The Ghost

[Janine]

Read a little of the site last night but will read more and put my own two cents into the pot in another post. Thanks for the link....very helpful.

[Petrarch's Love]

I don't really want to get into a debate right now about the merits and demerits of literary theory, but since Janine asked about it, I thought I'd point out that literary theory is just that, theories (one might also say philosophies) about how to understand, approach, and sometimes even how to define literature. At their best these theoretical ideas function to stimulate new ways of thinking for either scholars in the field or people who have similarly made an in depth study of literature and want to test and challenge their thinking against some interesting ideas. At its worst theory can become a lot of meaningless jargon that intellectuals think makes them sound smarter than everyone else and/or scholars can get so entranced by the theoretical concepts that they allow the theory to overshadow the literary text itself when they teach. This can sometimes get to the point where "Theory" is used as an excuse to introduce political bias into the classroom (which I believe is part of Virg.'s objections here). You'll also run into professors who get so deeply into their pet theory (often the popular one at the time) that they use it as the be all and end all of every interpretation they offer, which is not my personal stlye at all. When I do use theory I'm selecting among a range of ideas to find the one that seems to productively agree or disagree with my initial reading of the text, not trying to fit my reading of the text into the box of a theory I've already decided must be right.

I have to say that I've got a lot that I both agree and disagree with regarding both Deconstruction (which is a movement associated with the philosopher Jaques Derrida, who said he didn't understand it himself if that gives you any idea ), and New Historicism (which I have seen modelled with great intelligence and common sense as a way of thinking by someone who was a wonderful mentor and teacher to me in my early career, but have also seen go far awry in other hands). New Historicism (which I know the most about) has been beneficial to scholars in that it returned the field of literary studies to an interest in historical research after historical context had been out of style for awhile (in this sense, it's something of a return to the Historicist movement in literary study around the turn of the century--these things tend to go in cycles--though New Historicists disagree with many attitudes of "old" historicists). New Historicism also encouraged increased archival research as a method as well as encouraging scholars to examine a wide range of previously marginal or ignored texts, both of which have led to some interesting discoveries/contributions to the study of literature, and it made scholars re-examine some of the attitudes they took for granted about both history itself and canonical literary texts (ans examining and re-examining, even if you end up deciding what you thought in the first place was right after all, is crucial to keeping that all-important open mind that makes for a successful teacher and scholar). Probably the biggest problem with the New Historicism has been that the interest in more marginal texts associated with this theory has led to an inordinate amount of teaching and scholarship being drawn toward what many (including me) would term non-literary texts and away from what you might call the "Great Books." Certain aspects of the theory might also be accused of opening up the possibilities of professors introducing their own liberal political agendas into the classroom, though I would say other theoretical movements have contributed more to this (marxist and feminist theory being a couple of obvious ones).

It's really hard to sum up either of these theories in a brief post, it's something that would be better gradually introduced in the form of some pertinent theoretical essays, or introduced at length in a course on the subject. Virg.'s Wiki article looks pretty good. I thought the definitions in this glossary seemed fairly decent too (though I just glanced at the New Historicist one and it's pretty brief): http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/...aderindex.html
Of course, theory isn't at all necessary to have a good understanding of literature (contrary to what some pretentious types may have you believe), and I probably wouldn't teach Theory to most undergrads or to a group who hadn't already done a lot of reading in literature (not because Theory is a "higher" skill, but because it can only be of much use or interest if you've already got a pretty strong idea about your own reactions to a work). There now, I seem to have talked your ear off. It must be obvious that I'm an academic, given how long I seem to have gone on about this subject. Remember Virg., I write, so I'm probably not all bad, even if I have rubbed elbows with deconstructionists on occasion.

[Janine]

There now, I seem to have talked your ear off. It must be obvious that I'm an academic, given how long I seem to have gone on about this subject. Remember Virg., I write, so I'm probably not all bad, even if I have rubbed elbows with deconstructionists on occasion.

