Literary Analysis... I always thought is was a crock of, well, you know ...

[dirty ethel rackham]

In high school, I HATED English class. I did well at grammar and mechanics, but hated, hated, hated literary analysis. The classics just never appealed to me because I knew I would never see what my teachers expected me to see. Among other things, my teachers never allowed me to question their hypothesis that every book had a Christ figure (even ones written by those not of the Christian tradition.) Well, a dear friend made my day ... she sent me this link about literary analysis and I feel totally vindicated:)!!

 

Why Literary Analysis is Subjective by Michele Dunaway

[LizzyBee]

I always thought it was so stupid that we had to write what we thought the author meant by what s/he wrote. I'd much rather just read what authors say about their purpose for writing. What value can their possibly be in me assigning motives to a writer that might be completely off-base?

[Stacy in NJ]

I only read the headline and the first sentence of the linked piece, but based upon that, I strongly disagree. One of the qualities of good literature it the definate purpose of the author. Good writers have a purpose for their prose. The purpose of literary analysis isn't projecting your own narrative onto the authors purpose; it's understanding what the author intended to say. It is not subjective.

 

ETA: I just went on to read the complete article, and ....blech. Sorry but the author of the article is the author of The Complete Idiots Guide to Vampires. While purposeful authors may not always consciously include specific literarly elements, having a purpose and realizing that purpose is a key ingrediate to good literature.

Edited December 25, 2009 by Stacy in NJ
more

[Kareni]

I enjoyed the article. Thanks for sharing, Dirty Ethel!

 

Regards,

Kareni

[Harriet Vane]

As a former English major, I just had to respond. ;)

 

The author's point in this article is that much of what you read in a story was not intentionally planned that way by the author.

 

Okay, I can definitely agree with that.

 

However, she also makes the point that the author writes out of their own context--their life history, the things they've read or heard, etc. Those things can and do roll out of the subconscious in the act of writing. The fact that they were not planned does not negate their place in the story, though. The problem is not that literary analysis is bunk--the problem is that some people overanalyze and read things that aren't there.

 

When I was in college, we joked about how different literary analysis is from math. In math, there is a right answer, and a wrong answer. Period. End of discussion. In literary analysis, the answer is right if you can defend it. Therefore a good analysis is one in which the thesis is supported by specific text. Yes, it is more subjective, but there is a logic to it as well.

 

On another note--Bible study is, quite simply, literary analysis. Those that analyze the text carefully can and do make logical conclusions about the message of that text. Then there are others that come up with conclusions that are NOT supported by Bible text, often with sad results.

[Stacy in NJ]

The problem is not that literary analysis is bunk--the problem is that some people overanalyze and read things that aren't there.

 

 

I had a professor that refered to this as the illusion of design. The false belief that because a book had been written, published, sold, read, and possibly even enjoyed that it contained meaningful purpose beyond an enjoyable narrative.

 

Not everything is worthy of analysis. That's why we have "classics".

 

I agree that there is some subjectivity within a defendable analysis. But frequently analysis deteriorates into deconstruction, and deconstruction ignores the authors intent.

[Sunshine State Sue]

When I was in college, we joked about how different literary analysis is from math. In math, there is a right answer, and a wrong answer. Period. End of discussion. In literary analysis, the answer is right if you can defend it. Therefore a good analysis is one in which the thesis is supported by specific text. Yes, it is more subjective, but there is a logic to it as well.

As a former math major, I am just coming to understand this and accept it. I much prefer the right/wrong answer.

[Matryoshka]

Among other things, my teachers never allowed me to question their hypothesis that every book had a Christ figure

 

:lol::lol::lol: In college I took lots of Spanish lit classes - I quickly figured otu that I just had to find the Christ figure in the book (even if I personally thought the comparision was tenuous at best), and write about it... easy A!

[tex-mex]

I only read the headline and the first sentence of the linked piece, but based upon that, I strongly disagree. One of the qualities of good literature it the definate purpose of the author. Good writers have a purpose for their prose. The purpose of literary analysis isn't projecting your own narrative onto the authors purpose; it's understanding what the author intended to say. It is not subjective.

