# Teaching > General Teaching >  Literary theory?

## Tuesday

Hi there,

I'm not really sure if this is even the right sub-forum to post this question in, but since there are a lot of teachers in here I guess someone might be able to help me.

At the moment I feel kind of lost within the whole giant field of what one may call "literary theory". I am trying to understand how exactly literature works, why we find it interesting and why it touches us on an emotional level. In order to achieve this, I have been trying to find out about such things as genres, literary movements, theories of how literature might be interpreted and -- of course -- how the use of language effects the way we react to something we read or hear. Unfortunately, as of now I haven't really been able to find a book that covers all those themes in a comprehensive and understandable way. I really want to understand how all those aspects that make up literature connect to each other -- and how they might be seperated into different categories and different levels.

For example: 

Is language in itself a literary element? How exactly do point-of-view, structure and narrative connect to each other? What exactly is "style"? Is it just the way the author uses language or does it also cover characters and topics that might be frequently used by the writer? Does dramatic-structure belong to the literary element of plot or to the literary element of narrative? Is a motif a device or an element? 

So, as you see, I am kind of lost. I have not been able to find one comprehensive book on this topic that shows how all those parts work together, how they are seperated and how they influence one another. For example, "Mastering English Literature" by Richard Gill is a really wonderfully interesting resource of knowledge, but it fails at giving a complete view of the whole field.

So what I'd like to ask you is: Can you recommend me any good books or websites on this topic?

----------


## Dreadnought

Well, I can't really help you on this topic, but I do know that "Literary Theory" is a field of college-level study, similar and closely related to the Comparative Literature, a field which I myself wish to follow in college.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_literature

----------


## Tuesday

Thanks for your reply...well, turns out you're right. Literary theory seems to be a whole different field of study in itself. I wasn't really aware of that, I just used the term because I thought it would make clear what it is that I am looking for. 

Maybe I should put it differently: Any good books on the _mechanics_ of literature and narratives?  :Wink:

----------


## Virgil

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.

----------


## Tuesday

@Virgil: I think you misunderstood me due to my use of the term "literary theory". As I pointed out, I'm not really interested in what is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_theory

I'm just really intrigued by all those literary devices and techniques...be it tropes, schemes, plot twists, motifs or foreshadowing. And now I'm trying to figure out how exactly all this stuff works, to put it short.

----------


## ennison

A pretty big question cove! One you'll only be able to answer after reading a lot of real books. Critical commentaries wont help unless you become familiar with a lot of literature. How would you know the critic wasn't just full of bs unless you read a lot yourself?

'Is language in itself a literary element? How exactly do point-of-view, structure and narrative connect to each other? What exactly is "style"? Is it just the way the author uses language or does it also cover characters and topics that might be frequently used by the writer? Does dramatic-structure belong to the literary element of plot or to the literary element of narrative? Is a motif a device or an element?'

OK BRIEFLY

Q1 Yes
Q2 Point-of-view is the angle from which the narrative is presented to us. Structure refers to the construction of the whole text and point-of-view is an integral part of that.
Q3 Yes to both bits but take the simple approach and consider it as the language. That may well be an important part of the theme.
Q4 I don't really get this question. It sounds like you are refering to drama rather than prose fiction.But in the passing I would say that not enough people make a clear distinction between plot and narrative because whatever the narrative or storyline is, it is definitely NOT synonymous with plot. Plot is a structural device.
Q5. Device or element could be synonomous here and I find that difficult to answer briefly. Motifs usually have a subconscious effect on the reader if they aint blatant.


Maybe a teacher could give you some more generalisations but I reckon that's all you'll get here for such a wide ranging series of questions.

----------


## Tuesday

> Q5. Device or element could be synonomous here and I find that difficult to answer briefly. Motifs usually have a subconscious effect on the reader if they aint blatant.