Glad you said that, Petrarch's Love, I usually can't stop writing and my posts get really long, ah.... to my dismay. The information and explanation you have given me really cleared things up. I had looked at the Wikepedia entry, but had not read it completely. You made it so much clearer. I was going to ask Virgil, if in essense, the whole theory thing was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. You were honest and showed both sides. I do think there are people who speak in this jargon just to be above everyone else and untouchable in a way...to appear superior or something. A true scholar is humble and admits there is much he does not know. At any rate I commend you on a good description of both words. This helped me very much. You are very knowlegable. Thanks!

[Virgil]

IThis can sometimes get to the point where "Theory" is used as an excuse to introduce political bias into the classroom (which I believe is part of Virg.'s objections here).

That is only one of my objections. But that is true. Why are all these theories left wing?

But my main disgust is that they diminish the work as art. They reduce the work as a social phenomena. Even your use of the term "text" reduces the art to anthropological shard or a remnant. Instead of using our understanding of the social circumstances to understand the work of art, we use the "text" to understand the society in which it was written. In New Historicism any text is equally important, so that the telephone book is equal to Shakespeare's works.

And why is this mostly in literature? Do art historians discuss deconstructon? Or music historians discuss music in terms New Historicism?

Janine, it's mumbo-jumbo.

[Petrarch's Love]

The information and explanation you have given me really cleared things up. I had looked at the Wikepedia entry, but had not read it completely. You made it so much clearer. I was going to ask Virgil, if in essense, the whole theory thing was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. You were honest and showed both sides. I do think there are people who speak in this jargon just to be above everyone else and untouchable in a way...to appear superior or something. A true scholar is humble and admits there is much he does not know. At any rate I commend you on a good description of both words. This helped me very much. You are very knowlegable. Thanks!

I'm glad my input could be helpful. I'm actually quite wary of theory myself, but I see that it has some uses (especially to someone in the profession) if approached properly. You're certainly right about the untouchable jargon speakers. When I first came to graduate school it sometimes felt like I was trying to learn a foreign language just to hold a conversation with certain scholars who shall remain unnamed.

But my main disgust is that they diminish the work as art. They reduce the work as a social phenomena. Even your use of the term "text" reduces the art to anthropological shard or a remnant. Instead of using our understanding of the social circumstances to understand the work of art, we use the "text" to understand the society in which it was written. In New Historicism any text is equally important, so that the telephone book is equal to Shakespeare's works.

Yes, I often similarly resent the de-emphasis of the importance of art in the study of literature. I have seen excellent scholars who are able to engage in theoretical debates without losing sight of the poem, play, essay, meditation, novel etc. as artwork but, given the majority of scholarly writing, this is apparently harder than it looks. There's no reason why New Historicism need exclude considering literature as a work of art, or that exclusion need be seen as the basic project of the theory. In fact I was recently reading an interview with Stephen Greenblat (the scholar who coined the term New Historicism) in which he spoke frequently of his love of great literary texts as works of art and of our desire to connect with and understand what that art is giving us.
I think we've been around this problem with the term "text" before, which I personally don't in any way mean to connote an "anthropological shard or remnant" (though I understand where this objection is coming from, and have even made it myself in some circumstances). I'm using the word "text" in something of the same way that musicians might refer to "scores" or artists might refer to "works." How would you, for example, conveniently refer to the "poem, play, sermon, novel etc" that I referred to earlier without using this list over and over again (this gets pretty tiresome) and without using the word "text?" I'm not being sarcastic; I would genuinely love a synonym I could use for this word if you have one to suggest.
The extreme version of New Historicism would be that the telephone book is equal to Shakespeare, but it is certainly possible to extract useful ideas from the theory without carrying them so far. I think the main problem with theory is that scholars tend to irresponsibly (and ironically) treat it almost as fact, and so rather than using the theory to enhance their core understanding and/or reason for the study of poems, plays, novels etc. as art, they instead turn the theory itself into the thing that primarily guides them and end up carrying the theory to its extremes.

And why is this mostly in literature? Do art historians discuss deconstructon? Or music historians discuss music in terms New Historicism?

Yes, I've been in Art History classes in which both Deconstruction and New Historicism were topics of discussion. I'm not as personally familiar with the musical world but I gather they do have their own brand of "mumbo jumbo." I'll agree that theory is particularly insiduous in English departments, and I wish there was far, far less of it, but I do understand the basic reasoning as to how these theories should function ideally.

