Graff

[Amanda Warren]

Theory is the strangest thing I have ever studied.  At least the way that we learned it.  In previous classes I have had instructors make us read and then follow up with theory, and this head on approach has been interesting.  I feel like I have a grasp on a lot of different theorists and a lot of different concepts and there are only a few I want to hold onto now. Feminist theory is one I will be sticking with.  I am a firm believer in feminism and I think that looking at not only literature but other media through a feminist lens is illuminating.  I think that Woolf made some good points.  Queer theory is another one that I was previously familiar with and enjoyed but I found the head on collision with this theory angering.  What we read was very centered on the lesbian woman and gay man and left out, excluded a lot of the queer community.  

My point, which I have failed to even introduce yet, is that Graff is right.  We need theory to understand literature, and the media we consume. Without theory we just kind of consume and we become consumers and we take and we never give back and then literature is more like a give and there is never take.  I do disagree with him though.  Classes structured based on time and genre are not the problem.  You can talk about theory withing a time and genre.  I have had a class that focused on Shakespeare's tragedies and we still talked about New Historic-ism and Colonialism and feminism and queer theory.  It is possible to address theory in any context. It is dependent upon the instructor or your peers.  It is a highly stigmatized thing.  Theory is hard, theory is obsolete, theory is boring.  All of these things are said about theory and that prevents academics from addressing it. 

POST # 5