 

ETA: I just went on to read the complete article, and ....blech. Sorry but the author of the article is the author of The Complete Idiots Guide to Vampires. While purposeful authors may not always consciously include specific literarly elements, having a purpose and realizing that purpose is a key ingrediate to good literature.

 

Ouch... that is a tad snobbish? It appears the author of the article has 22 books (romance novels) and the Book for Dummies published. She is an English teacher and practices what she preaches. It is HARD to get a book published in today's market. What books have you published to warrant the pithy reply about her lack of credentials?? Heavens.

 

BTW, I agree with the article. I detest hyper-analyzing literature and thus destroying a perfectly good plot/storyline with subjective questions.

Edited December 26, 2009 by tex-mex

[MIch elle]

As a former English major, I just had to respond. ;)

 

The author's point in this article is that much of what you read in a story was not intentionally planned that way by the author.

 

Okay, I can definitely agree with that.

 

However, she also makes the point that the author writes out of their own context--their life history, the things they've read or heard, etc. Those things can and do roll out of the subconscious in the act of writing. The fact that they were not planned does not negate their place in the story, though. The problem is not that literary analysis is bunk--the problem is that some people overanalyze and read things that aren't there.

 

When I was in college, we joked about how different literary analysis is from math. In math, there is a right answer, and a wrong answer. Period. End of discussion. In literary analysis, the answer is right if you can defend it. Therefore a good analysis is one in which the thesis is supported by specific text. Yes, it is more subjective, but there is a logic to it as well.

 

On another note--Bible study is, quite simply, literary analysis. Those that analyze the text carefully can and do make logical conclusions about the message of that text. Then there are others that come up with conclusions that are NOT supported by Bible text, often with sad results.

 

:iagree:

 

In my high school English honors class during grades 11 & 12, we were taught literary analysis just as you stated, "In literary analysis, the answer is right if you can defend it. Therefore a good analysis is one in which the thesis is supported by specific text."

 

I never got the chance in college to do much of literary analysis because I was a science major. :001_smile:

[asta]

Ouch... that is a tad snobbish? It appears the author of the article has 22 books (romance novels) and the Book for Dummies published. She is an English teacher and practices what she preaches. It is HARD to get a book published in today's market. What books have you published to warrant the pithy reply about her lack of credentials?? Heavens.

 

BTW, I agree with the article. I detest hyper-analyzing literature and thus destroying a perfectly good plot/storyline with subjective questions.

 

No kidding. The Dummies Guides and Idiot's Guides are written by some rather well respected people in their fields. And they are checked, rechecked and thoroughly edited. It isn't an easy feat to get your byline on one of those guides.

 

But I digress.

 

Literary analysis was soured for me in high school as well. I remember attempting to offer an alternate interpretation of a "classic" in AP English only to be told that "there were no alternate interpretations - everyone agreed upon the interpretation - that was why it was a classic."

 

No sh*t.

 

So happy to know that every single writer is only writing for their own gratification, not to *possibly* strike a spark of intellectual flame within the mind of a reader; for we can't have readers going about namby pamby, interpreting ideas to suit themselves now, can we?

 

(oh, how I detest the ivory tower mentality)

 

 

a

 

(I read the article after I posted and must say I wholeheartedly agree with the author)

Edited December 26, 2009 by asta

[Stacy in NJ]

Ouch... that is a tad snobbish? It appears the author of the article has 22 books (romance novels) and the Book for Dummies published. She is an English teacher and practices what she preaches. It is HARD to get a book published in today's market. What books have you published to warrant the pithy reply about her lack of credentials?? Heavens.

 

BTW, I agree with the article. I detest hyper-analyzing literature and thus destroying a perfectly good plot/storyline with subjective questions.

 

 

Maybe it it snobbish. Sorry, but her credentials don't impress me. As I mentioned in my other post, not every book is worthy of analysis.

[Stacy in NJ]

No kidding. The Dummies Guides and Idiot's Guides are written by some rather well respected people in their fields. And they are checked, rechecked and thoroughly edited. It isn't an easy feat to get your byline on one of those guides.

