those practicing science. It was a way of making the discipline more scientific, more analytic, more structured, less opinionated and subjective, less a matter of tastes (see we can teach a method now that applies to all texts!). Ironically all this theory only made the people from "hard" science disciplines mock the humanites even more because most theory turned out to be shoddy linguistics and pseudo-philosophy.

I would differentiate between Literary Theory and Theory (which has implications for literature to be sure). Literary Theory is the type of stuff Harold Bloom often writes, which deals with specific literary topics as why we should read, how authors produce their works. Camille Paglia with Sexual Personae would also fit in the first category. Foucault, Derrida, and their ilk would fall into the second category.

Add on the fact that it often becomes an excuse for overly politicizing one's reading, not to mention encourages downright funky interpretations. It wastes the student's precious time that could be spent actually reading real literary texts or an author's biography or even actual literary criticism (an interpretation of the books or its symbols/motifs/characters). Some critics like the extremely conservative Elizabeth Kantor believe Literary Theory of the Capital "T" variety prevents you from actually understanding or appreciating a text. It's a vaccine against the appreciation of literature.

All of that aside, the main point is this: the average person doesn't do literary theory when they read a book, when they discuss a book away from university. Really only college professors care much about Theory, which serves as a barrier between them and how normal people actually read.

Even undergrad students who pass through the academic system I suspect will regard Derrida and Foucault with nightmares more than esteem praise. They might not have felt that way had they actually been reading Literature instead of Theory.

---

hehe, I must admit I rather liked Derrida and Foucault, but I totally agree with your distinction between Literary Theory and just plain Theory (I'm studying English and Geography to become a teacher and English Lit is part of this, obviously). I found most theory (both Lit theory and Theory) we learned in our undergrad courses interesting in themselves, but actually, not even our teachers use them in their courses once they've enthusiastically taught them in the introduction course. :confused: Or maybe that's just the lazy American Lit tutors? some of the Brit Lit tutors are crazy about Freud and whenever there is a tiny droplet of blood in a book, it's either menstrual blood or the loss of virginity :D
the point is, in all the Lit courses I took (and my univ is NOT a bad one), neither this devices and tropes thingy, nor THEORY ever came up again after the introduction courses. it does make one wonder why we need to take Lit courses at all, seeing as we could just as well read books on our own :idea:

anyways, I've got a question:
are there any large-scale "reader-oriented" studies about what happens when people read a book? etc? I mean, we learned about "reader oriented approaches, but it seems in most of those the "reader" was the Lit scholar and it was only one reader. I'd find it much more interesting whether 'normal' readers pick up on all those devices and thingies at all and whether they actually have the effect they are said to have in textbooks. e.g. textbooks say "this and that metre or rhyme scheme has this and that effect on the reader". Now I've been wondering, if e.g. you put lots of sad words in a metre that's supposed to sound happy, will readers feel it sounds happy?

could any one of you explain these things:

1. What is "signifier" and "signified"? Can you explain in simple language but elaboratively?

2. What is the notion of Saussure about these terms?
3. What is the notion of Derrida about these terms?
4. How did Derrida attack on the notion of Saussure's "Signifier" and "Signified"?
5. Is there any elimentary self-learning book for beginners of theory?

As mentioned earlier, try Eagleton's book for an intro. From there, move on to Richter, and probably for additional readings, Leitch. Finally, go for the complete versions of various works mentioned in the anthologies.

As ralfyman says, Eagleton's Literary Theory is the meatball special in terms of getting to know literary theory. It's getting on a bit now, but it's excellent, engaging, and stimulating stuff. I've read it twice now and highly recommend it.

Hello,

I have read most of Culler's "Very Short Introduction.." but have found it rather dry in so far as relevant examples. I don't know about you but these are the key to my personal understanding of some new idea I am tinkering with.

In this sense, I came across a rather good book titled "The Art of Fiction - Illustrated from Classic and Modern Texts" by David Lodge. It features clear exemplification of some important literary concepts (the intrusive author, stream of consciousness, point of view, intertextuality, inner monologue etc) through canonical texts of the English and American tradition (Joyce, Woolf, Fowles, Nabokov etc.). I have found more useful than any other book I have read on the subject.

My question, then, is: Has anyone else read it and if so, how did it affect you and what other works in this manner are there?

Thanks,
Cris.
(first post)

hello every body

plz can your helpe me about liturary theory especially three theory (structuralism , marxism and feminist theory) and how can applieing these theory in literary work

I don't want to be even funnier than the actual situation, but for about 50 years now it has seemed to me that literary theories are like fruits in a farmer's market. Too many for even 1000 meals.
Not that I do it all the time, but I would prefer analysing the assembly line of a car manufacturer. Sorry I wasn't tall enough to make it to the academic team.

good evening
no body could help me to understand thes theory

hi every body
I was asked about liturary theory , I have no answer so I make offert to fined the answer and I want to shair for bineft to the all , if I am mistak plz correcte me
this is a sammary of what I am understande
liturary theory is a tools , method and view lamp to help or to understand liturary work and studing theory to look deeply of the issues , also to think about issues deeply and analyeses the liturary work in depth
one of these theory which I intrest about it is Structuralism (structure at novel or poem)
looking at linguistic devices , binary oppositions , point of view , narrations.
Feminism theory which intrest of the role of women in society , ptriarchy &matriarchy , women right , women characters and relationship between men and women .
Marxism theory looking of class struggle , economic issues , exploitation in capitalist society , child laboure and materialism .

Never chase after literary theory. I think all literary theories are hogwash. Writers are creators and do not want to cocoon themselves in a particular set of theories and if they do they will cripple themselves. Today some of the great writers, poets who once were popular are forgotten since they were not contained in any theorists' or critics' frame. So many deserving writers have remained distant or barred from getting awards or applauses or getting published. That is why I never care whether critics like my poems or not. I do not care even if some critics become very critical of my poems and what makes me happy is to see how many people read my poems not how many comments or appreciations I have received

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

Never chase after literary theory. I think all literary theories are hogwash. Writers are creators and do not want to cocoon themselves in a particular set of theories and if they do they will cripple themselves. Today some of the great writers, poets who once were popular are forgotten since they were not contained in any theorists' or critics' frame. So many deserving writers have remained distant or barred from getting awards or applauses or getting published. That is why I never care whether critics like my poems or not. I do not care even if some critics become very critical of my poems and what makes me happy is to see how many people read my poems not how many comments or appreciations I have received

---

Very truthfull.