More on literary theory
This entry was originally posted on 6 February 2004 at 4:20 p.m.
Okay, so maybe literary theory can be useful.
I say this only because i think it can be useful to use different lenses (Marxist, feminist, capitalist, structuralist, whatever) as a means of interpreting literature. That aspect of it speaks to the relativist in me: it's interesting to look at a text as a certain group would interpret it.
However.
The relativist in me also thinks that none of the schools of literary theory is superior--in terms of "correctness"--to any other. And herein lies the problem: as with other academic disciplines, the people who teach theory are bound to become specialized. This happens quite a bit--in archaeology, people often become so specialized that they can only talk about one aspect of a small set of geographically limited cultures within a single, short time period. Same goes for philosophy or psychology or criminology: people specialize in history/metaphysics/epistemology/whatever or they specialize in behaviorism/clinical/neuropsych/whatever or they specialize in policing/corrections/theory/juvenile justice/whatever.
The problem is, once you become that specialized, your specialty becomes your entire frame of reference. Everything you say, every interpretation you make, is based on that one perspective. I've known many people (academics and enthusiasts alike) who have fallen prey to that kind of tunnel vision.
If literary theory is to be taught, it needs to be taught within a context that it is sometimes useful to interpret a text through a certain perspective, but it is always important to experience literature directly as a reader first and apply whatever theoretical framework second. Furthermore, no one theoretical framework is going to provide all of the answers for any given text. If one is going to apply theory to texts, he must be willing to concede that other perspectives will have equally valid and interesting things to say about a text.
And finally, relativism aside, the notion that there is no such thing as a "good book" or a "bad book" is absurd. Writers write with different levels of skill. Some writers are excellent storytellers who write very clunky prose. Others write musical prose but can't tell a story. The rare breed can pull off both telling a story and telling it well. It is silly to assume that a reader will be nonjudgmental when it comes to basics like plot, style, theme, imagery, and technique. Just as there are excellent musicians or athletes, there are writers who excel at their craft (though they're few and far between, IMHO); likewise, just as there are musicians who aren't technically capable of performing complicated pieces, or athletes who who don't have the physical capacity to run a marathon, there are writers who have yet to fully hone their abilities.
Are all stories valid? That's another question. I lean toward "yes" on this one. A story might be utter crap, but that doesn't make it any less real or any less a story or any less valid than a masterpiece by some other author.
So this is where i stand on literary theory: it's not the be-all, end-all of literature. It's a tool, a set of filters to be applied in order to gain a new perspective on a text--but only after the text has been viewed with clear eyes.
Okay, so maybe literary theory can be useful.
I say this only because i think it can be useful to use different lenses (Marxist, feminist, capitalist, structuralist, whatever) as a means of interpreting literature. That aspect of it speaks to the relativist in me: it's interesting to look at a text as a certain group would interpret it.
However.
The relativist in me also thinks that none of the schools of literary theory is superior--in terms of "correctness"--to any other. And herein lies the problem: as with other academic disciplines, the people who teach theory are bound to become specialized. This happens quite a bit--in archaeology, people often become so specialized that they can only talk about one aspect of a small set of geographically limited cultures within a single, short time period. Same goes for philosophy or psychology or criminology: people specialize in history/metaphysics/epistemology/whatever or they specialize in behaviorism/clinical/neuropsych/whatever or they specialize in policing/corrections/theory/juvenile justice/whatever.
The problem is, once you become that specialized, your specialty becomes your entire frame of reference. Everything you say, every interpretation you make, is based on that one perspective. I've known many people (academics and enthusiasts alike) who have fallen prey to that kind of tunnel vision.
If literary theory is to be taught, it needs to be taught within a context that it is sometimes useful to interpret a text through a certain perspective, but it is always important to experience literature directly as a reader first and apply whatever theoretical framework second. Furthermore, no one theoretical framework is going to provide all of the answers for any given text. If one is going to apply theory to texts, he must be willing to concede that other perspectives will have equally valid and interesting things to say about a text.
And finally, relativism aside, the notion that there is no such thing as a "good book" or a "bad book" is absurd. Writers write with different levels of skill. Some writers are excellent storytellers who write very clunky prose. Others write musical prose but can't tell a story. The rare breed can pull off both telling a story and telling it well. It is silly to assume that a reader will be nonjudgmental when it comes to basics like plot, style, theme, imagery, and technique. Just as there are excellent musicians or athletes, there are writers who excel at their craft (though they're few and far between, IMHO); likewise, just as there are musicians who aren't technically capable of performing complicated pieces, or athletes who who don't have the physical capacity to run a marathon, there are writers who have yet to fully hone their abilities.
Are all stories valid? That's another question. I lean toward "yes" on this one. A story might be utter crap, but that doesn't make it any less real or any less a story or any less valid than a masterpiece by some other author.
So this is where i stand on literary theory: it's not the be-all, end-all of literature. It's a tool, a set of filters to be applied in order to gain a new perspective on a text--but only after the text has been viewed with clear eyes.
posted by Circus at 12:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home