how do you justify studying literature?

[Two Espressos]

Of course, some theorists still do close-readings and some will carry on, hopefully. If Derrida is the most recent example of theoretical close-reader you can name, it means that it's a pretty neglected approach.

Please remember that I'm just an undergraduate and have only a rough working knowledge of the main theoretical schools. I'm sure that there are many more current theoretical close-readers of whom I'm simply unaware.

Hopefully, the new trend in cognitive cultural studies will revive formalism and structuralism. How scary of me!

Not scary at all. I have no problem with formalism and structuralism, but...

Two Expressos: Since when traditionalism is considered as literary theory?

I think it is disingenuous to presume that these schools are not inherently theoretical. "Traditionalism" and "common sense" are very contentious terms that rely on very specific and debatable concepts.

From the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (Second Edition):

"Some literary scholars and writers deplore the shift toward 'theory,' regarding it as a turn away from literature and its central concerns. These 'antitheorists,' as they are called, advocate a return to studying literature for itself--yet however refreshing this position may at first appear, it has problems: it itself presupposes a definition of literature, and it promotes a certain way of scrutinizing literature ('for itself'). In other words, the antitheory position turns out to rely on unexamined--and debatable--theories of literature and criticism. What theory demonstrates, in this case and in others, is that there is no position free of theory, not even the one called 'common sense'."

I think that that's a solid defense.

Then again, you're a D.Phil student in a Modern and Medieval Languages program. I'm an undergraduate. You're bound to know far more about this than I do.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Two Espressos

[Alephantiasis]

I'm not convinced by the Norton passage you're quoting.

First, I've never called myself an "antitheorist" and I don't know anyone who goes by that kind of label. I don't deny that everything can be abstracted into a theory, but it doesn't mean that everything should be theoretical in the first place. Do you know the anatomical mechanisms allowing you to walk? Probably not, and yet, you can walk...

I don't study literature "for itself" either. As opposed to most theory-oriented scholars, I don't presupposes anything when I encounter a text. I might look at gender politics, but I won't assume that it's always the most pregnant characteristic of a given set of texts. I refuse to look through the same lenses over and over again because I think it's a waste of time. More generally, I'm not convinced that race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on, are the most crucial elements in apprehending a text.

To sum up, I rely on observation and precise knowledge of the historical, social, literary, cultural, ... contexts of the work I'm studying; I promote clarity and I suggest a way to read a particular text (as opposed to applying the same reading to every texts I encounter). Am I anti-theoretical? Do I follow some sort of theory without knowing it? I don't know and I don't care. I would like people to take my first book and say: "it's a good book to read for whoever wants to study XXX" and not "it's a good [insert a theory] book."

Finally, I believe that some people in the Humanities take themselves much too seriously... and I don't intend to do the same. I'm studying literature because I'm really good at it. Taking things to seriously is (at least to me) the sign of a weaker mind. Montaigne contradicts himself all the time and I believe he is smart enough to know that there isn't any definite answer to big problems. I'm doing all the heavy-lifting myself and I don't want any theorist to do half the job by providing a framework and limiting the scope of my enquiry.

[Two Espressos]

First, I've never called myself an "antitheorist" and I don't know anyone who goes by that kind of label.

I never said you were an antitheorist. I only supplied the antitheorism section of my quote because I felt it was necessary to support the latter section. As for antitheorists, they do exist: I don't remember the authors of these pieces, but both "Against Theory" and "The Race for Theory" are quite anti-theoretical. The authors may not specifically use the term 'antitheorist', but they are essentially antitheorists in that they "deplore the shift toward 'theory.'"

I don't deny that everything can be abstracted into a theory, but it doesn't mean that everything should be theoretical in the first place. Do you know the anatomical mechanisms allowing you to walk? Probably not, and yet, you can walk...

There are theoretical constructs behind every argument. In "The Commitment to Theory," Homi K. Bhabha discusses how theory and social practice go hand-in-hand. It's an interesting article, though it is Bhabha so it's painfully obfuscatory.

