I don't know if we're disagreeing or just talking at cross purposes.
I'm trying to say that lit crit is one way of interacting with a text. Just because it's not the way you prefer to interact doesn't mean it's inherently flawed. You're a visceral reader, critics are analytical -- it's apples and oranges. One doesn't invalidate the other.
Experiments are what you do when you want to determine that the practical value of something is.
Emperical experiments are, but I was referring to thought experiments, that wonderful realm of woolgathering often frequented by physicists. Think Schrodinger's cat. Theoretically, that cat is both dead and alive. Theoretically, to a Marxist scholar, Jane Austen was arguing the case for bourgeoise values as threatened by encroaching city life in Mansfeild Park, which can then be projected onto her other works to claim she was debunking capitalism in Pride and Prejudice... but no one can every really prove it. And we're not sure about the cat, either.
It's an analogy, and I won't say it's not flawed, but I was trying to show why this vehemence towards critics is largely unnecessary. Critics are not writing as readers. You may not agree with what they're saying, but you don't have to. They're simply conducting an experiment -- what happens to Lorca, for instance, when we impose the values of feminist theory on his plays? Do we still value them? Why or why not? Etc and so on.
Lit crit is not supposed to be swallowed down without question. It's supposed to start discussions, pose new questions, inspire others to take a fresh look at a body of work they'd taken for granted. Do some critics think they're above reproach and should be treated as such? Yes, but that's hardly lit crit's fault, it can be found in every profession. My boss was like that, and he was in construction.
Texts are just words.
I'm using "text" as a sort of catch-all phrase for literature. It's easier than always typing "novel/play/poem/short story."
Literary criticism forgets this. Literary criticism seems to forget that literature is much, much older than it is, and that literature had a purpose long before criticism came along.
... I think you're generalizing again. Again, not all critics are pompous asses. They might love, love, love their books in the same way you do, and experience them the same way... when they have their reader hats on. Their critic hat requires a different way of thinking. Is it a crime to enjoy both?
And keep in mind: criticism has spurred literature. Many poets, writers, and playwrights were also critics. They would discuss the works of their contemporaries, examinging the vagaries and becoming inspired to respond not only in nonfiction articles but with their own work.
Criticism sees a text. I see a story. There, we diverge.
And this is where I become curious -- just because you prefer a different path, lit crit has no merit at all? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to find it almost offensive.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-18 03:36 pm (UTC)I don't know if we're disagreeing or just talking at cross purposes.
I'm trying to say that lit crit is one way of interacting with a text. Just because it's not the way you prefer to interact doesn't mean it's inherently flawed. You're a visceral reader, critics are analytical -- it's apples and oranges. One doesn't invalidate the other.
Experiments are what you do when you want to determine that the practical value of something is.
Emperical experiments are, but I was referring to thought experiments, that wonderful realm of woolgathering often frequented by physicists. Think Schrodinger's cat. Theoretically, that cat is both dead and alive. Theoretically, to a Marxist scholar, Jane Austen was arguing the case for bourgeoise values as threatened by encroaching city life in Mansfeild Park, which can then be projected onto her other works to claim she was debunking capitalism in Pride and Prejudice... but no one can every really prove it. And we're not sure about the cat, either.
It's an analogy, and I won't say it's not flawed, but I was trying to show why this vehemence towards critics is largely unnecessary. Critics are not writing as readers. You may not agree with what they're saying, but you don't have to. They're simply conducting an experiment -- what happens to Lorca, for instance, when we impose the values of feminist theory on his plays? Do we still value them? Why or why not? Etc and so on.
Lit crit is not supposed to be swallowed down without question. It's supposed to start discussions, pose new questions, inspire others to take a fresh look at a body of work they'd taken for granted. Do some critics think they're above reproach and should be treated as such? Yes, but that's hardly lit crit's fault, it can be found in every profession. My boss was like that, and he was in construction.
Texts are just words.
I'm using "text" as a sort of catch-all phrase for literature. It's easier than always typing "novel/play/poem/short story."
Literary criticism forgets this. Literary criticism seems to forget that literature is much, much older than it is, and that literature had a purpose long before criticism came along.
... I think you're generalizing again. Again, not all critics are pompous asses. They might love, love, love their books in the same way you do, and experience them the same way... when they have their reader hats on. Their critic hat requires a different way of thinking. Is it a crime to enjoy both?
And keep in mind: criticism has spurred literature. Many poets, writers, and playwrights were also critics. They would discuss the works of their contemporaries, examinging the vagaries and becoming inspired to respond not only in nonfiction articles but with their own work.
Criticism sees a text. I see a story. There, we diverge.
And this is where I become curious -- just because you prefer a different path, lit crit has no merit at all? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to find it almost offensive.