 

But I digress.

 

Literary analysis was soured for me in high school as well. I remember attempting to offer an alternate interpretation of a "classic" in AP English only to be told that "there were no alternate interpretations - everyone agreed upon the interpretation - that was why it was a classic."

 

No sh*t.

 

So happy to know that every single writer is only writing for their own gratification, not to *possibly* strike a spark of intellectual flame within the mind of a reader; for we can't have readers going about namby pamby, interpreting ideas to suit themselves now, can we?

 

(oh, how I detest the ivory tower mentality)

 

 

a

 

(I read the article after I posted and must say I wholeheartedly agree with the author)

 

It may take quality research skills, amoung others, to write an Idiots Guide, but that relates in no way to skills as a literary writer.

 

Just because an author has purpose doesn't mean he doesn't wish to spark an intellectual spark; it does mean that he wishes us to think about particular ideas and tries to illuminate them. The belief that we can project our own ideas on to a text is so 20th century and, well, narcassistic.

Edited December 26, 2009 by Stacy in NJ
mo

[at the beach]

I had a professor that refered to this as the illusion of design. The false belief that because a book had been written, published, sold, read, and possibly even enjoyed that it contained meaningful purpose beyond an enjoyable narrative.

 

Not everything is worthy of analysis. That's why we have "classics".

 

I agree that there is some subjectivity within a defendable analysis. But frequently analysis deteriorates into deconstruction, and deconstruction ignores the authors intent.

 

 

Hmm, so how do you define a classic?

 

And isn't is true that many classics were simply popular novels of their times?

[Stacy in NJ]

Hmm, so how do you define a classic?

 

And isn't is true that many classics were simply popular novels of their times?

 

I don't even attempt to define a classic. And responding to your second question - yes.

 

My original point, which I made really poorly, was that while authors don't necessarily micro-manage every specific element within their book, and some elements do rise up (as the author of the article pointed out) organically or unconsciously, they do have intent, purpose, a larger goal in writing their text.

 

So, what makes a classic or the makings of a classic is the quality of the ideas the author wished to illustrate and the skill with which they go about it. And those leave only marginal room for individual interpretation.

[Tammyla]

I enjoyed her article, I must must be a toad.

 

My dd will appreciate it too, if I'm lucky.

Thanks for linking it, Ellen.

 

In high school, I HATED English class. I did well at grammar and mechanics, but hated, hated, hated literary analysis. The classics just never appealed to me because I knew I would never see what my teachers expected me to see. Among other things, my teachers never allowed me to question their hypothesis that every book had a Christ figure (even ones written by those not of the Christian tradition.) Well, a dear friend made my day ... she sent me this link about literary analysis and I feel totally vindicated:)!!

 

Why Literary Analysis is Subjective by Michele Dunaway

[asta]

The belief that we can project our own ideas on to a text is so 20th century and, well, narcassistic.

 

I think I'm going to put this in my signature line. Except with narcissistic in bold.

 

 

a

[Stacy in NJ]

I think I'm going to put this in my signature line. Except with narcissistic in bold.

 

 

a

 

Yum, well, okay. Glad to have been of use to you. Will you delete your Hermann Hesse quote, or just add it to the others?

Edited December 26, 2009 by Stacy in NJ
sp

[Ester Maria]

However, she also makes the point that the author writes out of their own context--their life history, the things they've read or heard, etc. Those things can and do roll out of the subconscious in the act of writing. The fact that they were not planned does not negate their place in the story, though. The problem is not that literary analysis is bunk--the problem is that some people overanalyze and read things that aren't there.

Of course since, technically speaking, there is no "original text" in the sense of an "influence-free text". And, inevitably, all texts ever produced reflect their context (with significant differences in the extent to which they do it), and they do so even if they're works of fiction - there is no such thing as a "fully fictional text", a text in which ALL would be a lie. Even if you have a text about a monster flying, that text relies on the concept of flying, which in itself is not a lie; even if you have a text about an alien of a color unknown on Earth, you have an underlying notion of color, etc. So all texts are "true" to an extent and reflect their context to an extent, if nothing else than at least through the underlying concepts and notions, even if those per se are not what the text thematically deals with.

