Marxist criticism is were by one criticizes a work of art let it be drama, songs or poems using the theory's of Karl Marx (famous economist). so its basically looking for evidence in that piece of art that connects with his theories.
Marxist criticism is were by one criticizes a work of art let it be drama, songs or poems using the theory's of Karl Marx (famous economist). so its basically looking for evidence in that piece of art that connects with his theories.
I know who Marx was, but are we talking Gramsci here, or Lukacs, Benjamin or Eagleton? There is a great deal of scholarship and theory written - Marx himself was not a literary theorist, and there is in no way an agreement on the terms of the theory either.Originally Posted by blacksniper
sorry guys, was in class. The question you need to ask is 'what is Marxist criticism?'. Marxist criticism is the type of criticism of art let it be drama, a song or poem based on the theory's of the famous economist 'Karl Marx'. So all you need is to look at the poem and explain it from an economic point of view. am having troubles doing that cause the poem is confusing.i'll post this question on my own thread....the title is the name of the poem. "from stone to steel"
That isn't what Marxist criticism is, hate to break it to you, and there isn't only one form of Marxist criticism. Either way, Marxist criticism works far better with novels, but at any rate, perhaps you may want to read this: http://books.google.ca/books?id=UrCl...age&q=&f=falsesorry guys, was in class. The question you need to ask is 'what is Marxist criticism?'. Marxist criticism is the type of criticism of art let it be drama, a song or poem based on the theory's of the famous economist 'Karl Marx'. So all you need is to look at the poem and explain it from an economic point of view. am having troubles doing that cause the poem is confusing.
and then read some of the primary texts it deals with in the collection. As it is, you seem to be lecturing me on how to read a poem in a marxist perspective, while asking me to read it for you - I know Marxist criticism, I'm into theory, perhaps, before you venture into writing on a poem on Marxist theory, it would be beneficial to look into Marxist literary theory, and then perhaps you would have less difficulty.
As it is though, the poem works far better when read in light of Northrop Frye's work - Pratt and Frye were good friends, and Frye was perhaps his biggest critical supporter - There are also some nice collections of criticism on Pratt that exist, and a reading of Frye's The Bush Garden and D. G. Jones' Butterfly on Rock won't hurt for starts - but if you are still attached to a Marxist point of view, you'd need to start with Eagleton, because, from your post, you make it clear, that though you may know of Marx, you perhaps do not know too much about Marxist literary criticism.
And, P.S. I didn't ask what Marxist literary criticism is - I know what it is, I asked whose criticism you were going to incorporate, and how it applied to this poem in particular, which it probably doesn't, as the whole argument of the poem is counter-Marxist.
Are you referring to Pratt's poem or the Salisbury's book that specifically deals with economics?
Just a couple of thoughts, I am neither a scholar of poetry or economics, though I did take more classes in college on economics (when dirt was new) than I did on poetry….so with a grain of salt…. and with a very broad brush…
Let's look at this briefly from a Marxist point of view (I have no knowledge of the actual published works on critical analysis of Marx having to do with art of any kind, this is simply an opinion of the reading).
In Pratt's poem I suppose one could look at the two images of brutality that are used, the Neanderthal, stone, cave, desire, toxic-wine, and one of a more refined or cultivated brutality of religion; steel, praying fingertips, sacrifice, Aryan.
Using these two conflicts simultaneously might insinuate that civilization is no more civilized in the second, seemingly more advanced of these two life times, the wheel to me conjures the image of the wheel of life and two are mentioned. Not only two wheels, but specifically the revolution of each wheel; revolution as in revolving or revolution as in overthrow?
Additionally, it is through the conflict that forces productivity at the expense of the proletariat.
As a result, the future that is offered; on one hand a conflict for survival and base needs or instincts (survival of the fittest, the conquered are slaves to the conquering), on the other it is the face of religious superiority that causes the conflict which offers the future to be more of the same; those who have not will continue to work for those who have and those who have will use the leftovers created by those who have not in order to have more rather than distribute to the inferior worker bees (those who have not) who continue to suffer (yearlings for the altar crave).
The hope given at the end; Gethsemane might imply the liberation, the revolution of overthrowing the bourgeoisie…all can be equal at this point.
Just some thoughts...not that I spent too much time thinking them, but perhaps it might spark some further thoughts for you to explore.
~L
Last edited by LMK; 08-04-2009 at 06:12 PM.
I'd rather have questions that I can't answer than answers that I can't question.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
