Application of Theory

Discussion in 'Discussion of Published Works' started by EFMingo, Jul 9, 2021.

  1. Xoic

    Xoic Prognosticator of Arcana Ridiculosum Contributor Blogerator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2019
    Messages:
    12,456
    Likes Received:
    13,500
    Location:
    Way, way out there
    A thought that just occurred to me:

    If one endeavors to break down a book according to a particular literary theory, using any of the lenses mentioned above (or others we haven't discovered yet on this thread), would one not begin with the techniques of literary analysis, to sort out the character elements from setting from the cultural etc? I would think it's necessary. And I think that's the sense in which the Marxist Theory quote I keep posting was meant.

    Just as an art critic would have to refer to the elements of visual art in order to criticize a particular painting according to a particular theory (things like rhythm, emphasis, composition, color etc). It seems the analysis is necessary in order to create or apply the criticism.

    Of course, that doesn't change the fact, as you said @Lemex , that theory and analysis and criticism are separate things. It just means they intertwine. Sorry, I have a very analytical mind that then also likes to synthesize things back together after understanding the separate elements. I tend to do this.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2021
  2. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    Yeah, I guess. I don't know if you know of the Norton Critical Editions of classic works, but a lot of those will have essays of criticism in them. This is what I'm referring to. They might be informed by critical approaches, but are not themselves theoretical works.

    Hahaha. :D

    That's right. It's easier to explain with an example.

    So someone in the Aesthetic school will look at Mansfield Park, and see Fanny getting bulled by the richer children in the house and ask how it affects her character throughout the novel. It makes her more timid, or whatever. A Marxist critic would look at the same passages and question how it might be a metaphor for class relations with the rich laughing at the poor. The Marxist critic will acknowledge the same things the Aesthetic critic would see, but see a deeper dimension to it.

    I don't remember the novel perfectly, but say she's more timid because she'd being bullied, it's a metaphor for how the wealthy keep people more in check.

    They could point to the same scenes, and come to the same conclusions about for the character, but they will have very different ideas about what it means for the reader or the author or the text - the person doing the interpreting.

    There's a famous idea, I think it was Barthes, the 'Death of the Author' meaning that the author cannot be trusted to comment on their own work. The work speaks for itself, and there is no intention outside it except what the text itself says. It's falling out of favour recently as I understand, but the idea is still powerful.

    It's cool, me too. :)
     
  3. Xoic

    Xoic Prognosticator of Arcana Ridiculosum Contributor Blogerator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2019
    Messages:
    12,456
    Likes Received:
    13,500
    Location:
    Way, way out there
    So specifically, the literary analysis part is built of stuff like this (a small chunk of it):
    That link again, so people don't have to scroll back up (or go back a page I think now): How to Write Literary Analysis

    I have read a few of those. They're essentially the literary equivalent of a Criteron DVD or Blu-Ray (sort of). Ok, that gives me a much clearer understanding of that aspect of it. Those aren't framed through any particular theory, just a careful breakdown and study of the work. At least the ones I've seen—I'm sure if the analyst has a particular bias it will come through to some extent, which is true of the authors and the readers as well. No-one is free of bias.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2021
    Lemex likes this.
  4. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    When I'm back with my books I'll have to check some things, but the stuff like looking at plotting and structure and characters, I think they are all covered by Structuralism. They are also the very basic analytical tools of any kind of analysis.

    In a way it's like you are a detective, and you see a bit of evidence. The murder body is the text, the knife wounds are, say, the structure, the literary theory is the magnifying glass to help you look at it.

    But you're right, we all have our own biases.

    This is all related to the history of literature studies, which wasn't a thing really until the Romantic era. Structuralism and Realism were the two leading interests at the time, and everything since is probably best thought of as a simultaneous development out of and reaction against those two things, if you go far enough. On the surface, something like New Historicism has nothing to do with Structuralism, but they grandparent and grandchild in that same genetic tree.
     
  5. Xoic

    Xoic Prognosticator of Arcana Ridiculosum Contributor Blogerator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2019
    Messages:
    12,456
    Likes Received:
    13,500
    Location:
    Way, way out there
    Ok, that makes perfect sense! I'll definitely look into Structuralism. Yes. all the things broken down systematically for analysis would comprise the structure of a story.

    It's interesting to think through the evolution of the theory. I don't know much about any of the particular theories themselves, but I can see it in broad strokes.