I don't understand your walking analogy. We can certainly walk without knowing how we do so, but it would be foolish to assume that we "just" walk and that there are not complicated processes behind our walking (much like how one can read a text without knowing the complicated, theoretical constructs behind the text, but it would be foolish to assume that these constructs do not exist).

I don't study literature "for itself" either. As opposed to most theory-oriented scholars, I don't presupposes anything when I encounter a text. I might look at gender politics, but I won't assume that it's always the most pregnant characteristic of a given set of texts. I refuse to look through the same lenses over and over again because I think it's a waste of time. More generally, I'm not convinced that race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on, are the most crucial elements in apprehending a text.

To sum up, I rely on observation and precise knowledge of the historical, social, literary, cultural, ... contexts of the work I'm studying; I promote clarity and I suggest a way to read a particular text (as opposed to applying the same reading to every texts I encounter). Am I anti-theoretical? Do I follow some sort of theory without knowing it? I don't know and I don't care. I would like people to take my first book and say: "it's a good book to read for whoever wants to study XXX" and not "it's a good [insert a theory] book."

You say you rely on "observation and precise knowledge of the historical, social, literary, cultural, ... contexts of the work." That's absolutely a theroetical position. Certain theoretical schools would argue that looking at the historical, social, literary, cultural contexts is wrong; they would argue that only the text itself can be used in critical examination.

Finally, I believe that some people in the Humanities take themselves much too seriously... and I don't intend to do the same. I'm studying literature because I'm really good at it. Taking things to seriously is (at least to me) the sign of a weaker mind. Montaigne contradicts himself all the time and I believe he is smart enough to know that there isn't any definite answer to big problems. I'm doing all the heavy-lifting myself and I don't want any theorist to do half the job by providing a framework and limiting the scope of my enquiry.

Scholars in every field have a propensity to take themselves too seriously; I've seen especially egregious elitism in analytic philosophy. It's your prerogative to study literature for whatever reason you so choose. I don't think that all theorists take themselves too seriously. Perhaps one day I'll consider myself a 'theorist' of some strand; I don't plan to take myself too seriously. I also think that theory can be liberating rather than limiting, but you probably feel differently.

[Sparky]

I'm uneducated on this subject from the standpoint of Literature, but I just feel the need to say

I don't presuppose anything when I encounter a text.

is hilarious.

[Alephantiasis]

Of course, you can find a theory behind everything. The interesting question is: should theory be the focus of the enquiry? I understand why students should learn about theory: it's important and easier to look at a simplified, more abstract models of your object of study.

However, a scholar embracing a particular theoretical stance is not only predictable, but also plain boring in my opinion. Read one post-colonial article and you've read them all. Applying the same post-colonial/feminist/marxist/... nonsense time and time again doesn't require any critical thinking whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, a well-trained monkey could do the same. "Theory" is obviously liberating: it frees the reader from the constraints of the text. Marxist theory has been applied to virtually everything... Was it always justified, never mind relevant? I very much doubt so.

As for entertaining the uneducated crowd, it's always a pleasure.

[Two Espressos]

Of course, you can find a theory behind everything. The interesting question is: should theory be the focus of the enquiry? I understand why students should learn about theory: it's important and easier to look at a simplified, more abstract models of your object of study.

However, a scholar embracing a particular theoretical stance is not only predictable, but also plain boring in my opinion. Read one post-colonial article and you've read them all. Applying the same post-colonial/feminist/marxist/... nonsense time and time again doesn't require any critical thinking whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, a well-trained monkey could do the same. "Theory" is obviously liberating: it frees the reader from the constraints of the text. Marxist theory has been applied to virtually everything... Was it always justified, never mind relevant? I very much doubt so.

As for entertaining the uneducated crowd, it's always a pleasure.