Hey, thanks for taking the time.  :Smile:  

In regard to "devices and elements": I'm referring mostly to the info and definitions given on this site: http://mrbraiman.home.att.net/lit.htm

By "dramatic structure" I meant such characteristics as rising action, falling action, climax and so on. I was just wondering if this has more to do with the _plot itself_, or more with _the way the plot is presented by the narrator_. I know that those things are interconnected and influence each other, I was just wondering.

And as to your first sentence: I've wondered about that also...is there really _one definitive and generally accepted_ way those terms are defined? It almost seems as if everybody has a different approach to it.

Just in case your wondering: I'm so interested in all this stuff because in school we were only taught about "the usual suspects": metaphors, similes, alliterations, puns, oxymorons and so on. Just some of those evergreen figures-of-speech. Now I'm trying to get a broader picture, especially in regards to literary techniques that don't necessarily have something to do with language, like all those devices concerning the plot.

----------


## Walter

> 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.


Tuesday, Virgil,
Exactly that same viewpoint, in all its parts, is supported by Francine Prose in her opening remarks in her recent book _How to Read Like a Writer_. And my own looking at the Lit. Crit. shelves at my local bookstore causes me to also agree.
I haven't seen a single book that covers the similar kinds of questions I have that you have, Tuesday, but I have had luck educating my self via google, searching for whatever term or idea is of interest at the moment, e.g. 5-part dramatic structure, intertextuality, etc.
I have concluded it will simply take my own reading for pleasure and then looking at a lot of books or google for answers.
Recently I have bought the Penguin _Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory_. Perhaps that might help assuage your longing. I have the feeling that it explains more individual terms than you or I will ever need to know.

----------


## Virgil

> Tuesday, Virgil,
> Exactly that same viewpoint, in all its parts, is supported by Francine Prose in her opening remarks in her recent book _How to Read Like a Writer_. And my own looking at the Lit. Crit. shelves at my local bookstore causes me to also agree.
> I haven't seen a single book that covers the similar kinds of questions I have that you have, Tuesday, but I have had luck educating my self via google, searching for whatever term or idea is of interest at the moment, e.g. 5-part dramatic structure, intertextuality, etc.
> I have concluded it will simply take my own reading for pleasure and then looking at a lot of books or google for answers.
> Recently I have bought the Penguin _Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory_. Perhaps that might help assuage your longing. I have the feeling that it explains more individual terms than you or I will ever need to know.


Very good Walter. I take it you haven't been forced into contemporary literary theory in any class. You're lucky. It's junk, but unfortunately it's something college students have to undergo. I saw a review of that Fracine Prose book and it caught my eye. It was a raving review. I've been wanting to buy it.

----------


## Walter

> Very good Walter. I take it you haven't been forced into contemporary literary theory in any class. You're lucky. It's junk, but unfortunately it's something college students have to undergo. I saw a review of that Fracine Prose book and it caught my eye. It was a raving review. I've been wanting to buy it.


No, my college was a long time ago and I was on the engineering track so I didn't get too deeply into anything literary. My reading has always been simply for enjoyment, until lately when I have been seeing some technical terms creeping into book discussions. Then I find out what they mean.
_Reading Like a Writer_ is fun to read because her examples are so great. In addition, there has been a forum discussion of her book, with her as a guest, over on Barnes and Noble during February in case you are interested.

----------


## Virgil

> No, my college was a long time ago and I was on the engineering track so I didn't get too deeply into anything literary. My reading has always been simply for enjoyment, until lately when I have been seeing some technical terms creeping into book discussions. Then I find out what they mean.
> _Reading Like a Writer_ is fun to read because her examples are so great. In addition, there has been a forum discussion of her book, with her as a guest, over on Barnes and Noble during February in case you are interested.


You're an engineer? So am I. I'm a mechanical engineer. But I got a master's in english lit after I graduated as an engineer. (read my profile and my introduction is on the first page of Introduce and Say Hi thread) That's where they force fed me this lit theory junk. 

Now I have to order that book. Thanks and I'll check Barnes and Noble.

