|
What's your opinion on the various styles or literary criticism and ways of reading? I'm currently pursuing a two-year research master program and I'm being drowned past the eyeballs with hermeneutics, semiotics, deconstruction an pretty much all the -isms. In my opinion, I should have decent grounding in these methodologies, but I find that it's very hard at some point to relate the theory to a work of literature. For example, I was reading a discussion between Gadamer and Derrida for one of my classes and at some point I just got so fed up with the whole thing. You get the feeling that it's only theory in response to theory, which is a really fascinating discussion, but the way in which I need to apply this to an actual reading or critique gets a little lost. Junior G-man fucked around with this message at 21:07 on May 12, 2009 |
#
¿
May 12, 2009 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:In reply to someone asking about critical theories (I almost have my BA in English Lit so I have some knowledge) - deconstructionism sucks. That was me  quote:At least the ones I've read. Most of it is nonsense, like I have a hard time figuring out what they are exactly getting at. Granted, whenever I get a definition on deconstructionism, I'm always left profoundly confused as to what they are trying to argue (it has something to do with the inherent contradictions within the text, or something like that, I've never been 100% sure). - this is where I do my best to demonstrate deconstructionism, skip all this if you know this. I am at best a well-read layman, so YMMV. Also, deconstruction is vastly more complicated than my little attempt here, but at least it's something. - Well deconstruction, as far as I can tell, centres on a desire to dissolve the dualities that structuralism relies on in order to build deep structures (eg. a story is a HERO, undergoing A JOURNEY, is CHANGED and COMES HOME (wherein the the capitalised bits are core concepts within structuralism)). Deconstruction asks the questions like "If there is a HERO, then there must be a NOT-HERO in order for the HERO to exist, and if that is true, how exactly is the HERO different and can we collapse the dualism and say that the HERO is equal to the NON-HERO?" The way that this is done, and it is very clever, is what Derrida argues in "Structure, Sign, and Play within the Structuralist Discourse" (read here), this basically landed like a nuclear bomb on the structuralist discourse that had been dominant for ~40 years. Basically he argues that there is such no thing as definite meaning on which to base the structures that have been prevalent up to that point. Here's how he does it: If I ask you what "cat" means (and this is taking into account sign/signifier relationships that say that c-a-t is merely random markings that we have come to associate with a particular concept) then you will tell me something like: "Furry animal, has a tail, whiskers, chases mice etc." Next, I will then ask you, what does "mice" mean? You will then give me another set of explanations at which point I will ask you the same question, but ask you to define a different term. In doing this, I show that there is no such thing as absolute meaning (a Kantian 'ding an sich') but only a succession of meanings that endlessly defers to other meanings. The problem with such a discourse is, of course, that you can now say "well if there is no definite meaning, what is the point of literature/literary studies (or life) at all? If we can never figure out the meaning of something, why try? This is where Derrida answers with saying that just because you can't ever see outside your cave to the idea-world outside, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try. What you should do is embrace this fundamental uncertainty that lives within language (that of endlessly deferred (and thus unfixed) meaning) and play with this uncertainty. The task of deconstruction is to show that these fixed categories within a structuralist discourse (like HOME, HERO, JOURNEY) actually do not have some intrinsic value but are part of an opposition (NOT-HOME, NOT-HERO, NOT-JOURNEY) that can be dissolved. Derrida doesn't say that all discourse about literature is futile, but that we merely should let go of some notion of an attainable, non-reducible, absolute truth within text. - Structuralism is the seatch for what derrida calls "a truth or an origin which is free from freeplay and from the order of the sign" (Derrida), whereas deconstruction accepts freeplay and allows for a manifold of interpretations that are allowed to fall outside the structure. The problem, of course, is that deconstructionists themselves have sometimes taken on some air of all-knowing smugness because they see other theories as subservient to their own. And that French philosophers of the 20th century are mostly unreadable cunts. If you want to read a really good piece on the whole thing read: 1. Dialogue and Deconstruction, the Gadamer-Derrida Encounter. Ed. Michelfelder and Palmer. SUNY Press. (Here) then 2. Dialogue disrupted: Derrida, Gadamer and the Ethics of Discussion. Ed. Swartz and Cilliers (Here, but you need access to EBSCOhost) 1 will confuse the poo poo out of you. 2 will go a long way towards explaining it. All this requires some knowledge of literary theory. quote:The other one I'm not a huge fan of is the psychological study, but that's mostly because it appears to superimpose a lot onto the text. It can be an interesting read, but often times, they'll end up arguing something the text just has no evidence for. Psych is so heavily indebted to Freud that they sometimes just go nuts, I agree. Freud himself said that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." I don't think it's without merit, but it often allows people to go nuts with sexuality without much check on their opinions. Queer theory, as an offshoot of feminist, postcolonial, and psych theory, often does the same thing, I agree with you. The most fascinating and emergent theoretical framework for me is ecocriticism, which is a relatively new field that attempts to demonstrate the literature has so often been about the human experience, while forgetting nature and sense of place. It's politically motivated by the environmental crisis, but that just makes it interesting and active to me. edit: Wow, that's more wall-of-text than I meant. Junior G-man fucked around with this message at 16:16 on May 14, 2009 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2009 16:09
|
|
|
How do you deal with/detect plagiarism, if you've encountered it at all? My university is pretty large and I haven't heard stories from my own department, but I imagine that there must be cases. I know most professors use electronic scanners to ensure legitimacy, but do you have any stories/methods that you use?
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2009 19:53
|
|
|
Brainworm posted:But Bret Easton Ellis, Chuck Klosterman, Dave Eggers, and Chuck Palahniuk have all done some good stuff. Stephen King's an incredible writer when he's not high (omit ~1980-2000). Toni Morrison's early work is at least interesting, but she's a lot better at writing herself into interesting situations than writing her way out of them (see Beloved). I'll agree with you on Palahniuk so far as to say that his prose construction is really interesting and has a sort of frantic note to it that makes his books incredibly readable, but as to whether or not he will be considered part of the major works of our times is up in the air for me. While his prose is nice, his stories so very often rely on quirkyness or strangeness for their effect, all channeled through similar characters. Ellis, in my mind, is the far greater author because he seems to be able to channel different people in his writing, even if his discourse is always about the emptyness of modern life. I assume you have read Lunar Park and I was wondering what your opinion on it was? I think that he got a little too carried away by his own cleverness and failed to present a novel that is worthy of Less than Zero or The Rules of Attraction. Have you seen the movie version of Rules of Attraction? Any thoughts? I had to read Beloved (AGAIN!, it seems standard material for any course on American Lit.; somehow everyone manages to jam it in there) and I couldn't agree more. I always find the conclusion to the novel (after Beloved turns out to be a poltergeist redux) so disappointing. But I did get Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle in a course on nuclear criticism though
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2009 14:31
|
|