Sampling of Critical Lenses
As begin the conversation about Literary
Criticism, use this sheet to give you an idea of the scope of our
journey.
Literary Theories: A Sampling of Critical
Lenses
AP
English
Literary theories were developed as
a means to understand the various ways people read texts. The proponents of each
theory believe their theory is the theory, but most of us interpret texts
according to the “rules” of several different theories at a time.
All literary theories are lenses through which we can see texts. There is
nothing to say that one is better than another or that you should read according
to any of them, but it is sometimes fun to “decide” to read a text
with one in mind because you often end up with a whole new perspective on your
reading.
What follows is a summary of some
of the most common schools of literary theory. These descriptions are extremely
cursory, and none of them fully explains what the theory is all about. But it is
enough to get the general
idea.
Enjoy!
Archetypal
Criticism. In criticism,
“archetype” signifies narrative designs, character types, or images
that are said to be identifiable in a wide variety of works of literature, as
well as myths, dreams, and even ritualized modes of social behavior. The
archetypal similarities within these diverse phenomena are held to reflect a set
of universal, primitive, and elemental patterns, whose effective embodiment in a
literary work evokes a profound response from the reader. The death-rebirth is
often said to be the archetype of archetypes. Other archetypal themes are the
journey underground, the heavenly ascent, the search for the father, the
paradise-Hades image, the Promethean rebel-hero, the scapegoat, the earth
goddess, and the fatal woman.
Feminist
Criticism. A feminist critic sees cultural and
economic disabilities in a “patriarchal” society that have hindered
or prevented women from realizing their creative possibilities and women’s
cultural identification as a merely negative object, or “Other,” to
man as the defining and dominating “Subject.” There are several
assumptions and concepts held in common by most feminist
critics.
1. Our civilization is pervasively
patriarchal.
2. The concepts of
“gender” are largely, if not entirely, cultural constructs, effected
by the omnipresent patriarchal biases of our
civilization.
3. This patriarchal ideology
also pervades those writings that have been considered great literature. Such
works lack autonomous female role models, are implicitly addressed to male
readers, and leave the woman reader an alien outsider or else solicit her to
identify against herself by assuming male values and ways of perceiving,
feeling, and acting.
This is somewhat like
Marxist criticism, but instead of focusing on the relationships between the
classes it focuses on the relationships between the genders. Under this theory
you would examine the patterns of thought, behavior, values, enfranchisement,
and power in relations between the sexes.
Marxist
Criticism. A Marxist critic grounds theory and
practice on the economic and cultural theory of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles,
especially on the following claims:
1. The
evolving history of humanity, its institutions and its ways of thinking are
determined by the changing mode of its “material production” –
that is, its basic economic organization.
2.
Historical changes in the fundamental mode of production effect essential
changes both in the constitution and power relations of social classes, which
carry on a conflict for economic, political, and social
advantage.
3. Human consciousness in any era
is constituted by an ideology—that is, a set of concepts, beliefs, values,
and ways of thinking and feeling through which human beings perceive, and by
which they explain, what they take to be reality. A Marxist critic typically
undertakes to “explain” literature in any era by revealing the
economic, class, and ideological determinants of the way an author writes, and
to examine the relation of the text to the social reality of that time and
place.
This school of critical theory
focuses on power and money in works of literature. Who has the power/money? Who
does not? What happens as a result? For example, it could be said that
“The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” is about the upper class attempting to
maintain their power and influence over the lower class by chasing Ichabod, a
lower-class citizen with aspirations toward the upper class, out of town. This
would explain some of the numerous descriptions of land, wealth, and hearty
living through Ichabod’s eyes.
New Criticism
is directed against the prevailing concern of
critics with the lives and psychology of authors, with social background, and
with literary history. There are several points of view and procedures that are
held in common by most New Critics.
1. A poem
should be treated as primarily poetry and should be regarded as an independent
and self-sufficient object.
2. The
distinctive procedure of the New Critic is explication, or close reading: The
detailed and subtle analysis of the complex interrelations and ambiguitites of
the components within a work.