I staunchly disagree. I can certainly understand why one would be opposed to theory overtaking the study of literature, as a compelling argument can be made against it. As for me, however, I want theory to be my primary focus; just studying literarture bores me (hence, I've considered alternate graduate school routes, including a PhD in philosophy and American University's human rights MA program). Theory is central in some graduate programs, such as Cornell, which specifies theory and criticism as a pursuable subfield (one of the many reasons why Cornell appeals so much to me).

Your generalization of theoretical articles is patently false. As with practically every field of inquiry, be it science or the humanities, complexity and nuance are ubiquitous. It's simply incorrect to presume that all positions within a theoretical school are the same; for proof, just look into feminist theory, which is fiercely divided on many key issues.

I do agree that sometimes theory can reach absurd levels of abstraction, levels where practicality is thrown to the wind. But this is the case in many fields of inquiry, especially philosophy. A lot of metaphysics is really tenuous and perhaps irrelevant.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Two Espressos

[truckbasket]

While I see both sides of the last few posts, and despite the pear shaped direction this thread is now heading, I'd be curious to hear what people think about theory written specifically to coincide with texts, such as Wordsworth's Preface or Barth's "Literature of Exhaustion"/Lost in the Funhouse (the latter of which contain some fairly abstract mind-bending stuff).

It seems important to remember that while the post-structuralist stuff can get pretty masturbatory, it's not specifically designed for literature -- it just so happens that it can be applied that way. Perhaps those who dislike it could think about it as a necessary step toward subsequent (more practical) theoretical approaches? And are we talking about the same thing when we refer to "close reading" as the formalist approach of decontextualized sentence structure (tension, ambiguity between words/gaps etc.) or simply reading a text and providing a personal interpretation? Close reading, as I understand it (Wimsatt & Beardsley, Brooks etc.), is actually quite abstract and theoretical.

But to swing back to the topic, a quote that I always like that answers the OP's question quite neatly:

"Why are we reading, if not in hope of beauty laid bare, life heightened and its deepest mystery probed? Can the writer isolate and vivify all in experience that most deeply engages our intellects and our hearts? Can the writer renew our hope for literary forms? Why are we reading if not in hope that the writer will magnify and dramatize our days, will illuminate and inspire us with wisdom, courage, and the possibility of meaningfulness, and will press upon our minds the deepest mysteries, so that we may feel again their majesty and power? What do we ever know that is higher than that power which, from time to time, seizes our lives, and reveals us startlingly to ourselves as creatures set down here bewildered? Why does death so catch us by surprise, and why love? We still and always want waking. We should amass half dressed in long lines like tribesmen and shake gourds at each other, to wake up; instead we watch television and miss the show." -- Annie Dillard, The Writing Life

[user_name]

it's more honest a discipline than economics, political science, or foriegn policy...

[Grunty DaGnome]

Forget justify it....how do you pay for it?

[deparkison]

The notion of approaching a certain text without presuppositions is, I think, a pretty hard one to defend. Personally, I'm a fan of traditional-style close reading, I just think what matters is the audience you're intending to share the reading with. There has developed, I'm sure, a sort of hierarchy that is organized something like this: Theorists--> Critics --> Creative Writers --> Reading Public (assuming we still have one). Most productive thinking comes out of the continuity between theorists and critics, and a similar continuity between Critics and writers. But, theorists and individual writers rarely have anything to say to each other, except to dismiss the various claims of the other, outright.

I tend to think that close reading is the common denominator between the three academic groups, and is the one that should be focused on to intentionally bridge those otherwise chasm-like gaps. It's definitely frustrated me reading some theorists, seeing them cite a particular passage, and use like three words from the passage and then motor on... Why invoke the piece if you don't use it to it's fullest potential? Take the logic of the individual sentences to their end, etc... But I'm equally miffed when I see an author talk about the total irrelevance of theory. So much theory has explanatory power beyond an individual text that it can't simply be coincidence....