 

A lot more complex issue are historical and biographical references, and here lies a huge trap for those in favor of reading author's life and the context of history into the text - no matter how "real" some things containing the text in the effect are, at the end they become "unreal", in sense that they need to be approach FROM the "potential universe" of the text, and not from "our" world.

 

There is actually in literary theory (I have a MA in Comp.Lit. btw ;)) an important idea that EVERYTHING in the text is necessary since NOTHING is necessary - that is, everything which comes to make up a text (and nothing has to be in the text in the first place) is at the end "necessary", due to the free nature of a text (it doesn't HAVE to exist, and it has no form it has to exist in and no contents it HAS to have, other than a language to trasmit the thought).

 

To me it seems that the author of that article is a bit like that, quite formalist in her approach - that is, the text doesn't "intend" to say anything it doesn't already say, since all of the necessary elements of the text are contained IN the text and always AS parts of fictional universe and not as references to the outside reality; we need to disregard the historical person who wrote the text and focus exclusively on the implicit author, as if we were to find a text in the bottle on the beach, and work on the text only, not reading the context into it, yadda yadda - all the typical stuff any formalistically-oriented theorist is going to say.

 

In that aspect, I tend to agree with her. To a point. ;)

Everything has its limits, and so does the formalist approach. But that's already way off-topic.

 

A proper text hermeneutics, what to analyze and to which extent, what CAN be analyzed in the text at all, is also a subject to huge debate. I don't pretend to even offer an answer on that one. Every analysis is potentially an overanalysis. And every analysis is a de facto reading into the text, since texts are not really mathematical puzzles missing a few parts you must deduce.

And even if they were, it's also a subject to huge debate if you SHOULD deduce them in the first place.

 

In math, there is a right answer, and a wrong answer. Period. End of discussion. In literary analysis, the answer is right if you can defend it. Therefore a good analysis is one in which the thesis is supported by specific text. Yes, it is more subjective, but there is a logic to it as well.

Math and Literature are actually not THAT far apart. :D

 

What's the sum of angles in a triangle? My younger daughter always answers on this one (to provoke me ;)): Depending on what geometry you have in mind. And she's right. Curve the space and you have a mess. Euclidean geometry is not the only one existing. It cannot be proved from mathematical point of view that 1 and 1 equal 2; mathematics as a field is LARGELY axiomatic in nature and, in fact, not all mathematics is corrispondent to facts, even if it's intuitive.

 

The only real difference is that mathematics is tautological in nature, so it's an "operable" system, and also not a fully open one.

On another note--Bible study is, quite simply, literary analysis. Those that analyze the text carefully can and do make logical conclusions about the message of that text. Then there are others that come up with conclusions that are NOT supported by Bible text, often with sad results.

True.

I'm always reluctant to bring up that example, since it's a sensitive issue for many, but Bible is an excellent example of everything I wrote about - especially for reading various contexts into the text.

My original point, which I made really poorly, was that while authors don't necessarily micro-manage every specific element within their book, and some elements do rise up (as the author of the article pointed out) organically or unconsciously, they do have intent, purpose, a larger goal in writing their text.

Actually, even THAT is a subject to debate.

I don't contradict you about texts having something which unites their parts in their entirety - that's the basic assumption when you read the text; but it's not 100% that that "essence" is the propriety of the text in all cases, and not you reading your logic into the text.

 

Of course, if we're not going to go into minuscule theoretical details, you're right. And for the purposes of at least younger high school education, that's all the kids need. :)

So, what makes a classic or the makings of a classic is the quality of the ideas the author wished to illustrate and the skill with which they go about it. And those leave only marginal room for individual interpretation.

Again, for the high school level for most kids, that's just enough.

Speaking "professionally", it's pretty wrong.

[KAR120C]

I had a professor that refered to this as the illusion of design. The false belief that because a book had been written, published, sold, read, and possibly even enjoyed that it contained meaningful purpose beyond an enjoyable narrative.