----------


## Walter

> You're an engineer? So am I. I'm a mechanical engineer. But I got a master's in english lit after I graduated as an engineer. (read my profile and my introduction is on the first page of Introduce and Say Hi thread) That's where they force fed me this lit theory junk. 
> 
> Now I have to order that book. Thanks and I'll check Barnes and Noble.


Yes, I'm an electrical engineer and have worked with computers and software all my life. Now I'm semi-retired and finally have the time to read, the other thing I have always loved most. Reading and rereading are the major joys of my life at the moment, but addiction to the Web is not far behind. Life without computer or books would be impossible.

----------


## Virgil

> Yes, I'm an electrical engineer and have worked with computers and software all my life. Now I'm semi-retired and finally have the time to read, the other thing I have always loved most. Reading and rereading are the major joys of my life at the moment, but addicition to the Web is not far behind. Life without computer or books would be impossible.


Well, welcome to lit net Walter. I'm still 15-20 years from retirement, but I try to squeeze in reading and writing now that I'm on lit net when I can. Good to know of another engineer here.

----------


## Tuesday

Thanks for your time, Walter. I've had an eye on that Penguin dictionary for quite some time now and just ordered it via Amazon. The price is really low compared to most other books of that sort, especially the ones published by Norton, Oxford and Cambridge.

Virgil: I just checked out your introduction in the thread you mentioned, very interesting. Just out of curiosity: Where does your contempt for this more scholarly approach to literature stem from? I don't know much about things like deconstruction or formalism, but I think it would be at least interesting to learn something about it...after all, one doesn't have to believe in it. But then again, I'm probably 20 years younger than you are and teaching methods nowadays are quite different from what they were back then, I guess.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

Tuesday-- Not sure if you're still hanging around here, but I just came across this thread and thought I'd give a reply. First off, wonderful to see someone so curious and eager to understand more about how literature works. As others here have also commented, you probably won't find the answers to many of the questions you raise in a single book. This is partly because they are such large and complex questions, and partly because there are a variety of views and approaches to answering such questions. 

Some of the questions about terminology I think you'll probably have covered already if you've ordered the Penguin dictionary. If you're interested in going deeper into literary analysis, the best thing I can recommend is to read and keep on reading lots and lots of literature first and foremost (which I assume you are doing already or you wouldn't be interested in these questions), and to read critical texts associated with individual books that you're looking at. For this purpose (since finding good critical texts is a lot of work) I would highly recommend reading the Norton Critical Editions of some works you're interested in. These are fairly affordable paperback editions of "classic" literary works with context and criticism contained in the same volume as the work itself. For example, my Norton Critical Edition of Paradise Lost contains a brief biography of Milton, a chronology, an historian's account of his time period, numerous selections from Milton's other prose and poetry, pertinant selections from the bible, concise pieces on certain key concepts and topics in PL, exerpts from the thoughts of eleven famous writers (John Dryden to Virginia Wolf) about Milton, and the pertinent pieces of articles and books from eleven 20th and 21st century scholars to give the reader an idea of what people have had to say about Milton and how they approach his work. They have these editions for poetry, novels, plays, stories etc., and I'd highly recommend them as a way of starting to read secondary historical and critical approaches to literature. 

In terms of a more general overview of literary criticism and theory, I would recommend a book called _The Critical Tradition_, edited by David H. Richter. The current edition is fairly expensive but you may be able to find the 2nd edition at a very good public library (or certainly a university library if you have access to one) or I think there may also be some good deals on used 2nd editions on Amazon. It's a collection of selections of famous writing about literature and the study of literature (I think there's a similar anthology of criticism put out by Norton, which may also be useful, but I'm not as familiar with that one). The first half of the Richter (which would be the most useful for someone starting out) is called "Classic Texts in Literary Criticism," and gives you 44 essays with useful brief introductions by the editor, containing famous thoughts on literature. These span history and include Plato, Sidney, Pope, Kant, Coleridge, Hegel, Tolstoy and many others in between, ending with Susan Sontag. What's useful about this is that it gives you a good historical perspective on how great thinkers (many of them philosophers or writers themselves) have approached some of the questions you raise and much more. It will also help you understand better what the background is that current critics and other literati are responding to. 

