Literary Theory
On the surface, literary criticism seems to be writing about writing. Often its purpose, stated or unstated, is simply to arrive at a better understanding of the text. In this respect, such writing often presumes that works have a single meaning, and that this meaning is pretty much what the author intended when he or she wrote the material being explicated. Surprisingly, however, this presumption is hotly debated. Critics focus on the notion of an author’s intention and raise a number of questions. What is an intention, and does an author have a single unchanging intention when writing? Moreover, isn’t the author’s intention completely expressed in the primary text? Wouldn’t a secondary work explicating the primary text express an alternate intention? Furthermore, why do we give priority to the author’s interpretation rather than that of someone else? What if an author comes to see his or her own work in a different light later? Would the author’s intention while writing the book or after reflecting on it constitute its “real” meaning? These questions raise doubts about secondary literature, but form the issues around which much literary criticism centers. What kind of questions are these and how should we answer them?
September 14th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Ed,
Your philosophy background really shows!
I agree that literary criticism is writing about writing. Some criticism does assume a single “correct” meaning, New Criticism, for instance. But the secondary nature of criticism, I think, is appropriate, and writing about writing is a worthy pursuit. It’s much like discussing literature. This is why we are drawn to literature (at a basic level - stories). The author tells the story and it is up to the readers or listeners to make meaning. This meaning-making can take place individually or socially (ideally, both). I think most criticism, if it’s of an open and not authoritative nature, is simply an invitition to discourse based on a particular text. Criticism coming from a certain “school” is, to borrow Deborah Appleman’s metaphor, a view of the text through a particular lens, and invites dialectical discourse either to attempt to refine the interpretation through that same particular lens, or to invite comparisons with other views through other lenses. I know a lot of criticism is authoritative, but this is what I believe is the function of criticism in the best sense of the term.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:48 pm
I’ve always felt that a piece of writing is like a baby. The author gives birth to it, and at the time feels this or that about it. But after that the piece is on its own - just as a child has to make its own way in the world. The parent can’t control how other people will react to their child, and the author cannot foresee what readers will take out of their work.
Exciting, isn’t it?