Janine, it's mumbo-jumbo.

A fair amount of it is, so I agree with you there more than you may realize.

[Janine]

A number of good points are brought up here by both Petrarch and Virgil. I sometimes think that texts and novels can be over-theorized. If only we could talk to the dead author and ask his opinion on his work or if we could ask, better yet, what he meant or what his exact intentions were. Sometimes one needs to see that the interpretation is individual, such as the quote "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I am not sure if I am making sense (it is late), but I can't help but consider that over analysising works of art, poetry, literature and music can sometimes spoil the inner deeply felt experience.
I am currently studying D.H. Lawrence and I am caught up in what one could probably term "New Historicism", considering the surfacing of many new letters and documents. It is a study of Lawrence's history and how it impacted his work. Is that the essense of Historicism? In my reading I am trying to absorb all of his life and its periods, and all of his motivations in his works and his theories/philosophies, which actually go through many stages and tranformations, as you probably know. It highly interests me, but one has to read it as theory and understand that is all it is, as Petrarch, I believe, is saying. Don't let the analysis be the most important thing in the end. P - is that what you meant? I am so caught up in the research lately, that I have to stop myself periodically and say - what did this author/man feel, and what do I feel when I read his work? Isn't that the important thing? The deep experience seems to me the vital core of the reading of any great work of literature, or viewing any great work of art. Relying heavily on scholarly terms and dissections, I often wonder if the whole story or whole picture is somehow lost in the course of tearing it appart. Perhaps that is when it all becomes a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and departs from the real experience that one first felt when reading the novel or experiencing the art. Maybe Lawrence would call it head verses heart verses "blood", as he liked to term it. I hope this makes sense since I am far from being a scholar and I humbly beseech you instead, to see me as an sensitive artist. Artists "feel" the text or the painting, interpretaton comes second.
There is a beautiful dialect poem, entitled "Violets" that Lawrence recited for Frieda and Professor Weekly (he was a "word" scholar) the first time Lawrence met them. Professor Weekly asks Lawrence the meaning of some of the words. Lawrence politely defines them. Lawrence asks Freida if she understood the words and she simply replies to him, "No, I did not understand any of the words, but I did understand the whole poem." Later she tells him she likes the poem very much and asks him "Is your poem not about the smell of violets, and the smell of death?" To me this example sums up what I have been trying to say. Yes, L's work is full of rich symbolism, but so much of his work intuitively flowed from the very core of his being. He wrote rapidly and the words poured out of him instinctively. He did not analysis as he went along. He wrote as he was compelled to write from "a deep well within", as many authors do. Artists do a similar thing when the flow is right and the subconsious takes over and one loses oneself in the work. The magic comes from within, and an artist can not even begin to explain how it occurs. It just does; I know this from experience. When the work is flowing the work is felt or is coming from that same "deep well" (subconsious or emotions or undefinable).

[Petrarch's Love]

Thank you for a lovely post, Janine. I agree that the greatest part of interacting with literature is the feeling of it.

I am currently studying D.H. Lawrence and I am caught up in what one could probably term "New Historicism", considering the surfacing of many new letters and documents. It is a study of Lawrence's history and how it impacted his work. Is that the essense of Historicism? In my reading I am trying to absorb all of his life and its periods, and all of his motivations in his works and his theories/philosophies, which actually go through many stages and tranformations, as you probably know.

All of this would be considered historical background and biographical material, which is of course secondary to the original text (in this case the original text beeing Lawrence's novels and poems). Any work that deals with this type of historical background can be termed "historicist" and the this type of inquiry can also to some extent be considered "New Historicist," so yes that's broadly what we're talking about. There are some distinctions, however, between the way Historicists and New Historicists approach and view history. New Historicism is interested in how literary works relate to and are reflected in other, often non-literary works of the same time period--and often less well known or seemingly insignificant works--whereas old Historicists tend to solely focus on major literary texts and their relation to the more famous and prominent philosophies, events, etc. of the time period. New Historicists are interested in how our position as present day readers shapes our understanding of and judgement of literary and historical texts we read, whereas older Historicism tends to discourage making value judgments about the past. New Historicist theory tries to complicate and question the way we think about history and the place of different literary texts within history as well as the relation of literary texts to other parts of the culture of the time. So the point is that what these theories are offering are, first of all the suggestion that doing the sort of archival research you're doing (looking into letters and documents of the time) is something worth doing, and second of all, a few different ways to think about approaching and trying to understand a past time period, and what that time period has to do with those wonderful books you've been reading and enjoying.