The second half of the book contains writing by prominent scholars of the last century or so, including that literary theory that Virgil's so down on. Virgil's right that a lot of literary theory can be safely ignored, but if you're willing to sift through a bit you can at the very least sometimes find some interesting food for thought. I would only look at theory after first having read a lot of lit. and having looked at some of the history of literary criticism and more common sense observations and approaches to literature. Theory isn't really where you go for explanations about literature. Its purpose is more to spark thought on more abstract philosophical, cultural and historical issues in relation to literature. Since you mentioned it in the previous post, if you ever were to find yourself curious about what theories like formalism and deconstruction etc. are all about, I have just recently found what looks like an invaluable little book called _Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction_ by Jonathan Culler. It's in the Very Short Introductions series put out by Oxford U. Press, which are little pocket sized books offering concise introductions to a variety of topics for the very reasonable price of ten US dollars. I find that Culler's done a remarkably good job of making a number of very befuddling concepts as clear as possible, and I think it would be a good place to start if you did want to venture into the murky waters of Lit. Theory. Best of luck with your explorations. Feel free to come here and ask more questions or suggest topics for discussion as they arise along the way.

----------


## Walter

Yay, *Petrarch's Love!*
I'm glad you brought this thread back to life, especially because I found your essay and your recommendations very informative. I'll now be looking for Norton Critical Editions and for Richter's _The Critical Tradition,_ both new to me. It does, however, turn out that I have Jonathan Culler's _Literary theory - A Short Introduction_ and have found it very useful. It is at least a book I can read and somewhat understand. It stands bracketed midway in difficulty between two other books that I have also have:

_Introducing Critical Theory_ - Sim and van Loon - much much simpler and more highly readable because it is in graphic format (perhaps you say argh?  :Smile:  ) but it mentions just about every name I have ever heard of, and then a few; and

_How to do Theory_ - Wolfgang Iser - much deeper and more technical than I can easily digest, but nevertheless informative when one has a topic in mind and a serious reason for delving, as I did with Edward Said and Post-Colonial Discourse.

So, for the moment, those three are my arsenal down here at my level of understanding. Any and all comments or suggestions are very welcome.

----------


## Walter

> Thanks for your time, Walter. I've had an eye on that Penguin dictionary for quite some time now and just ordered it via Amazon. The price is really low compared to most other books of that sort, especially the ones published by Norton, Oxford and Cambridge.


Oh *Tuesday*,
I am so sorry to be slow in responding. I don't get here very often and I must have missed a notice that you had replied. I do really hope you enjoy the Penguin dictionary. The longer entries are interesting reads in themselves and it is _definitely_ a bargain compared to the big ones you mention.  :Smile:

----------


## Petrarch's Love

> Yay, *Petrarch's Love!*
> I'm glad you brought this thread back to life, especially because I found your essay and your recommendations very informative. I'll now be looking for Norton Critical Editions and for Richter's _The Critical Tradition,_ both new to me. It does, however, turn out that I have Jonathan Culler's _Literary theory - A Short Introduction_ and have found it very useful. It is at least a book I can read and somewhat understand. It stands bracketed midway in difficulty between two other books that I have also have:
> 
> _Introducing Critical Theory_ - Sim and van Loon - much much simpler and more highly readable because it is in graphic format (perhaps you say argh?  ) but it mentions just about every name I have ever heard of, and then a few; and
> 
> _How to do Theory_ - Wolfgang Iser - much deeper and more technical than I can easily digest, but nevertheless informative when one has a topic in mind and a serious reason for delving, as I did with Edward Said and Post-Colonial Discourse.
> 
> So, for the moment, those three are my arsenal down here at my level of understanding. Any and all comments or suggestions are very welcome.