3. The
principles of New Criticism are basically verbal. That is, literature is
conceived to be a special kind of language whose attributes are defined by
systematic opposition to the language of science and of practical and logical
discourse. The key concepts of this criticism deal with the meanings and
interactions of words, figures of speech, and
symbols.
4. The distinction between literary
genres is not essential.
Psychological and Psychoanalytic
Critic. Psychoanalytical criticism deals with
a work of literature primarily as an expression, in fictional terms, of the
personality, state of mind, feelings, and desires of the author. The assumption
of the psychoanalytic critics is that a work of literature is correlated with
its author's mental traits.
Reference to the
author's personality is used to explain and interpret a literary
work.
Reference to literary works is made in
order to establish, biographically, the personality of the
author.
The mode of reading a literary work
itself is a way of experiencing the distinctive subjectivity or consciousness of
its author.
This theory requires that we
investigate the psychology of a character or an author to figure out the meaning
of a text (although to apply an author's psychology to a text can also be
considered biographical criticism, depending on your point of view). For
example, alcohol allows the latent thoughts and desires of the narrator of
“The Black Cat” to surface in such a way that he ends up shirking
the self-control imposed by social mores and standards and becomes the man his
psyche has repressed his whole life.
Reader-Response
Criticism. This type of criticism does not
designate any one critical theory, but focuses on the activitiy of reading a
work of literature. Reader-response critics turn from the traditional conception
of a work as an achieved structure of meanings to the responses of readers as
their eyes follow a text. By this shift of perspective a literary work is
converted into an activity that goes on in a reader's mind, and what had been
features of the work itself-- including narrator, plot, characters, style, and
structure-- are less important than the connection between a reader's experience
and the text. It is through this interaction that meaning is
made.
This is the school of thought most
students seem to adhere to. Proponents believe that literature has no objective
meaning or existence. People bring their own thoughts, moods, and experiences to
whatever text they are reading and get out of it whatever they happen to, based
on their own expectations and ideas. For example, when I read “Contents of
a Dead Man's Pockets" I think about my life and what I will leave behind
whenever I reach for a coin or keys or paper from my pocket. I wonder if I do
what I do because of ambition or for the relationships with those around me
(especially my wife and my boys).
Other theories we'll be
discussing in class include:
Deconstructionism.
Deconstructionism is, by far, the most difficult critical theory for people to
understand. It was developed by some very smart (or unstable) people who declare
that literature means nothing because language means nothing. In other words, we
cannot say that we know what the “meaning” of a story is because
there is no way of knowing. For example, in some stories (like "Eveline" or
“Where Are You Going, Where You Have Been”) that do not have tidy
endings, you cannot assume you know what
happened.
Historical/Autobiographical
Criticism. Using this theory requires that you
apply to a text specific historical information about the time during which an
author wrote. History, in this case, refers to the social, political, economic,
cultural, and/or intellectual climate of the time. For example, William Faulkner
wrote many of his novels ad stories during and after World War II, which helps
to explain the feelings of darkness, defeat, and struggle that pervade much of
his work.
Structuralism.
This is different from structural criticism, which looks at the
“universal” qualities of a piece of literature. Structuralism is a
theory that concentrates completely on the text, bringing nothing else to it. It
depends, in large part, on linguistic theory, so it is difficult to do without
some background. On the very most basic level, however, structuralism
investigates the kinds of patterns that are built up and broken down within a
text and used them to get at an interpretation of that text. For example, in Our
Town each act begins with the Stage Manager providing factual information, moves
toward the introduction of a “standard” concern in life, makes that
concern seem insignificant, and then uses a character to comment on, or moralize
on, that concern. This pattern indicates that the play is not actually the slow
movement through the lives of some standard characters but a satire of the basic
and ridiculous things humans consistently concern themselves
with.
Adapted from Critical Encounters
in High School English (Appleman) and A Handbook of Critical Approaches to
Literature (Guerin, et. Al)
Posted: Thu - September 4, 2003 at 05:42 PM