 

Not everything is worthy of analysis. That's why we have "classics".

 

I agree that there is some subjectivity within a defendable analysis. But frequently analysis deteriorates into deconstruction, and deconstruction ignores the authors intent.

Not every book is going to stand up to analysis, and not every analysis is going to get to what the author "really" meant... But a classic stands the test of time in part because the complexity in it really is purposeful and elegant. When you start to look deeply, you find the details really do lead you right back to the major themes.

 

And while Shakespeare was the entertainment of the masses in his day (and had plenty of off-color humor, sensational drama, and just plain silliness...) the reason we still read Shakespeare and not all the other humorous-dramatic-and-silly playwrights of the time is at least in part because when you start taking apart a Shakespeare play it's not random. It has an internal consistency that points you right back to the major themes. Not every detail is as significant as every other (that would border on a mathematical puzzle rather than a story), but patterns do emerge.

 

One of my favorite exercises for Shakespeare in particular is a Word Trace, where you take, for instance, Macbeth... and read through it finding every instance of a mention of, for instance, birds. Or sleep. Or hands. Or whatever. Not just any little detail, but the ones that come up over and over... I'm sure it can be done badly, or one could pick a detail that really was random, but there are some that while subtle really come up as gigantic arrows pointing at the major themes of the story. That's what I think a good literary analysis should do. You aren't attributing new meanings to things that may or may not be intended, but reading closely enough that patterns one might overlook in casual reading make themselves known.

 

It only works if the patterns are actually there. And it takes a genius to put them in without falling over the brink into puzzlemaking... Twilight is not Shakespeare.

[Stacy in NJ]

You articulated your point much more elegantly than I did mine. One of my life long frustrations, being unable to communicate my ideas as beautifully as those that I read and admire.

[Julie in MN]

In high school, I HATED English class. I did well at grammar and mechanics, but hated, hated, hated literary analysis. The classics just never appealed to me because I knew I would never see what my teachers expected me to see. Among other things, my teachers never allowed me to question their hypothesis that every book had a Christ figure (even ones written by those not of the Christian tradition.) Well, a dear friend made my day ... she sent me this link about literary analysis and I feel totally vindicated:)!!

 

Why Literary Analysis is Subjective by Michele Dunaway

 

This has been an interesting thread to read.

 

I guess I'm in between the two extremes I'm reading here.

 

a) I "don't" necessarily think we can figure out what authors "intended" -- or, what the teacher "intends" for you to see. I also hated this in college.

 

b) But I "do" think literature analysis is part of a "good" education.

 

So how do I fit these two together in my mind?

- I think almost all kids need hand-holding in order to read literature in a deeper way, as more than just a series of events. I tutor kids and rarely do even very advanced readers catch on to things like irony or theme without help.

- I think a well-educated adult has to know references to important pieces of our culture. Speakers in the professional world will refer to situations being similar to Tom Sawyer and Dr. Jekyll and Hamlet. A child who hasn't read these, or who just read them thru in a surface way, will not be knowledgeable in the conversation.

- Similarly, a well-educated adult can improve his communication through having these kinds of references on hand, being able to make comparisons which everyone can understand and relate to.

- Many of the lessons in literature just can't be learned as well through reading nonfiction. Things like perspective and worldview do still exist in nonfiction, but are much more difficult to tease out. Literature is a great help in developing a critical reader.

- Learning to predict "what someone else wants you to see" is an essential skill for college. I've tried to explain to my kids something that took me a long time to figure out in college -- you aren't there to learn everything, and you aren't there to learn what you want to learn. You sign up for a class to learn the body of knowledge that the particular teacher plans to present. You might go on later to totally disagree with that entire body of knowledge, but during that course, you are there to learn that and only that, and your grade depends on your demonstration that you have learned "that" material well.

 

Julie

[asta]

Ester Maria -

 

Listening to you is like sitting and listening to my BIL (an English lit prof), whom I dearly love, and who is currently fighting brain cancer.

 

Good conversation is a salve for my soul.

