http://edward.uniblogs.org/2006/09/12/literary-theory/ Just another Uniblogs.org weblog Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:21:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.2.5 http://edward.uniblogs.org/2006/09/12/literary-theory/#comment-7 chris Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:48:04 +0000 http://edward.uniblogs.org/2006/09/12/literary-theory/#comment-7 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? 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?

]]> http://edward.uniblogs.org/2006/09/12/literary-theory/#comment-3 Jim Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:56:02 +0000 http://edward.uniblogs.org/2006/09/12/literary-theory/#comment-3 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. 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.

]]>