Literary theory?

[cuppajoe_9]

Does anyone have any experience with archetypical/mythological literary theory?

A little. As I say above, I played with the Prometheus archetypes in my Frankenstein essay on the final, and got an A- out of it. My experience is that it's fairly useless when it coms to getting a better understanding of the text unless, of course, the author has also read The Golde Bough. *coughTSEliotcough*

[Derringer]

The theory not important? I don't know about that-- how could you understand Modernity or postmodernism or Surrealism without the theory?

I think what you want is Derrida, who in a way treated writing as a science. But then again, I've read some Derrida, and you don't want Derrida - its a nightmare of a read. I would recommend the Norton Anthology, + a prof that can teach you the theory in a colloqual sense (its very dense reading at times (see Butler, Judith)).

But, the literature is far more important then the theory. The theory is emotionally distant and not nearly as enthralling as something like Hamlet

[Jolly McJollyso]

But, the literature is far more important then the theory. The theory is emotionally distant and not nearly as enthralling as something like Hamlet

Except for Derrida. He's wonderfully engaging.

[Derringer]

Absolutely

[Jolly McJollyso]

Absolutely

Haha, no, I'm serious. Look at the ending of "Structure, Sign, and Play:"

"Here there is a sort of question, call it historical, of which we are only glimpsing today the conception, the formation, the gestation, the labor. I employ these words, I admit, with a glance toward the business of childbearing -- but also with a glance toward those who, in a company from which I do not exclude myself, turn their eyes away in the face of the as yet unnameable which is proclaiming itself and which can do so, as is necessary whenever a birth is in the offing, only under the species of the non-species, in the formless, mute, infant, and terrifying form of monstrosity."
-Jacques Derrida

That is freakin' AWESOME. Who ends an academic discourse that way? Derrida, that's who.

[Walter]

And he said?

[Jolly McJollyso]

And he said?

Before that? He was talking about the presence of freeplay as the action between discursive oppositions in a text. What I've quoted is what he said about our first conceptions of freeplay.

[Walter]

Many thanks. We clearly speak different languages.

[Derringer]

that's not too bad at all, but he is hard to understand.

Now that I think about it, Nietzsche is far from emotionally distant! Rather heart-breaking at times. Maybe I take my words back

[NickAdams]

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

[Sindhu]

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!

[Countess]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[FrozenDuchess]

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


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.

[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.

[SleepyWitch]

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. 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
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

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?