ATTN:JMS: writing and literary theory
Maia Bernstein
You have a degree in literature, don't you? I'm curious: to what
extent has knowledge of literary *theory* (as opposed to having read
widely) influenced/not influnced/been crucial for/been irrelevant to
your writing?
Thanks,
Maia Bernstein
--pondering the relationship in my own life between studying literary
theory and writing literature
Jms at B5
Not really. I have a Bachelor's degree in Clinical Psychology with a minor in
Philosophy, and a second Bachelor's in Sociology with a minor in Literature.
> I'm curious: to what
>extent has knowledge of literary *theory* (as opposed to having read
>widely) influenced/not influnced/been crucial for/been irrelevant to
>your writing?
Totally irrelevant. I find most literary theory dry, academic, and useless.
It's there to provide academicians a platform to stand on in trying to
interpret fiction, but at the other end of the keyboard, there's not a bit of
it that I've found useful (though obviously your mileage may vary).
I've always encouraged fledgling writers that if they want to actually *work*
as writers they should get a degree in ANYthing other than literature.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
J. Potts
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>I find most literary theory dry, academic, and useless.
>It's there to provide academicians a platform to stand on in trying to
>interpret fiction, but at the other end of the keyboard, there's not a bit of
>it that I've found useful (though obviously your mileage may vary).
<grin> I remember when I was in college and taking upper division lit
classes, how I struggled to understand literary criticisms of classic works.
Most lit classes I took required you to find some critical review of a work
and then try to support or refute it as your final paper. I would spend
*hours* pouring over them trying to figure out what they were saying. I
began to have serious doubts about my own intelligence because I was
*suppose* to be an English major and I wasn't understanding any of it.
It wasn't until my final year in college when I took an excellent advance
writing class that I realized what the problem was. They were bad writers.
The writing class had examples of bad writing and I recognized them as the
type of stuff I'd spent the last four years trying to comprehend. They were
typically composed of multi-syllabic pompous mumbo-jumbo that sounded like
they knew what they were talking about but in reality, they said absolutely
nothing.
--
JRP
"How many slime-trailing, sleepless, slimy, slobbering things do you know
that will *run and hide* from your Eveready?"
--Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson
Staffan Sevelin
--
SS
To be or not to be - is that a question?!?
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> skrev i inlägg
<20000310001717...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
> >You have a degree in literature, don't you?
>
> Not really. I have a Bachelor's degree in Clinical Psychology with a
minor in
> Philosophy, and a second Bachelor's in Sociology with a minor in
Literature.
>
> > I'm curious: to what
> >extent has knowledge of literary *theory* (as opposed to having read
> >widely) influenced/not influnced/been crucial for/been irrelevant to
> >your writing?
>
> Totally irrelevant. I find most literary theory dry, academic, and
useless.
> It's there to provide academicians a platform to stand on in trying to
> interpret fiction, but at the other end of the keyboard, there's not a
bit of
> it that I've found useful (though obviously your mileage may vary).
>
florinaldo
according to your personal inclinations or affinities. Sometimes, such
analysis opens up new aspects of a work and enchances your enjoyment of it,
sometimes it is simply stimulating or amusing to follow the author in the
path of his thoughts. And sometimes it can be totally impenetrable or
sterile, like most of deconstructionism.
Of course, many academics would disagree with those assessments, since they
consider their theoretical work to be at least as important as the works
they turn their critical lens on, and probably moreso.
--
Florinaldo
> De : jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5)
> Société : AOL http://www.aol.com
> Groupes : rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
> Date : 9 Mar 2000 22:18:01 -0700
> Objet : Re: ATTN:JMS: writing and literary theory
John Horner
> Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
> >It's there to provide academicians a platform to stand on in trying to
> >interpret fiction, but at the other end of the keyboard, there's not a bit of
> >it that I've found useful (though obviously your mileage may vary).
>
>
> It wasn't until my final year in college when I took an excellent advance
> writing class that I realized what the problem was. They were bad writers.
> The writing class had examples of bad writing and I recognized them as the
> type of stuff I'd spent the last four years trying to comprehend. They were
> typically composed of multi-syllabic pompous mumbo-jumbo that sounded like
> they knew what they were talking about but in reality, they said absolutely
> nothing.
The reason it's so bad is that they are trying to hide the fact that
there is so little of substance in what they are writing. It's always
easier to be obtuse than acute.
It's rare that you get a Kenneth Burke or a Bert States who are fine
stylists as well as original thinkers.
A parallel to what jms wrote earlier is that most of the best literary
theorists are those who come to it from outside the field. They tend
to write not to get tenure or impress others in the field, but
actually to understand an aspect of how literature works.
For all the misinterpretation that surrounds him, no one has ever
really outdone Aristotle.
John
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
[snip]
>
> For all the misinterpretation that surrounds him, no one has ever
> really outdone Aristotle.
>
>
> John
What happened to him?
--
Mark Bertenshaw
Kingston upon Thames
UK
Shaz
"Mark Alexander Bertenshaw" <Mark.Be...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:4TUz4.953$u17....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "John Horner" <dr_john...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xmjz4.53651
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > For all the misinterpretation that surrounds him, no one has ever
> > really outdone Aristotle.
> >
> >
> > John
>
> What happened to him?
He died in self imposed exile. He wasn't wildly popular in Greece after he'd
taught the son of Philip of Macedon, Alexander the Great how to think
straight. I think the Greeks held him responsible for Alexander conquering
them. He was also moderately annoyed that the job of Head of Plato's Academy
went not to him (who, after so many years of service and writing had
certainly earned the honour) but to Plato's nephew, Speusippus, who did
nothing else of note for the rest of his life. Thus Aristotle founded the
Lyceum (the foundations of which they recently uncovered while preparing
for, I think, a car park!), but once Alexander invaded, Aristotle was safer
elsewhere. He feared his enemies might try and do a Socrates number on him.
Shaz
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
news:8ap6c0$6fp$1...@lure.pipex.net...
[big snip]
>
He feared his enemies might try and do a Socrates number on him.
>
> Shaz
<thinks back>
Ah! The Hemlock! Those Greek philosophers did seem to have a bad time of
it, really. But then again, when has free-thinking ever been encouraged by
a ruling elite (or the general populous, for that matter) ?