English 5522 - Literary Theory and Criticism
Introduction To Criticism
Reading through the introduction to each of the types of literary criticism brought a sense of delight because of the immensity of ways scholars are able to look at any particular work of literature. Unlike the ancient Greeks whose options were minimal (i.e., having only classical theory and criticism), we can access literature through a greater number of different looking-glasses.
It has been at least two years since I sat through Dr. P--'s Literary Theory course. I still remember how terribly intimidated I was by all of the terms and ideas and figures that go along with the history of literary theory and criticism. Indeed Plato's assertion that, "the unexamined life is not worth living," is a worthy maxim (Qtd. in Leitch). However, a life over-scrutinized may cause ulcers! That same feeling of anxiety came over me briefly as I read once again about people like Derrida and Saussure. But I tried to relax and remind myself that I survived Dr. P--'s class and gained some valuable insight from it. I can only expect more of the same success out of this class.
I thought it was interesting that the editor of this anthology felt it was important to define "interpretation" and "literature." I can appreciate the value of informing the reader that theory and criticism must have a subject, namely literature, and a vehicle, interpretation. If the subject is not defined, how can we know if it is worthy of investigation? Further, we must establish some sort of road map in order to know where we are going with the literary work itself. So, if a theory of interpretation is the road map, and theory or method of criticism (a part of interpretation) is the vehicle, and literature is the point of departure, then it follows that our destination is meaning. Is meaning is found in textual elements like tropes and symbols? Are these symbols permanently fixed or are they changeable according to considerations of time and space? It seems to me that whatever road map we decide to choose, it will determine what destination the critic will ultimately reach. In other words, the method of criticism we use has much to do with the final outcome of meaning. After all, the meaning of a text could be quite different if you use Reader-response theory as opposed to Feminism.
I have an opinion on another matter that might change as I familiarize myself with each of the types literary theories. It seems that certain theories have close similarities to one another. For instance, in Classical theory, Aristotle was concerned with literature as an accurate representation of reality. In the same way, Neoclassical theory esteemed "verisimilitude," which was the depiction of historical facts. Further, I see little distinction between Formalism and Structuralism. They both seem to speak to the issue of structure and form.
One last issue comes to mind during this preliminary look at the different theories. It seems that Marxism, Feminism, and other cultural matters will soon fall under the heading of New Historicism. Feminism, for example, will not always be a "pressure point" for every culture. As we move away from unfounded stereotypes and move closer to a global sensitivity of innate human rights of all men and women regardless of sex, religion or race, feminism will be a non-issue.