January 22, 2008 John S. Sonin English 423 – Ecocriticism Maier Literary Theory Query To me, I have one searing question when it comes to literary theory as it has been posited by Terry Eagleton. Doesn’t it prop the stage for a fascist future? Or, has it not already gathered the elements of literary history in a fashion that subsumes a self-consumed, bigoted reality existing right now in the present? With all the relevance and credence Eagleton pays to social “power” structures as the determining factor, as most histories (at least those that receive any social significance) valued by Western Culture seem to do, is it any wonder? It is an amoral pursuit of social power, as short-lived geologically as “social power” may be (and from a perspective of the strongest “precept” in humanity—the Golden Rule—it’s evident why such quests are so “short-lived”) which is evanescent. So it may be that Eagleton isn’t “prop[ping] the stage,” he’s just perpetuating this disease of self-destruction. Describing the basic foundation of Literature as ideological (or a cultural-specific phenomena) Eagleton, in his synopsis, Literary Theory—An Introduction, describes perspicaciously the amorphous history of “signifiers and signified” that may help bring definition to the concept, ”literature.” From the recognition of this as a distinct aspect of society during the 18th Century, Enlightenment, with the focus of its definition to be on “valued writing,” through to the “Romantics” in the Victorian Age of the 19th, with the idealistic influence of Marx and the recognition of literature to be a culture’s moral compass, on through to the 20th with F.R. Leavis’ “economic socialism.” Here is where Structuralism, with attention paid to this amorphous definition, yet eternal conceptualization, as Phenomenology (singular-uniqueness), Hermeneutic (interpretive quality), and Receptive (influence on reader) theories, was born. The concept of Literature in the mid and later 20th Century had come to be known as Post-Structuralism with what may seem to present an appeal to some of the basest desires like sex and power. Maybe that’s why Eagleton, writing his Literary Theory introduction at the end of the 20th, seemed to be perpetuating the pessimistic, power-grabbing, “I can manipulate unaccountable language,” Western Culture ideology of our time. But, as with orbital retrogression, that unaccountable language manipulation, structurally exposed by Eagleton, is gravitationally coalescing to the blossom of fascist thought and eventual implosion, in his introductory review. In any event, Eagleton also gives us all optimistic hope in the concluding synopsis of his synopsis describing the current movement of this amorphous concept “Literature” as being animated by Feminism. “Feminism” seems to be the current mobilizing social movement that can help draw Western Culture back from the extreme of complete selfishness to the middle-ground of Justice. I have another question which was crystallized by Eagleton’s characterization of all schools of thought associated with this concept we call literature, but most pointedly characterized with his understanding of Semiotics. It seems all thought patterns begin to breakup and disperse into an infinite level of necessary definition and explanation before the bits of information become so disparate to be unrecognizable. This I can liken to the only real constant in the universe, entropy, wherein all atoms wish to disperse and be as far away from all other atoms as can evenly blanket, on a three dimensionally level, the universe. “Entropy” seems to be the physical explanation for the humanity’s “Golden Rule” precept.
So I should probably start out by saying that I haven't finished the reading-- I have found it quite dense, and I'll continue working on it until class, but I don't expect to have all of it read.
The first question I would like to address is the subject of Eagleton's Introduction: What is literature? I think he is very persuasive in suggesting that literature is valued writing, and his definition incorporates the idea that since it is value-laden, the notion of literature changes from person to person. Although this is certainly a vague definition, I think it is a pretty good one.
Good though it may be, I think Eagleton could go a bit further. I have been thinking that the definition could be extended to say that 'literature is valued writing which helps the reader better understnad his/her identity.' On some level, we all associate ourselves with some things and some people, and we disassociate ourselves with others. Through these associations, or groups that we belong to or groups that we don't belong to, we are able to create some notion of identity. And I think that literature aids us in making these associations. In his example about the sign by the escalator, the drunken man views the sign as literature because he takes from it some deeper meaning-- he may realize something about his relationship with dogs, or to the natural world. In this sense, the sign is literature because the drunken man values it AND because it in some way informs his sense of self. A ticket stub, or even a biology textbook, on the other hand, is less likely to affect our sense of identity, and we are therefore much less likely to regard it as literature.
