WHAT IS LITERARY THEORY

Richar d L. W. Clar k e LI TS2306 Not es 01C 1 W H AT I S LI TERARY TH EORY? Lit er ar y crit icism is t he pr act ice of int er pr et ing and wr it ing about lit er at ure as t he lat t er , in t ur n, st r iv es t o m ak e sense of t he wor ld. Lit er ar y t heor y is t he st udy of t he pr inciples which infor m how crit ics m ak e sense of lit er ar y wor k s. There ar e at least fiv e m ain way s of, or appr oaches t o, int er pr et ing lit er at ure. I would suggest t hat t he kinds of quest ions which ar e set on lit er ar y t ex t s ( whet her in class or in an ex am set t ing) m ust cor r espond in one way or anot her t o t hese fiv e basic way s of int er pr et in g lit er ar y t ex t s. A) Th e m ost obvious, com m onsensical w ay t o t hin k of lit er at ur e is as a ver bal r epr esent at ion of t he r eal w or ld. Lit er ar y w or ks, especially pr ose fict ion, ar e t hought t o be r ealist ic if t hey hold a m irr or up t o ‘life.’ The realism of par t icular char act er s, t heir fidelit y t o act ual hum an beings, is oft en at t he cr ux of such concerns. I n t echnical t er m s, t his is called t he ‘m im et ic’ appr oach t o crit icism . Hence, quest ions of t he sor t : “ ‘Lam m in g’s gift for t he depict ion of t he West I ndian labour er is unpar alleled.’ Discuss wit h refer ence t o I n t he Cast le of m y Sk in.” B) Anot her obv ious way of t hinking about lit er at ure is t o read it for what it rev eals about t he aut hor and, by ex t ension, t he place and t im e ( t he social and hist or ical cont ex t ) in which s/ he lived. Lit er at ure, fr om t his point of v iew, is a for m of self- ex pr ession and lit er ary work s ( especially ly ric poem s) are seen as windows int o t h e soul of t heir wr it er s. I n t echnical t er m s, t his is called t he ‘ex pr essiv e’ appr oach t o crit icism . Hen ce, quest ions of t he sor t : “ ‘A close ex am inat ion of Shak espear e’s sonnet s rev eal t he pr esence of a beaut iful soul.’ Would you agr ee?” or “ Wor dsw or t h’s poet r y r eveals m u ch not only about t he m an but about t he world in which he liv ed.” Discuss wit h reference t o his Ly rical Ballads.” C) Som e crit ics are concer ned wit h t he im pact , especially of a m or al k ind, which lit er at ur e has upon t he audience. For exam ple, can lit er at ur e ( and, by ext ension, ot h er cult ur al pract ices lik e m usic) hav e a bad effect upon t h ose who ar e ex posed t o it ? Can lit erat ur e m ak e you adopt deplor able at t it udes and ev en do bad t hings? Does lit er at ure accor dingly need t o be censor ed? On t he ot her hand, can lit er at ure also hav e a good im pact on t he r eader ? Concer ns of t his sor t ar e oft en gr ouped under what is som et im es called t he ‘pragm at ic’ appr oach t o crit icism . Hence, quest ions of t he sor t : “ ‘Aeschy lus’ play s ar e a hot bed of v ice and m ur der.’ Do y ou t h ink t h ey should be bann ed? I f so, why ?” I t should be not ed t hat , in r ecent y ear s, som e crit ics are concer ned less wit h t he im pact which lit er at ur e has on t h e reader t han t he ot her way ar oun d, t hat is, wit h t he im pact which t he reader has on t he wor k . I n ot her wor ds, ar e reader s passive absor ber s of t he m eanin g wait in g t o be foun d in a giv en wor k or do t hey necessar ily im pose t heir subj ect iv e point of v iew, t heir pr efer ences, t heir biases and what not on t he wor k in quest ion? To put t his anot her way , som e t heor ist s ar gue t hat lit er ar y crit icism is not an im per sonal, obj ect iv e affair but a necessar ily subj ect iv e and per spect iv al under t aking, t h at is, we alw ay s cr it icise lit er ar y wor k s fr om a par t icular angle. D) Ot her cr it ics at t em pt t o descr ibe t he v er bal for m or st r uct ur e of t he wor k , in ot