Problems with Theory Post 4 Jen Davis
Jen Davis
The problem with theory is that it is applied after the fact of writing. Authors don’t sit down to write with the mission of illustrating and conveying a discourse of literary theory. They strive to communicate personal truths and allow the reader to understand him/her self better in relation to the world at large. When we look through the lens of theory, we are putting on blinders and tunnel vision shows us only what we want to see. When I think of literary theorists, I think of a group of people sitting in a room, staring at a closed book. They poke and prod at it until it falls open to reveal that for which they were looking. It examines the book not in and of itself but through its place in theory and therefore canon. I prefer a language approach. There is so much power in words. I have to assume certain words are chosen over others for specific reasons, and that is where I find meaning. Maybe I, too, am making my own meaning, but I do not force a text to fit within my point-by-point assessment of a theory. Instead, I like to let the text speak to me, in a way. The form and power of language is that which interests me most. There is such profound beauty in the way words fit together. Language is not a puzzle with exact, ridged pieces falling into certain places. Switching the order of words in a sentence can make an entirely new sentence. It is through locating the lacunae in a text- the gaps, that which is not said- we can gain better understanding of the work. Forcing dogma of educated white men onto a work does nothing but inflate the egos of said white men. We must review a text within and of itself.
Valeria Alva
Post #5
Jen, I wholeheartedly agree with what you’re saying. I feel while these theories are useful and help with the analyzing of texts and literature, they are someone else’s opinion of the work. I do not need the opinion of someone else to form my own opinion. Literature should not be bound to the categories placed on them by these long dead theorists (well the ones that are dead at least). I understand that theory is an important part of literature but I don’t believe that all literature should be looked at through a theory. Author’s did not sit and purposely map out their stories or writings based on and following a literary theory (but I’m sure there are a few nuts that did indeed do this). And not every work of literature falls under a literary theory. There are many that stand alone and are exceptions to the rule. I feel like the same thing goes with genre. Why does everything need to be categorized? Is it not possible to enjoy the art of the written word without the need to dissect it with a theory? I feel like this just falls into the purely human need to label everything and to have a name for everything. It is a way to understand but I do not believe that it is always necessary. I feel just as you do Jen. Literature is fluid and should be unbound (no pun intended). It’s the same with artists. They paint from what they feel or see and then later their art is labeled and categorized. When I write I do not keep in mind a single literary theory. But I’m sure if my I was to ever become a published, canonized writer, my writing would be scrutinized the way writing is being scrutinized now.
Matthew Hastings
Jen, I also have some problems with theory that are not too different than yours. Coming in to this class with Doctor Reynolds, I had a mucky and unorganized idea of theory – or at least I thought I did. I thought theory was a well-tested and established scope or lens of viewing a work of art such as literature. Reaching the conclusion of this class, I still believe that this idea is a part of theory however; I have developed my perspective of theory similarly to the ways I view genres in music.
A given musical genre, such as rock and roll, gives the listener a predetermined set of expectations towards the sounds they can expect to hear. For rock and roll, most people expect an uncomfortably high-pitched voice paired with heavy electric guitar riffs that can make the listener feel as uncomfortable as those skin-tight jeans the singer dons. Nevertheless, we forget that rock and roll also incorporates delightful guitar melodies and funky bass scores that don’t encompass our traditional vision of rock and roll. Genre provides a lens of what to expect but can sometimes lead to oppressive outcomes.
Similarly, utilizing theory to dominate the mind of the reader (or whatever stance you take in the world of literature) provides this same muggy analysis of a work. Yes, I believe theory is important but I don’t find it to be seminal. Not even close to seminal. In my opinion, theory is just another opinion. Marx and Engels’ economic base that determined the social superstructure was just the opinions of these men of what they believed to be applicable in their canonical realm. Rather, I find it to be important that one establishes his or her own theory (opinion) towards a work prior to viewing that work from the stance of another’s theory (opinion). Consequently, I must agree with the first half of Barbara Christian’s journal article in that theory is absolutely oppressive.
Kerry Young
Post #5
Personally, I think that theory is
important because it gives the reader a different perspective of
interpretation. By pairing specific critical essays with a literary text, it
guides the reader into thinking about the text in a different manner that may
not be natural to them. In these cases, theory is really helpful, as it
provides a more specific focus and expands knowledge. For example, I would
never have thought to read Child’s short story “The Quadroons” as a gender
study. Introducing the idea to read her story with a gender lens opened a new
interpretation to me and made me more fully aware of the palimpsestic capabilities
of female authors. Since, however, I considered myself most aligned with
feminist interpretations; the fact that I didn’t pick up on the gender
inequality undertones worried me greatly. Likewise, in the story “The Paradise
of Bachelors, The Tartarus of Maids”, I completely missed the sexual subtext.
Despite having the theory present on my mind, I was still not able to forma
completely full reading of the text. These stories caused me to question how useful
theory is, if the reader is not trained to truly analyze texts.
Like most readers, I will not be constantly able to view each work with different perspectives. In this regard, I worry that theory (and this class) has only shown me how unsure I will always be about my “understanding” of each work I read. Considering I identify with certain theories more than others, I worry that in future I will be blinded by the overt message because it appeals to the theory or ideas that I support. I can only hope that despite my limited perspective, I can remember different theories and at least try to find different interpretations based on Marxism, Post-structuralism, or Structuralism.