Okay, so I also have another question: In his definition of literature, Eagleton suggests that it is 'subjective' and changing, so why then is it necessary to study the history of literary criticism? If we accept that our notions of literature differ from those of centuries past, and we respond to literature differently than previous generations, then why do we concern ourselves with their responses? Eagleton's definition of literature seems to suggest this sense of absolute relativism. At the very least, it seems that literary analysis changes for every generation and every different social group, so why concern ourselves with its history, as he does in chapter one? Is it not more important to simply look at our modern society, and try to be aware our own system of values, to interpret literature? I suppose one answer would be that by studying different sets of literary criticism, which reflects different systems of values, that we may be able to improve our own critique of literature, which would suggest that our values would improve as well. But the notion of improving values is itself a judgment that is subjective-- if everything is relative, then there are no better values or worse values. Okay, sorry if that was difficult to follow. That's all for now.
Eagleton takes a great deal of time in the beginning of his book defining literature. Did anyone else get the impression that even with his ‘definition’ of literature, that a given paradigm or intellectual focus will ultimately determine what is literature and what is not? We are brought through the varying approaches that literary theory has gone through – phenomenology and reception theory to post-structuralism – are these varying approaches not simply trying to define and outline the importance of literature itself?
Andy Lounsbury Kevin Maier Eco-criticism 23 January 2008 I should probably preface this by confessing that I have yet to finish reading the book. Having said that, I have one question that immediately came to mind when reading the introduction. Eagleton devotes a little less than fifteen pages to defining literature, but I don’t feel like he has really done it. His definition can be summarized in a nutshell as any body of valued writing (thanks to Ben for that summary). But this still doesn’t really explain to me what is considered literature. For example, there really isn’t much of a debate when saying Harry Potter is valued writing, but I have yet to meet someone who would readily classify it as literature (or at least admit to it). Eagleton spends a lot of time focusing on poetry in his discussion of literature—particularly in the first chapter. I’m assuming he will shift his focus to prose at some point, but I havn’t reached it. Since I’ve long considered music and poetry to be essentially the same thing, I am wondering if music will ever be characterized as literature. If “The Flea” can find its way into a literature anthology, when can I expect to see Pink Floyd or The Who included in one? The same question applies to film as well (since it has to be written before it appears on screen), but since I have yet to see a film even remotely worthy of the title, I’ll let it slide for now. Finally, I why aren’t current works considered literature? Is it simply because literature must be, for lack of a better word, old? Is it unreasonable to presume that Rowling or Chrichton (probably not the best examples, but they popped into my head first) can ever be considered in the same league as Milton or Spencer?
Eagleton begins his look into literary theory (or nonliterary theory) with a very egoistic and bias, British approach to literary theory. One could assume by reading this that the only purely literary form is that of the English. He does give mention to some American artists and authors, but limits them to mere footnotes in his question of what is and what is not literature. In his final quest to answer the question we have all been probably asking all along, why should we care about literary criticism? Eagleton equivocates literary criticism to political criticism., declaring that to criticize the two places one at the highest levels of intellectual thought. He begins to suggest, but not outwardly saying so, that the ideals of Kerouac, Vonnegut and Dylan are the status quo in the liberal humanistic criticism of modern capitalism. One statement that Eagleton makes has been haunting me since I first read the words. “The impotence of liberal humanism is a symptom of its essentially contradictory relationship to modern capitalism.” While on one hand I would like to believe that this is not the case, I must concur with Eagleton in that the two have a very dependant relationship. The question that I would post would be to ask, Can liberal humanism exist without modern conservative capitalism? Again, I would like to think so, but I must admit that I do not believe that it can. The two are polar opposites and without one the other cannot exist. The misanthrope in me refuses to believe that anyone would be willing or persuaded to make a change without seeing something really awful before their eyes. For example the destruction of the planet and all that is in it as a result of the greedy hands of capitalism.