Don't let the analysis be the most important thing in the end. P - is that what you meant?

In a nutshell.

I am so caught up in the research lately, that I have to stop myself periodically and say - what did this author/man feel, and what do I feel when I read his work? Isn't that the important thing? The deep experience seems to me the vital core of the reading of any great work of literature, or viewing any great work of art. Relying heavily on scholarly terms and dissections, I often wonder if the whole story or whole picture is somehow lost in the course of tearing it appart. Perhaps that is when it all becomes a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and departs from the real experience that one first felt when reading the novel or experiencing the art. Maybe Lawrence would call it head verses heart verses "blood", as he liked to term it. I hope this makes sense since I am far from being a scholar and I humbly beseech you instead, to see me as an sensitive artist. Artists "feel" the text or the painting, interpretaton comes second.

Scholars (good ones anyway) also feel the text first and last. If you can't feel a text I don't know how or why you should study it. And don't ever be humble about being a sensitive artist. If you have been moved deeply by a novel or a poem then you've got the point. More research might make your understanding and appreciation for the text greater but really the rest, as they say, is gravy.

Thanks for the story about Lawrence. Say, if you guys don't already have a chat going I don't know about, you and Virg. should start up a thread, since he's our resident Lawrence expert.

I think the quote I need to end this response (and possibly this unseemly detour from the proper ghostly subject of this thread?) is this one, which perhaps we can all agree on:

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty, --that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

[Virgil]

The irony is that D.H. Lawrence would have absolutely HATED this critical theory. "The novel is the book of life," D.H. Lawrence from "On Why The Novel Matters."

Synonym for "text"? I use "work" or I'll be specific and say novel, poem, story, etc.

Yes, I've been in Art History classes in which both Deconstruction and New Historicism were topics of discussion. I'm not as personally familiar with the musical world but I gather they do have their own brand of "mumbo jumbo." I'll agree that theory is particularly insiduous in English departments, and I wish there was far, far less of it, but I do understand the basic reasoning as to how these theories should function ideally.

You're right, I've seen it, and you're right English departments are the most fanatical on this. Why do you think?

[Petrarch's Love]

The irony is that D.H. Lawrence would have absolutely HATED this critical theory. "The novel is the book of life," D.H. Lawrence from "On Why The Novel Matters."

Yeah, I was posting late last night in the middle of writing something else, so I didn't mention it, but it did occur to me that I don't usually think of Lawrence as a great candidate for New Historicist reading. Obviously Janine's approach of looking into letters and background is pretty straightforward and interesting, but trying to stick too New Historicist a slant on that in relation to Lawrence does seem strained. I think the New Historicsim is probably of most use (if it's any at all ) in a period like mine in the Renaissance where we're so far removed from the historical period that study of the historical context of a work is almost necessary to understanding a lot about it. At that point debates over how to approach the historical context of literary texts suddenly become interesting (well, to some geeky few at least ).

Synonym for "text"? I use "work" or I'll be specific and say novel, poem, story, etc.

Yes, I realized after I posted that "work" is also possible and I do use it. I think the reason I tend to use "work" less is that it can be more generally interpreted to mean different works of art (paintings, music, etc.). I do a lot of research involving the comparison of the visual and verbal arts, and using the word "text" can sometimes make it clear when I'm referring to works in the written tradition rather than works in the visual tradition. It's a more specific term than "work." Obviously referring to a play as a play is great, but I'm talking about instances when I'm referring generally to a potentially wide range of literary forms. It's also just shop talk. Editors refer to the "text" and people literally since the middle ages have used the word "text" to refer to the original written work as opposed to secondary material (I recall Wycliff, for example, referring to the reading of the "text" of his translation of the psalms as opposed to the glosses), so this is hardly a word or a usage that's been introduced with the New Historicists (though they do have their own special brand of "text"). I guess it's just the word scholars who study the written art tend to use the most. The jargonny word that you should really be objecting to (and that I refuse to use) is "cultural object." Try having a discussion with someone who describes Hamlet as a "cultural object!" Mumbo Jumbo indeed!