her wor ds, how a giv en wor k is put t oget her and, im por t ant ly , t o what end. The focus of such cr it ics is on one or m or e of t he following elem ent s: C t he genr e: poet r y , pr ose fict ion or dr am a t oget her wit h t he v ar ious sub- cat egor ies ( e.g. a t r agedy as opposed t o a com ic play, or ly r ic as opposed t o epic poet r y) ; C t he dev elopm ent of t he wor k fr om beginnin g t o end: t he plot - st r uct ur e of a play , Richar d L. W. Clar k e LI TS2306 Not es 01C 2 t he nar rat iv e st r uct ur e of a shor t st or y or nov el and t he point of v iew from which t h e st or y is nar r at ed, et c.; and C t he dict ion of t he wor k , especially it s figur at iv e language ( m et aphor s, sim iles, et c.) . This is called t he ‘obj ect iv e’ appr oach t o crit icism . Hen ce, quest ions of t he sort : “ ‘A m ixt ure of pit y and fear is inev it ably inspired in t he audience.’ How ex act ly does t he plot st r uct ur e of King Lear pr oduce t hese em ot ions?” E) The final cr it ical appr oach, for which t her e is no fancy nam e per se, at t em pt s t o sit uat e each wr it er and his or her wor k s in r elat ion t o what is som et im es t erm ed ‘lit er ar y hist or y ’ and, in som e cases, t h e so- called ‘canon.’ Lit er at u r e has a hist or y ( in t h e sense t hat Chaucer pr ecedes Shak espear e who pr ecedes Wor dswor t h, and so on) and each wr it er wor k s dur ing a par t icular per iod of t hat hist or y . Cr it ics int er est ed in lit er at ure fr om t his angle t r y t o hist orically cat egor ise aut h or s ( e.g. Shak espear e is nor m ally classified as a Renaissance wr it er while Wor dswor t h is deem ed a Rom ant ic) and t o st udy whet her t he lit er at ure pr oduced dur ing a given per iod shar es cert ain char act er ist ics ( e.g. what m ust t he poet r y of a Shak espear e and a Milt on have in com m on for it t o be classified as Renaissance lit er at ure?) . Such cr it ics ar e also int er est ed in ex plor ing t he relat ionships of influence ( and r ej ect ion) linking ear lier and lat er wr it er s ( e.g. was Wor dswor t h influenced by Milt on? I f so, how ex act ly?) . Som e also ex plor e whet her par t icular wr it er s should belong t o what is oft en called t he ‘canon,’ t hat sm all num ber of cor e wr it er s and t heir wor k s who ar e t hought t o be inher ent ly m or e v aluable and t hus w or t h st udy ing abov e all ot her s. Hence, quest ions such as: “ What exact ly is ‘Rom ant ic’ about Wor dsw or t h’s poet r y?” or “ How do Post - colonial Caribbean writ er s r esist t he influen ce of canonical writ er s lik e Shak espeare?” . I t should be not ed t hat t hese appr oaches ar e not m ut ually ex clusive and oft en ov er lap wit h one anot her . For ex am ple, t o discuss what a lit er ar y wor k repr esent s ( a par t icular place and t im e and t he people who in habit t hem ) alm ost inev it ably necessit at es an ex am inat ion of how ex act ly it does so ( nar r at ive st ruct ur e, use of figur at ive language, and so on) . I n ot her words, a m im et ic appr oach t o crit icism is oft en inev it ably deployed in conj unct ion wit h t he obj ect iv e appr oach. By t he sam e t ok en, a discussion of what a lit er ar y wor k r eveals about it s w r it er and/ or his or her w or ld is m ost oft en in ext r icably lin ked t o an ex am inat ion of t he pr ecise feat ures of t he language used by t he wr it er . I n t his case, t hen, t he ex pr essiv e appr oach goes hand in h and wit h t he obj ect iv e. WORLD ( MI METI C) WRI TER ( EXPRESSI VE) –> TEXT –> READER ( PRAGMATI C) LANGUAGE ( OBJECTI VE) For a useful ov er v iew of t he m ain appr oaches t o lit er ar y crit icism , please see t he opening ch apt er ent it led “ I nt rodu ct ion: Or ien t at ion of Crit ical Th eories” of M. H. Abram s’ The Mirr or and t he Lam p.