Post 5

[Allee Asquith]

Christian and Graff’s essays have invoked much thought on theory and how necessary I believe it to be. While the material throughout the semester has sometimes been hard to digest and some of the writing I have had to trudge through, overall I have been quite interested to learn from this course. Graff does make several points with which I agree in his qualified support of teaching theory in higher education. First I agree with the idea that education of theory should be spread rather than condensed and watered down into one class. I feel with some of the theories we discussed in class the time constraint did not allow enough focus to be devoted to theories. Especially after class discussion 11/21 hearing all other students felt similarly about in a way knowing the material but unable to fully grasp it. Also, Graff introduces his idea that theories have allowed literary thinkers to challenge and break away from tradition. Thinking back on how we have flowed through the material I definitely agree with Graff’s statement. The majority of theories seem to somehow build off a previous theory or challenge it. For example, post-structuralist, Nietzsche, built his theory using Saussure’s structuralist theory as a base. These theories and broad thinking have allowed literature to expand to the wide topic it is today and through it we can challenge any aspect of society. For some this even means theory allows one to challenge theory itself, as Christian does in her essay. While I do agree with Graff in his view of how theory should be taught and introduced in the university, I do agree with Christian when I wonder how often I will actually use the theory in application. Because theory so often generalizes and creates broad genres, it seems we lose much of the literature when one reads for theory rather than what the author purposed it for. In this, Christian is correct saying theory is oppressive. Theory does not allow one to notice the subtle nuances that make each piece of literature unique and thus takes away the individuality of so many pieces. It also takes away the artistry of many writings because theory does not look at imagery or metaphors or diction or tone and how they relate to the piece or the author. Those devices are what separate literature from prose.