Four Different Writings on Literary Theory by Three Different Men

Transcription

1 Igl 1 Natasha Igl Pennington English 305 September 23 rd, 2016 Four Different Writings on Literary Theory by Three Different Men Abstract of Iser Iser, Wolfgang. Introduction. How to do Theory, Blackwell, 2006, pp Wolfgang Iser discusses in his article, How to do Theory, how theory developed from an ontological base to a more contemplative function for art and literature. Interpretation of art and literature, or the sister arts, happens naturally as someone views a painting or reads a poem. Iser highlights two different theories that tackle seemingly different contemplations: hard-core and soft theory. Hard-core theory is what a natural science is more likely to use in order to problem solve and create facts about the world or establish realities. Soft theory focuses more on trying to understand the meaning within the sister arts. This theory delves more into the many aspects of the sister arts such as how they are structured, their overall message, and how they communicate to audiences. Other theories that Iser highlights are phenomenological theory, hermeneutical theory, and gestalt theory. These theories help establish the different ways people interpret art and how they do so. Phenomenological theory grapples with how a work exists while hermeneutical theory observes how an audience understands or interprets a work of the sister arts. Lastly, gestalt theory sets its sight on how an audience looks at a work and notices its outlining argument or pattern. Through these explorative interpretations and functions, theory helps lift boundaries that are set by discourse.

2 Igl 2 Keyword Search of Graff Graff, Gerald. Taking Cover in Coverage. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, gen. ed. Vincent Leitch, 2 nd ed, Norton, 2010, pp Subjects: literary theory; departmentalize literature; field-coverage model; literature curriculum; ideology; teaching; cultural studies; genres; periods; positivistic methodology; humanities; administrative tyranny; average-to-poor student Summary of Eagleton In Terry Eagleton s Literary Theory: An Introduction, he tries to prove that literature has no objective definition because of its ties to value-judgements. He begins with discussing different authors, some of which write for the sciences, like Charles Darwin, while others are considered more of an artist, like William Shakespeare. Talking about this, Eagleton highlights fact writing versus fiction, and how one is deemed creative and the other not. Here he questions what it means to be creative and how literature is defined by language being used in an imaginative or peculiar way. Creativity is a subjective concept, an opinion that one would hold over the work. How is literature deemed creative without subjectivity leaking in or warranting of being claimed as literature? Many works do not gain the attention of the literary canon, a group that picks out literature, such as comic books. Eagleton glances over how this distinction is an opinion based on a person s value-judgement. Eagleton further discusses literature as he moves on to the Formalists ideas. The Russian formalists looked at literature in general as poetry, according to Eagleton. As they studied literature, they deformed ordinary language until it was unrecognizable from the norm. Formalism only wants to study how the structure of the language and its parts form the work.

3 Igl 3 They do not take into account how normal speech works. Though, as Eagleton points out, this is wise as the concept of there being a unanimous language is an illusion of cultures. There is no such thing as a united language, especially in literature. Literature can be interpreted in a variety of ways as people relate themselves to the written work. One whole sentence could mean a number of different things to two separate people. Eagleton uses an example of a sign that states that dogs must be carried on the escalator. He points out that some people may read this as people need to own and carry a dog in order to ride the escalator. Words are easily misread as people s brains function differently. Everyone is formed in a different upbringing and are brought up to interpret the world by their experiences. People change their minds about what is valued as literature over time because of their experiences in life. This is similar to the value transitive term that Eagleton brings up which means people s values change in specific situations too. In life, people do not stay the same person from their birth to their death. If they did, then society would not have problems with defining literature or anything else. How people describe works are based on value-categories, according to Eagleton. Valuecategories are based on knowledge that is influenced by interests and ideologies people grow up surrounded by. Ideology is the way in which people connect with their form of society. If a person grew up in a communist government, say under Stalin, they would view a novel differently than a capitalist American. A communistic foreign culture will most likely not look fondly on a work decreeing free speech or poking fun at a form of government. From growing up around a specific ideology, people look at texts and the world through that ideology s lens. Eagleton concludes his paper with his thesis that literature cannot be objective. Ideology is too ingrained into a person s psyche in order to look past it. Literature will always be seen as