    In classical times we thought very locally. People knew their own local region and the surrounding ones, and the other areas were seen as different, strange. And of course (Jungian theory alert) what seems strange to us is perfect Shadow material, we naturally project those parts of ourselves we want to disown (the stuff that embarrasses or frightens us or makes us feel uneasy or guilty etc, about ourselves individually and about our society as a whole) onto Others, those who look, talk, and live differently.

    As technology like railroads, steamships, and then airplanes and finally satellites shrank the world and made travel easier and faster, we gradually became aware of the larger global environment that encompasses us all. It took some time of course for that understanding to disseminate and percolate down to the everyday person on the street, but it's largely happened now for people in most modern areas who have the basics of survival taken care of and get sufficient education.

    I'd say basically the psychological theories are about the individual, and the political and cultural studies are about the mass. Both are necessary components in understanding people and cultures, and of course in understanding literature (and many other products of art, if not all).

    I don't have any brilliant conclusions, just starting to think my way through these ideas.
     
    Lemex likes this.
  6. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism#In_literary_criticism_and_theory

    Here's a good summation of Structuralism in literary theory and criticism. I quite like how it says there is a 'grammar' to literature.
     
    Xoic likes this.
  7. Xoic

    Xoic Prognosticator of Arcana Ridiculosum Contributor Blogerator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2019
    Messages:
    12,456
    Likes Received:
    13,500
    Location:
    Way, way out there
    Ok, it looks like I was wrong about structuralism being about the structure of a story, or at least partially wrong:

    In literary theory, structuralist criticism relates literary texts to a larger structure, which may be a particular genre, a range of intertextual connections, a model of a universal narrative structure, or a system of recurrent patterns or motifs
    And yet this slightly later passage indicates I may have been partly right:

    The field of structuralist semiotics argues that there must be a structure in every text, which explains why it is easier for experienced readers than for non-experienced readers to interpret a text. Hence, everything that is written seems to be governed by specific rules, or a "grammar of literature", that one learns in educational institutions and that are to be unmasked
    Looks like I need to dig deeper to understand. I'm not sure what kind of structure they're talking about, if it's the kind of structure (scaffolding) being examined in literary analysis, or something else.

    Never mind. The fact that the structure needs to be 'unmasked' probably means it isn't the same kind of structure I was thinking of. Or it sill might. Confusion.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2021
  8. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    You weren't wrong, just these things are complicated. :)

    So looking at, say, a story by Stephen King, you look at stuff like horror clichés and if he subverts them. Is it set in Maine? Common among his books. Is there a structure to his stories in more ways than just the story itself, but it still considers the structure of the stories individually too.
     
    Xoic likes this.
  9. Xoic

    Xoic Prognosticator of Arcana Ridiculosum Contributor Blogerator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2019
    Messages:
    12,456
    Likes Received:
    13,500
    Location:
    Way, way out there
    Literary structuralism often follows the lead of Vladimir Propp, Algirdas Julien Greimas, and Claude Lévi-Strauss in seeking out basic deep elements in stories, myths, and more recently, anecdotes, which are combined in various ways to produce the many versions of the ur-story or ur-myth.
    Ah OK, I'm familiar with Vladimir Propp. He devised the numerical system for classifying fairy tales and folk tales that I've found extremely helpful at times when trying to understand the underlying ideas behind various tales and how they relate to other tales with similar themes. I love that stuff!!

    Later theorists advanced and developed Propp's pioneering work and allowed for excellent resources like these:
    The first link is mostly an explanation of the system and the second is a massive table where you can look up any Grimm's tale according to various characteristics.

    Example:
    Savage elephant lulled to sleep by virgin. Well, there's Black Widow calming down the Hulk using 'the lulabye'!! OK, maybe not, I doubt she was a virgin. Actually, now that I think about it though—well, it gets complicated. Which seems to be a theme here. :D

    Oops! Looks like I got it backwards:

    The tale type index was criticized by Vladimir Propp of the Formalist school of the 1920s for ignoring the functions of the motifs by which they are classified.​
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2021
    Lemex likes this.
  10. Xoic

    Xoic Prognosticator of Arcana Ridiculosum Contributor Blogerator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2019
    Messages:
    12,456
    Likes Received:
    13,500
    Location:
    Way, way out there
    Ok, that's extremely helpful, thank you.
     
    Lemex likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice