What Is Literary Theory?
Thursday by Caitlin
I tried to think of a better title for this blog post, but I couldn't. So, I guess this will have to do!
I really enjoyed reading the article "What Is Literary Theory?" I guess I enjoyed it because I don't really know anything about literary theory. I probably should, as this is my 5th (yes, my 5th!) year in college, and although I might have actually learned some things about literary theory throughout my college experience so far, I can't really recall anything specific. So this was a new experience for me.
To start, I want to put it out there that I've always had problems understanding literary criticism. I had no idea it was a part of literary theory (am I supposed to capitalize those terms? hmm...) To help me understand the different kinds of literary criticism better, I always thought of the different kinds of critcisms as different lenses. So, in this article, the author talks about how Chinua Achebe, looking through the "postcolonial" lens, says that Conrad's Heart of Darkness "fails to grant full humanity to the Africans it depicts," and that perspective is created from a postcolonial literary theory that presupposes a history of exploitation and racism (straight from the article, but I don't know how to cite that). Kind of like a camera with all different color lenses that you can switch- you can switch to a red lens, and when you look through the viewfinder, everything you see will be red. Switch to a blue lens, and everything you see will be blue. Switch to a feminist critic's lens, and you'll see all the parts a feminist critic would be interested in...that might all sound really elementary to a lot of people in this class, but for me, it's the easiest way to understand literary criticism. And if I'm wrong, PLEASE tell me!
One form of literary criticism I think is really interesting is the one that Charles Augustin Saint Beuve talked about- that a work of literature could be entirely explained and and analyzed in terms of the biography of the author. I can understand this, because I don't see how an author could completely take him/herself out of the literature they are writing. So, I think that examining the life of the author is a valid way to analyze a literary work. I mean, I'm sure Proust's point of view that the "details of the life of the artist are utterly transformed in the work of art" (also taken directly from the article) is also a good point, but I think I need to read more about that to know enough to have an opinion about it.
Anyway, do you think the Author means nothing - that his or her work stands alone in the face of interpretation? I'd like to research more about this.
OK, that's all for now...bye!
I really enjoyed reading the article "What Is Literary Theory?" I guess I enjoyed it because I don't really know anything about literary theory. I probably should, as this is my 5th (yes, my 5th!) year in college, and although I might have actually learned some things about literary theory throughout my college experience so far, I can't really recall anything specific. So this was a new experience for me.
To start, I want to put it out there that I've always had problems understanding literary criticism. I had no idea it was a part of literary theory (am I supposed to capitalize those terms? hmm...) To help me understand the different kinds of literary criticism better, I always thought of the different kinds of critcisms as different lenses. So, in this article, the author talks about how Chinua Achebe, looking through the "postcolonial" lens, says that Conrad's Heart of Darkness "fails to grant full humanity to the Africans it depicts," and that perspective is created from a postcolonial literary theory that presupposes a history of exploitation and racism (straight from the article, but I don't know how to cite that). Kind of like a camera with all different color lenses that you can switch- you can switch to a red lens, and when you look through the viewfinder, everything you see will be red. Switch to a blue lens, and everything you see will be blue. Switch to a feminist critic's lens, and you'll see all the parts a feminist critic would be interested in...that might all sound really elementary to a lot of people in this class, but for me, it's the easiest way to understand literary criticism. And if I'm wrong, PLEASE tell me!
One form of literary criticism I think is really interesting is the one that Charles Augustin Saint Beuve talked about- that a work of literature could be entirely explained and and analyzed in terms of the biography of the author. I can understand this, because I don't see how an author could completely take him/herself out of the literature they are writing. So, I think that examining the life of the author is a valid way to analyze a literary work. I mean, I'm sure Proust's point of view that the "details of the life of the artist are utterly transformed in the work of art" (also taken directly from the article) is also a good point, but I think I need to read more about that to know enough to have an opinion about it.
Anyway, do you think the Author means nothing - that his or her work stands alone in the face of interpretation? I'd like to research more about this.
OK, that's all for now...bye!