4 Igl 4 a reflection on a society s values. Subjectivity will continue to dominate objectivity in the literature field. Evaluation of Eagleton In Terry Eagleton s Literary Theory: An Introduction, he claims that literature cannot be defined without people s judgments seeping in. Every time people read a work, they form some interpretation of the story based on their current generation and the ideologies they were raised among. Eagleton is correct that literature cannot be viewed objectively. Schools in the country decide what is considered appropriate literature for their students with the literary canon on their side. Throughout my schooling, I have been exposed to how literature is defined subjectively and changed, supporting Eagleton s claim. In his introduction, Eagleton comments on how works are labeled fact or fiction according to the text and its substance. For example, Charles Darwin s works on natural selection are not on the literature list but Shakespeare s plays are. Comic books like Superman are not seen as literature, but Don Quixote is. Never once in my AP literature or language classes did I read an X-Men comic book. Instead, I read the likes of The Great Gatsby, The Stranger, and Crime and Punishment. The process of picking through what novels are considered literature are seemingly biased in form as X-Men deals with questions of racial tension in a different way then Uncle Tom s Cabin but touches on it all the same. The form of a novel or poem is valued much higher than colorful blocks of pictures and commentary. As language was taught in my school, my teachers were adamant about what words you must use and in what form. Eagleton observes this in his glance at the Formalists and how they separate normal language. The Formalists focused more on the way standardized literature

5 Igl 5 formed similarly to poetry than what everyday speech was like. Eagleton commented on how there is no unanimous language because of how people speak and interpret language differently. I saw this in the classrooms as my teachers would tell me one way to write or structure a sentence and then tell me a completely different way. Each teacher had a different opinion or expectation as to how we should write. For example, in my junior year of high school, I was told never to preview an essay in my thesis for an English class, but in my social studies class, if I did not preview, I would lose points because my teacher said we needed to. With the MLA style changing, I am sure that it is even worse now. Stories in general show this as well with the use of an unreliable first person narrator or showing in a text the dialect people use, such as Mark Twain s slang use in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The use of dialect would not be considered normal language up on the east coast of the United States in this time yet typical down in the deep south. Language in itself is sometimes unreliable. Eagleton also looks at how people s ideologies in the future will be different then what present days will be. People in the present still appreciate Shakespeare because, mainly, we are taught his works are to be valued. We can still find ways to relate to the issues his plays worked with, such as issues with family, scandal, and political corruption. When looking at Shakespeare in a different light, though, Shakespeare s plays are great reality TV material. In the future, he may be forgotten just as the many classic authors seem to diminish in the classroom. Reality TV may take Shakespeare s place. Maybe in the future, superhero comics will be the new main literature. Classrooms today already have replaced works like Fahrenheit 451 with The Hunger Games. Society is already turning away from the once deemed literary classics for a new source of entertainment, metaphor, and knowledge. Future societal values will have shifted depending on the different technologies, materials, and conflicts that will arise.

6 Igl 6 With how society is brought up, there is no true way to look at literature objectively. From the start of a child s growing understanding, everything he or she views will be influenced by what he or she is exposed to and his or her upbringing. Schools will shape what the child will learn and in what way. The world will seep an opinion into everything he or she does. It is human nature to do so.

7 Igl 7 Works Cited Eagleton, Terry. Introduction: What is Literature? Literary Theory: An Introduction, anniversary ed, U of Minnesota P, 2008, pp Graff, Gerald. Taking Cover in Coverage. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, gen. ed. Vincent Leitch, 2 nd ed, Norton, 2010, pp Iser, Wolfgang. Introduction. How to do Theory, Blackwell, 2006, pp