Hi Walter--So glad my post could be helpful to someone, and thank you for the recommendations of the other intro to theory books. I checked out the Iser when I first got to grad. school and seem to recall it being fairly helpful. I haven't looked into the Sim and Van Loon one, but graphics sound amazing. I'm all for people learning theory from a comic book if it'll get the concepts across. Definitely have to check it out. As someone going into university teaching soon, I always appreciate hearing about things that might be potentially helpful for future inquisitive students (or, in this case, if I'm ever somehow compelled to teach intro to theory or something  :Eek: ). Could always use some more resources for my own knowledge too, since the whole point of literary theory seems to be that one perpetually does not understand.  :FRlol:

----------


## Walter

*Petrarch's Love,*
If any of my thoughts might help someone ever, that would be fantastic! For the present though, from the clarity of your post, it looks like you should have no trouble at all teaching lit. theory or anything else to anybody, and I wish you very well in that. I have also taken a look at the description of Richter's _Critical Tradition._ What a tome! Just a tad much for me right now, but still _very_ glad to know about it. Who knows it might end up on my shelf anyway, just to be there, in case.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

Thanks for kind comments and the encouraging words. Yes, the Richter is quite an impressive collection. It's a nice volume to have around for reference, to read around in, or to read through slowly and methodically. It's probably what I would teach out of if I did teach a course on lit. crit and theory. 

By the way, I realized I hadn't give you a proper welcome to the forums. Hope to see you around more.  :Smile:

----------


## Tuesday

*Petrarch's Love*

Wow, what a reply. Thanks a lot  :Smile:  

I think the Penguin Dictionary is really wonderful. So comprehensive and well written, I could spend hours just browsing through it, going from one cross-reference to the next. For example, I never knew that there are actually several different kinds of metaphors. And the entry on epics has really sparked my interest to tackle some of the classics like the Iliad or the Bhagavad Gita. 

I have to agree with you that critical editions are a good way to learn more about theory. For example, I think that the works of Joseph Conrad published by Everyman and edited by Cedric Watts really give the best possible information in such a concise form. I especially love the introductions where Watts gives this great overview of historical context, impact on the literary world and -- of course -- Conrad's quite unique use of language. The Enriched Classics series by Simon & Schuster is also quite useful in that respect. I'll definately give Norton a try next time, you've got me quite interested in them now.

Also, thank you very much for your further recommendations. I already added them on my "to read" list. As a matter of fact, just last week I held the "Very short introduction to Literary Theory" in my hands. I read the first two pages or so and found it to be quite good, especially since the author really "begins at the beginning"...explaining the differences between hypothesis and theory, for example. I just found it to be a bit expensive for its 150 pages...but that seems to be a general problem with scholarly works.

But anyway...how important is Literary Theory nowadays? Honestly, for most of my life I always thought that expressions like "postmodern" were just intellectual buzzwords. Just out of curiosity: What are some of those schools of thought that you think can be "safely ignored"?


*Walter*

As I mentioned above, I'm really happy with the Penguin Dictionary and I think I will expand my catalogue by adding the Penguin Dictionary of Synonyms & Antonyms in the near future. Seems to be a great source help, especially if one is not a native speaker.

----------


## Walter

*Tuesday,* So glad to see that you came back! And that you are a dictionary reader like myself. Now I'm going to have to check the different kinds of metaphor.  :Smile: 

*Petrarch's Love,* Many thanks for your welcome to the Lit Net Forums; I am glad to meet you also. The Forums are on my Favorites list, but now this particular discussion gets a Favorite listing all its own.

I hope to see you all, here and elsewhere around.  :Smile:

----------


## byquist

"A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature" by Wilfred Guerin, etc. is excellent.

----------


## jane-charlotte

Another book to try..."Modern Criticism and Theory" eds. Lodge and Wood...filled with articles from major strands of lit. theory: structuralism, deconstruction, Marxism, Feminism (American and French), Queer Theory, Post Colonial, hermeneutics, reader response and more...
I loved my theory class...despite the challenges, it opens up a whole new range of discussion for literature...it guides interpretation instead of confine it, making new thought possible.