Sorry I missed class, but here is my delayed response to the dense Literary Theory. My question first came up while reading in the introduction about the infamous Practical Criticism (1929) study where college students were given a collection of poems and asked to evaluate them without knowing the authors or titles. The result demonstrated the subjectivity of literary quality (13). This leads me to believe that individual opinions, beliefs and morals, associated with their social background is of greater influence on what is good reading as opposed to simply good writing on the author’s part. This idea seems obvious and is supported several times within the text, even casually, “[p]erhaps literature means…any kind of writing which for some reason or another somebody values highly” (8). This then brings me to how the heck some books, poems, whatever get greater praise than others? I mean is it really that simple- some people like it just “for some reason or another”? I mean people are so different from each other (right??), how could a few works be singled out with the existence of such vast subjectivity? First of all, I think especially in the early days of literature there was a class distinction between who had time to read and who didn’t. This then limited the population in size and in opinion, making it easier to pinpoint a specific piece of literature as good. I also think a similar situation occurred with writings out of the Romantic period. It was an elite group who even had time to read Wordsworth and escape with “imaginative writing” (16). Or maybe it could have been the fact that it was a time in need of a change, where most of the authors were activists (17), igniting agreement amongst the people at that time. This may explain the popularity and acknowledgment of many pieces throughout literature’s history. People (who are really not all that fundamentally different after all) were left feeling optimistic and connected in solidarity after reading certain works. At one point the book states that “English Literature rode to power on the back of wartime nationalism” (26). Perhaps people really just want to conform to each other, so camaraderie is revered as well as the text that inspired it. This may have also influenced the broadening of literature among more social classes. So any book that inspired change or unity was popular then and is now considered a classic because it tells of a significant historical period where literature really fore-fronted a needed change and overall made a lot of people feel happy, maybe even less lonely. It makes me wonder what the subject of solidarity represented in classic literature will be from our day.
6 comments:
January 22, 2008
John S. Sonin
English 423 – Ecocriticism
Maier
Literary Theory Query
To me, I have one searing question when it comes to literary theory as it has been posited by Terry Eagleton. Doesn’t it prop the stage for a fascist future? Or, has it not already gathered the elements of literary history in a fashion that subsumes a self-consumed, bigoted reality existing right now in the present? With all the relevance and credence Eagleton pays to social “power” structures as the determining factor, as most histories (at least those that receive any social significance) valued by Western Culture seem to do, is it any wonder? It is an amoral pursuit of social power, as short-lived geologically as “social power” may be (and from a perspective of the strongest “precept” in humanity—the Golden Rule—it’s evident why such quests are so “short-lived”) which is evanescent.
So it may be that Eagleton isn’t “prop[ping] the stage,” he’s just perpetuating this disease of self-destruction.
Describing the basic foundation of Literature as ideological (or a cultural-specific phenomena) Eagleton, in his synopsis, Literary Theory—An Introduction, describes perspicaciously the amorphous history of “signifiers and signified” that may help bring definition to the concept, ”literature.” From the recognition of this as a distinct aspect of society during the 18th Century, Enlightenment, with the focus of its definition to be on “valued writing,” through to the “Romantics” in the Victorian Age of the 19th, with the idealistic influence of Marx and the recognition of literature to be a culture’s moral compass, on through to the 20th with F.R. Leavis’ “economic socialism.”
Here is where Structuralism, with attention paid to this amorphous definition, yet eternal conceptualization, as Phenomenology (singular-uniqueness), Hermeneutic (interpretive quality), and Receptive (influence on reader) theories, was born. The concept of Literature in the mid and later 20th Century had come to be known as Post-Structuralism with what may seem to present an appeal to some of the basest desires like sex and power.
Maybe that’s why Eagleton, writing his Literary Theory introduction at the end of the 20th, seemed to be perpetuating the pessimistic, power-grabbing, “I can manipulate unaccountable language,” Western Culture ideology of our time. But, as with orbital retrogression, that unaccountable language manipulation, structurally exposed by Eagleton, is gravitationally coalescing to the blossom of fascist thought and eventual implosion, in his introductory review.