Anyhow, to the original question: I point them in the direction of the two articles I've seen in the Chronicle of Higher Education: one notes that humanities students are better critical thinkers and retain more information, and the other discusses the enhancement of an individuals empathy through exposure to creative writing and its various characters and manifestations. There are solid social reasons for the studies of the humanities.

That's about it. I'm a little philistine.

[perrykm2]

To sum up, I rely on observation and precise knowledge of the historical, social, literary, cultural, ... contexts of the work I'm studying; I promote clarity and I suggest a way to read a particular text (as opposed to applying the same reading to every texts I encounter). Am I anti-theoretical? Do I follow some sort of theory without knowing it? I don't know and I don't care.

New Historicism.

[Grunty DaGnome]

While I see both sides of the last few posts, and despite the pear shaped direction this thread is now heading, I'd be curious to hear what people think about theory written specifically to coincide with texts, such as Wordsworth's Preface or Barth's "Literature of Exhaustion"/Lost in the Funhouse (the latter of which contain some fairly abstract mind-bending stuff).

It seems important to remember that while the post-structuralist stuff can get pretty masturbatory, it's not specifically designed for literature -- it just so happens that it can be applied that way. Perhaps those who dislike it could think about it as a necessary step toward subsequent (more practical) theoretical approaches? And are we talking about the same thing when we refer to "close reading" as the formalist approach of decontextualized sentence structure (tension, ambiguity between words/gaps etc.) or simply reading a text and providing a personal interpretation? Close reading, as I understand it (Wimsatt & Beardsley, Brooks etc.), is actually quite abstract and theoretical.

Indeed. People often refer to "close reading" in English departments very colloquially as if it is a theory-free alternative to critiquing a text. Actually, formalism -- as you so correctly call it -- comes with its own host of theoretical and ideological problems. I think what people mean these days when they say "close reading" is that remnant of "New Critical" formalism modern high school English teachers rely on after stripping away all the problematic theoretical issues associated with it; that list of definitions that are useful for describing meter, verse, speakers, narrators, and so on.

It's also interesting to think about how critics like DeMan, with his endless observations on "vertiginous" language grow directly out of New Critical attempts to limit all criticism to the poem itself. I recently reread Wimsatt and Beardsley's critique of T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land," which attempted to argue in all seriousness that it should make no difference to the critic if "Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song" is an allusion to Spencer or completely "new" language strung together poetically by Eliot. A critique that so squarely frames the inadequacy of a "four corners" approach to reading, is practically a gold-gilded invitation for post-structuralists to set up a tent city in the University quad and declare a movement.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Grunty DaGnome

[truckbasket]

I think what people mean these days when they say "close reading" is that remnant of "New Critical" formalism modern high school English teachers rely on after stripping away all the problematic theoretical issues associated with it; that list of definitions that are useful for describing meter, verse, speakers, narrators, and so on.

Well there's been a bit of a Habermassian shift away from postructuralist theory (deconstruction, in particular, provokes much groaning) that's sort of sprung a resurgence of "close reading" -- but not in a strictly formalist sense. New Aesthetics etc., is attempting to wrestle texts away from the "hermeneutics of suspicion" of the postructuralists to allow the text once more to "speak" for itself. It's pretty similar to what Fried was banging on about in "Art and Objecthood" -- a sort of call to refocus and whatnot. There's certainly logic behind it.

Although much of the postructuralist stuff is met with scorn these days, it's hard to deny that it paved the way for some generative (and perhaps more useful) approaches to reading a text.

I guess there's an argument to be made for a disinterested and decontextualized reading of TWL, but I can't imagine it'd be much fun. That whole thing is basically allegorical catnip. Didn't Joyce say something about how he designed Ulysses to keep critics at work for centuries?

[Alephantiasis]

New Historicism.

Certainly not. First, read and understand my research... then, try to label it. That's a solid methodology, you should stick to it.

[perrykm2]

I'm just having a little joke. You're very tense.