You're right, I've seen it, and you're right English departments are the most fanatical on this. Why do you think?

I don't know. My theory is that people who go into English are usually obsessed with words so they like playing with them and making them up, which leads to increased jargon production. Alas, if we were only less fanatical about theory. I may have taken devil's advocate here, but in relation to my fellow academics I'm probably considered the anti-theorist.

[Janine]

I enjoyed and took much from both of your posts. Thanks! Petrarch's comments are quite extensive, which is after my own heart, and I like your view of things. Your definitions are good and helpful for that reason. You see the theorising for what it is and know it is not the main thing, which is the works, be it novel, art, etc. You are able to see through the hierachy and to the core of the issues.
Glad you liked the little story about the poem, "Violets". I actually saw that scene acted out in a short film, but I read it that it did take place.

As you said in your last post to Virgil.

"My theory is that people who go into English are usually obsessed with 'words' so they like playing with them and making them up, which leads to increased jargon production".
That, of course, was the point of how Frieda perceived the poem so much differently from her academic husband. She felt the poem, he saw it as a dissection.

As to Virgils comment"

"The irony is that D.H. Lawrence would have absolutely HATED this critical theory."

I totally agree. I will look into the book you mention. From what I have read about the man, I absolutely feel this would be true.
Back to Petrarch's reference to older periods, such as Renaissance or interpetting the Psalms- I can better see the use of "New Historicists", after her explanation, than in studying Lawrence. It does take a time span to see that studying the world, it's social forms and it's political aspects and attitudes, add a different perspective, and are vastly important to understanding the text, such as studying Shakespeare.

I wrote this quickly since I have to go somewhere soon. Hope it is ok - sorry could not format....no time!

Wanted to further share this with you. Lawrence said this:

"Curse the blasted, jelly-boned swines, the slimy, the belly-wriggling invertebrates, the miserable sodding rutters, the flaming sods, the sniveling, dribbling, dithering, palsied, pulse-less lot that make up England today."

This was his remark after hearing what the critics said about "Sons and Lovers".

I think this is priceless!
There is a certain poetry to it, don't you think?

Sorry - we are a bit off the track. What became of the ghost? Will he ever reappear?

[Virgil]

Hahahaha. I love it. Lawrence was great.


The think we've done the ghost to death.

[Janine]

Virgil, Glad you liked the quote - pretty original, don't you think? Did he make up some of those words? My friend from Japan sent it to me today, but the strange thing is that I read it a few days ago in L's biography. Well, they claim there is just "6 degrees of separation" between all people in the world.
I think you are right - either the ghost has been done to death, or it could just be somewhere snoozing..... We need to ask a new question (start a new thread) on "Hamlet" anyway....there must be zillions of things to debate.

[Petrarch's Love]

"Curse the blasted, jelly-boned swines, the slimy, the belly-wriggling invertebrates, the miserable sodding rutters, the flaming sods, the sniveling, dribbling, dithering, palsied, pulse-less lot that make up England today."

That's a great quote Janine . Hey, if you're going to insult somebody you might as well follow the Cyrano rule and do it with some pinache! As far as I can tell none of the words are made up, which makes it even better.

[Janine]

Thanks, Petrarch, good remark. Glad you and Virgil read the quote and laughed .
Lawence must have been pretty combative....good for him!!!...He did not run from the critics. He persisted until he got his work published somewhere. If the "palsied, pulse-less (great alleration) lot that make up England" wouldn't do it, he got the job done in America. L even cursed his enemies with style!

[Virgil]

Virgil, Glad you liked the quote - pretty original, don't you think? Did he make up some of those words?

The only word i don't recgnize is "rutters." What's that?

I think you are right - either the ghost has been done to death, or it could just be somewhere snoozing..... We need to ask a new question (start a new thread) on "Hamlet" anyway....there must be zillions of things to debate

OK, I've always wondered about Horatio. Let me think of a question. Perhaps on the significance of his stoic philosophy.