----------


## Skipping Record

Hello! 

I've just realized that there was a "teaching" section of this forum, and I'm already glad that I have found it. I have another resourseful guide to add to your list:

Text and Contexts: Writing About Literature with Critical Theory by Steven Lynn

I've only used the first few sections of the book personally, but it's great. I got it for one of my classes this semester and have been far too busy to pick it up outside of class assignments. Once finals are over (next week! Can you believe it?) I'm excited to check out what the rest of the book has to offer. 

Literary theory drives me crazy sometimes (currently writing a New Criticism of Dracula and have been for months), but it's too facinating to dismiss.

And also - how do you italicize in a post? I'm not particularly computer literate...

----------


## Jolly McJollyso

> Hello! 
> 
> I've just realized that there was a "teaching" section of this forum, and I'm already glad that I have found it. I have another resourseful guide to add to your list:
> 
> Text and Contexts: Writing About Literature with Critical Theory by Steven Lynn
> 
> I've only used the first few sections of the book personally, but it's great. I got it for one of my classes this semester and have been far too busy to pick it up outside of class assignments. Once finals are over (next week! Can you believe it?) I'm excited to check out what the rest of the book has to offer. 
> 
> Literary theory drives me crazy sometimes (currently writing a New Criticism of Dracula and have been for months), but it's too facinating to dismiss.
> ...


Dracula, from what I remember of the book, lends itself more to a Marxist criticism (Dracula being the pure consumer who produces nothing but more consumers like himself) or even feminist theory (the concept of gaze fairly prevalent in the novel).

----------


## Skipping Record

I went with Feminist Theory, entitling it "The threat of the 'New' or: How I Learned to Stop Asserting Myself and Love My Role"

I just finished it about an hour ago, and frankly, I never want to think about Dracula again. Does anyone else have this outcome to doing critical theory?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I went with Feminist Theory, entitling it "The threat of the 'New' or: How I Learned to Stop Asserting Myself and Love My Role"


Yeah, _Dracula_ lends itself pretty easily to a Feminist/Gender reading.




> I just finished it about an hour ago, and frankly, I never want to think about Dracula again. Does anyone else have this outcome to doing critical theory?


It all depends, really. My two term papers this semester were a feminist/gender reading of basically everything Sylvia Plath ever wrote and an analysis of Pinter's _The Dumb Waiter_ in light of the principles of the theatre of the absurd. It'll probably be awhile before I read another Plath poem, but I found the absurdist criticism quite easy and natural and fascinating. For one of the essays on my English final, I did a bit of mythological criticism of _Frankenstein_, basically arguing that Shelley takes the Prometheus myth and has her main characters take turns playing Prometheus, the Fire and the Eagle. I find myth criticism to be both enormously entertaining and entirely useless in terms of coming to a better understanding of the story.

----------


## Jolly McJollyso

> I went with Feminist Theory, entitling it "The threat of the 'New' or: How I Learned to Stop Asserting Myself and Love My Role"
> 
> I just finished it about an hour ago, and frankly, I never want to think about Dracula again. Does anyone else have this outcome to doing critical theory?


Nah, I love theory. I did a psychoanalytic deconstruction of Aphra Behn's _The Rover_ for a literature class I'm taking and had tons of fun with it.

----------


## Tuesday

Wow, nice to see the thread is still of interest for other people  :Smile:  

Does anyone have any experience with archetypical/mythological literary theory? I recently discovered this mythological approach and found it quite interesting, to say the least. Especially all the connections between anthropology and psychology. I just bought James Frazer's "The Golden Bough", which not only seems to be a very important work in this specific field of theory but also influenced some important writers of 20th century literature. I'm really looking forward to start reading it in the next days.

----------


## 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 :Tongue:

----------


## 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.  :Smile:

----------


## 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  :FRlol:  


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. 
> ...