In any event, Eagleton also gives us all optimistic hope in the concluding synopsis of his synopsis describing the current movement of this amorphous concept “Literature” as being animated by Feminism. “Feminism” seems to be the current mobilizing social movement that can help draw Western Culture back from the extreme of complete selfishness to the middle-ground of Justice.
I have another question which was crystallized by Eagleton’s characterization of all schools of thought associated with this concept we call literature, but most pointedly characterized with his understanding of Semiotics. It seems all thought patterns begin to breakup and disperse into an infinite level of necessary definition and explanation before the bits of information become so disparate to be unrecognizable. This I can liken to the only real constant in the universe, entropy, wherein all atoms wish to disperse and be as far away from all other atoms as can evenly blanket, on a three dimensionally level, the universe.
“Entropy” seems to be the physical explanation for the humanity’s “Golden Rule” precept.
Ben Crozier
1/23/07
Eagleton Response
So I should probably start out by saying that I haven't finished the reading-- I have found it quite dense, and I'll continue working on it until class, but I don't expect to have all of it read.
The first question I would like to address is the subject of Eagleton's Introduction: What is literature? I think he is very persuasive in suggesting that literature is valued writing, and his definition incorporates the idea that since it is value-laden, the notion of literature changes from person to person. Although this is certainly a vague definition, I think it is a pretty good one.
Good though it may be, I think Eagleton could go a bit further. I have been thinking that the definition could be extended to say that 'literature is valued writing which helps the reader better understnad his/her identity.' On some level, we all associate ourselves with some things and some people, and we disassociate ourselves with others. Through these associations, or groups that we belong to or groups that we don't belong to, we are able to create some notion of identity. And I think that literature aids us in making these associations. In his example about the sign by the escalator, the drunken man views the sign as literature because he takes from it some deeper meaning-- he may realize something about his relationship with dogs, or to the natural world. In this sense, the sign is literature because the drunken man values it AND because it in some way informs his sense of self. A ticket stub, or even a biology textbook, on the other hand, is less likely to affect our sense of identity, and we are therefore much less likely to regard it as literature.
Okay, so I also have another question: In his definition of literature, Eagleton suggests that it is 'subjective' and changing, so why then is it necessary to study the history of literary criticism? If we accept that our notions of literature differ from those of centuries past, and we respond to literature differently than previous generations, then why do we concern ourselves with their responses? Eagleton's definition of literature seems to suggest this sense of absolute relativism. At the very least, it seems that literary analysis changes for every generation and every different social group, so why concern ourselves with its history, as he does in chapter one? Is it not more important to simply look at our modern society, and try to be aware our own system of values, to interpret literature? I suppose one answer would be that by studying different sets of literary criticism, which reflects different systems of values, that we may be able to improve our own critique of literature, which would suggest that our values would improve as well. But the notion of improving values is itself a judgment that is subjective-- if everything is relative, then there are no better values or worse values. Okay, sorry if that was difficult to follow. That's all for now.
Eagleton Response
Eagleton takes a great deal of time in the beginning of his book defining literature. Did anyone else get the impression that even with his ‘definition’ of literature, that a given paradigm or intellectual focus will ultimately determine what is literature and what is not? We are brought through the varying approaches that literary theory has gone through – phenomenology and reception theory to post-structuralism – are these varying approaches not simply trying to define and outline the importance of literature itself?
Andy Lounsbury
Kevin Maier
Eco-criticism
23 January 2008
I should probably preface this by confessing that I have yet to finish reading the book. Having said that, I have one question that immediately came to mind when reading the introduction.
Eagleton devotes a little less than fifteen pages to defining literature, but I don’t feel like he has really done it. His definition can be summarized in a nutshell as any body of valued writing (thanks to Ben for that summary). But this still doesn’t really explain to me what is considered literature. For example, there really isn’t much of a debate when saying Harry Potter is valued writing, but I have yet to meet someone who would readily classify it as literature
(or at least admit to it).
