As I sit here contemplating the content of this post, I have a stack of freshly read articles and a stack of moldy, week old essays that need to be graded. Now, in my response to these stacks, if I am a Formalist, I need to refrain from attention to how my students were feeling that day as this school rejects the notion of "the author's feelings as he (or she) composed it" (Brooks). On the other hand, should I decide to view these stacks from the school of Structuralists, I need to not only examine the emotions of the author, but all of the factors, or structures that tie in to each piece.
These two schools provided a great contrast to show how theory changes, and how the theories may, in turn, revolt against one another. When we also throw in the rules of Semiotics and the Liberal Humanists it seems we can almost categorize every critic thus far. We, however, are not even halfway through the semester yet so this is not possible.
I don't know if there is a term for the compulsive need to categorize everything or everyone, but the reading from Barry did make me chuckle when he wrote "...if you practice lit. crit. and you don't call yourself a Marxist critic, or a structuralist...then you are probably a liberal humanist" (3). Is it necessary to make sure everyone is labeled? Is this another convention of theory?
The introduction/first chapter of Barry was extremely helpful in laying a foundation for reading about these theories. Doug did discuss, last semester, how to read these scholarly works, but reading it again helped. The five points of theory on page 35 will also be great to refer back to throughout the semester.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I saw structuralism as a logical revolt against the liberal humanism that had kept the study of literature divorced from all context as well. I think humans need contextual connections possibly even more than they need categories. Good question...What lies behind our need to either categorize or synthesize?
ReplyDeleteI think we crave relationships - with each other and with those who we don't even know personally. Categorization creates connections and relationships. It helps us know which group we belong with, and helps us know that others think like we do.
ReplyDeleteI think humans naturally want to categorize things in order to make sense of the world. The brain works kind of like a filing cabinet. When we encounter something new, our brain searches our filing cabinet for a suitable area to file new information. We usually remember the things that we can connect with other things and forget information that we are unable to make connections to prior knowledge.
ReplyDeleteIn reading Barry this week, I really grasped his no nonsense approach to theory. Then again, why can't we just read literature instead of wanting to categorize every conversation we have as a particular theory. This reminds me of that great song, "Video Killed the Radio Star," but instead the song would be, "Theory Killed Literature."
I am beginning to appreciate the insight of the Kenneth Burke's article Doug handed out in class. "Imagine that you enter a parlor" which of course is the setting for literary theory. The discussion is vigorous, you put in your oar, the discussion is interminable, you depart and the discussion is still vigorously in progress. As progeny of the humans who split hairs over what rhetoric was and wasn't, there is no surprise in what has evolved.
ReplyDelete