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.  :Confused:  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  :Biggrin:  
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  :Idea:  

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?

----------


## kittu

could any one of you explain these things:

1. What is "signifier" and "signified"? Can you explain in simple language but elaboratively?

2. What is the notion of Saussure about these terms?
3. What is the notion of Derrida about these terms?
4. How did Derrida attack on the notion of Saussure's "Signifier" and "Signified"?
5. Is there any elimentary self-learning book for beginners of theory?

----------


## ralfyman

As mentioned earlier, try Eagleton's book for an intro. From there, move on to Richter, and probably for additional readings, Leitch. Finally, go for the complete versions of various works mentioned in the anthologies.

----------


## Brock

As ralfyman says, Eagleton's _Literary Theory_ is the meatball special in terms of getting to know literary theory. It's getting on a bit now, but it's excellent, engaging, and stimulating stuff. I've read it twice now and highly recommend it.

----------


## punctdiform

Hello,

I have read most of Culler's "Very Short Introduction.." but have found it rather dry in so far as relevant examples. I don't know about you but these are the key to my personal understanding of some new idea I am tinkering with. 

In this sense, I came across a rather good book titled "The Art of Fiction - Illustrated from Classic and Modern Texts" by David Lodge. It features clear exemplification of some important literary concepts (the intrusive author, stream of consciousness, point of view, intertextuality, inner monologue etc) through canonical texts of the English and American tradition (Joyce, Woolf, Fowles, Nabokov etc.). I have found more useful than any other book I have read on the subject. 

My question, then, is: Has anyone else read it and if so, how did it affect you and what other works in this manner are there? 

Thanks,
Cris.
(first post)

----------


## bro7i

hello every body 

plz can your helpe me about liturary theory especially three theory (structuralism , marxism and feminist theory) and how can applieing these theory in literary work

----------


## cafolini

I don't want to be even funnier than the actual situation, but for about 50 years now it has seemed to me that literary theories are like fruits in a farmer's market. Too many for even 1000 meals.
Not that I do it all the time, but I would prefer analysing the assembly line of a car manufacturer. Sorry I wasn't tall enough to make it to the academic team.

----------


## bro7i

good evening 
no body could help me to understand thes theory

----------


## bro7i

hi every body 
I was asked about liturary theory , I have no answer so I make offert to fined the answer and I want to shair for bineft to the all , if I am mistak plz correcte me 
this is a sammary of what I am understande 
liturary theory is a tools , method and view lamp to help or to understand liturary work and studing theory to look deeply of the issues , also to think about issues deeply and analyeses the liturary work in depth 
one of these theory which I intrest about it is Structuralism (structure at novel or poem) 
looking at linguistic devices , binary oppositions , point of view , narrations. 
Feminism theory which intrest of the role of women in society , ptriarchy &matriarchy , women right , women characters and relationship between men and women .
Marxism theory looking of class struggle , economic issues , exploitation in capitalist society , child laboure and materialism .

----------


## osho

Never chase after literary theory. I think all literary theories are hogwash. Writers are creators and do not want to cocoon themselves in a particular set of theories and if they do they will cripple themselves. Today some of the great writers, poets who once were popular are forgotten since they were not contained in any theorists' or critics' frame. So many deserving writers have remained distant or barred from getting awards or applauses or getting published. That is why I never care whether critics like my poems or not. I do not care even if some critics become very critical of my poems and what makes me happy is to see how many people read my poems not how many comments or appreciations I have received

----------


## cafolini

> Never chase after literary theory. I think all literary theories are hogwash. Writers are creators and do not want to cocoon themselves in a particular set of theories and if they do they will cripple themselves. Today some of the great writers, poets who once were popular are forgotten since they were not contained in any theorists' or critics' frame. So many deserving writers have remained distant or barred from getting awards or applauses or getting published. That is why I never care whether critics like my poems or not. I do not care even if some critics become very critical of my poems and what makes me happy is to see how many people read my poems not how many comments or appreciations I have received


Very truthfull.

----------