Eagleton spends a lot of time focusing on poetry in his discussion of literature—particularly in the first chapter. I’m assuming he will shift his focus to prose at some point, but I havn’t reached it. Since I’ve long considered music and poetry to be essentially the same thing, I am wondering if music will ever be characterized as literature. If “The Flea” can find its way into a literature anthology, when can I expect to see Pink Floyd or The Who included in one? The same question applies to film as well (since it has to be written before it appears on screen), but since I have yet to see a film even remotely worthy of the title, I’ll let it slide for now.
Finally, I why aren’t current works considered literature? Is it simply because literature must be, for lack of a better word, old? Is it unreasonable to presume that Rowling or Chrichton (probably not the best examples, but they popped into my head first) can ever be considered in the same league as Milton or Spencer?
Eagleton begins his look into literary theory (or nonliterary theory) with a very egoistic and bias, British approach to literary theory. One could assume by reading this that the only purely literary form is that of the English. He does give mention to some American artists and authors, but limits them to mere footnotes in his question of what is and what is not literature.
In his final quest to answer the question we have all been probably asking all along, why should we care about literary criticism? Eagleton equivocates literary criticism to political criticism., declaring that to criticize the two places one at the highest levels of intellectual thought. He begins to suggest, but not outwardly saying so, that the ideals of Kerouac, Vonnegut and Dylan are the status quo in the liberal humanistic criticism of modern capitalism.
One statement that Eagleton makes has been haunting me since I first read the words. “The impotence of liberal humanism is a symptom of its essentially contradictory relationship to modern capitalism.” While on one hand I would like to believe that this is not the case, I must concur with Eagleton in that the two have a very dependant relationship.
The question that I would post would be to ask, Can liberal humanism exist without modern conservative capitalism? Again, I would like to think so, but I must admit that I do not believe that it can. The two are polar opposites and without one the other cannot exist. The misanthrope in me refuses to believe that anyone would be willing or persuaded to make a change without seeing something really awful before their eyes. For example the destruction of the planet and all that is in it as a result of the greedy hands of capitalism.
Sorry I missed class, but here is my delayed response to the dense Literary Theory.
My question first came up while reading in the introduction about the infamous Practical Criticism (1929) study where college students were given a collection of poems and asked to evaluate them without knowing the authors or titles. The result demonstrated the subjectivity of literary quality (13). This leads me to believe that individual opinions, beliefs and morals, associated with their social background is of greater influence on what is good reading as opposed to simply good writing on the author’s part. This idea seems obvious and is supported several times within the text, even casually, “[p]erhaps literature means…any kind of writing which for some reason or another somebody values highly” (8). This then brings me to how the heck some books, poems, whatever get greater praise than others? I mean is it really that simple- some people like it just “for some reason or another”? I mean people are so different from each other (right??), how could a few works be singled out with the existence of such vast subjectivity?
First of all, I think especially in the early days of literature there was a class distinction between who had time to read and who didn’t. This then limited the population in size and in opinion, making it easier to pinpoint a specific piece of literature as good. I also think a similar situation occurred with writings out of the Romantic period. It was an elite group who even had time to read Wordsworth and escape with “imaginative writing” (16). Or maybe it could have been the fact that it was a time in need of a change, where most of the authors were activists (17), igniting agreement amongst the people at that time. This may explain the popularity and acknowledgment of many pieces throughout literature’s history. People (who are really not all that fundamentally different after all) were left feeling optimistic and connected in solidarity after reading certain works. At one point the book states that “English Literature rode to power on the back of wartime nationalism” (26). Perhaps people really just want to conform to each other, so camaraderie is revered as well as the text that inspired it. This may have also influenced the broadening of literature among more social classes. So any book that inspired change or unity was popular then and is now considered a classic because it tells of a significant historical period where literature really fore-fronted a needed change and overall made a lot of people feel happy, maybe even less lonely. It makes me wonder what the subject of solidarity represented in classic literature will be from our day.
Post a Comment