 

 

a

[HollyinNNV]

As concise as I can make this:

 

I think that literary analysis is as tied to literature as scales are to music. I don't think you can separate them.

 

But, in order to actually have a discussion, we really can't go anywhere without defining terms. What *is* literary analysis? From the conversation thus far, I am pretty sure we all have different definitions.

Holly

[Julie in MN]

But, in order to actually have a discussion, we really can't go anywhere without defining terms. What *is* literary analysis? From the conversation thus far, I am pretty sure we all have different definitions.

Holly

 

So are you going to start :)

[unsinkable]

This has been an interesting thread to read.

 

I guess I'm in between the two extremes I'm reading here.

 

a) I "don't" necessarily think we can figure out what authors "intended" -- or, what the teacher "intends" for you to see. I also hated this in college.

 

b) But I "do" think literature analysis is part of a "good" education.

 

So how do I fit these two together in my mind?

- I think almost all kids need hand-holding in order to read literature in a deeper way, as more than just a series of events. I tutor kids and rarely do even very advanced readers catch on to things like irony or theme without help.

- I think a well-educated adult has to know references to important pieces of our culture. Speakers in the professional world will refer to situations being similar to Tom Sawyer and Dr. Jekyll and Hamlet. A child who hasn't read these, or who just read them thru in a surface way, will not be knowledgeable in the conversation.

- Similarly, a well-educated adult can improve his communication through having these kinds of references on hand, being able to make comparisons which everyone can understand and relate to.

- Many of the lessons in literature just can't be learned as well through reading nonfiction. Things like perspective and worldview do still exist in nonfiction, but are much more difficult to tease out. Literature is a great help in developing a critical reader.

- Learning to predict "what someone else wants you to see" is an essential skill for college. I've tried to explain to my kids something that took me a long time to figure out in college -- you aren't there to learn everything, and you aren't there to learn what you want to learn. You sign up for a class to learn the body of knowledge that the particular teacher plans to present. You might go on later to totally disagree with that entire body of knowledge, but during that course, you are there to learn that and only that, and your grade depends on your demonstration that you have learned "that" material well.

Julie

 

I agree with what I bolded. It is awful to have a lit teacher who forces her point of view/literary analysis on a class of students and gives them no part in the analysis.

 

It sounds like this is the type of teachers Ellen had in high school (the ones who saw Christ figures in every book!)

 

The article had some valid points.

 

The creepy part was that one of the author's interviewed for the article called her fans Minions. :thumbdown:

[justamouse]

 

So happy to know that every single writer is only writing for their own gratification, not to *possibly* strike a spark of intellectual flame within the mind of a reader; for we can't have readers going about namby pamby, interpreting ideas to suit themselves now, can we?

 

(oh, how I detest the ivory tower mentality)

 

 

a

 

 

I think I love you just a little.

 

I wrote a novella a few years ago that was read in a college lit course and dissected.

 

It was like being mentally (physiologically) undressed by a crowd.

 

Writer's write. It's a primordial stew up there, and stuff gets spewed out onto the page. None of it is new, all of it is assimilated-that way you coughed in the line behind us? That may go in there or spark something. So will the arching themes of Gilgamesh (Tarzan called out of the wild by Jane, much?)

 

Many of us know enough craft that we DO do things on purpose (on the second and third draft when we see that our unconscious has turned over a rock) and *sometimes* it IS on purpose and we put it in there on the plotting (of course at that point it's been stewing for any number of years).

 

Having someone tell you something is in your writing that simply was just NOt, implied or otherwise? You shrug and move on-it's all subjective. And when you've had your work analyzed you begin to realize it's just an opinion. Otherwise you'd never write again because getting stripped in front of people all the time is just not fun.

 

Edited to add-

 

Two Yale alums (romance writers both) are teaching a class on Reading the Regency Romance. So, to say that Romance is not deserving of literary analysis is a bit behind in the times. It also smacks of misogyny. There is also an international association IASPR headed by college profs every year http://iaspr.org/conferences/belgium/

Edited December 27, 2009 by justamouse

[HollyinNNV]

So are you going to start :)

 

Sure, Julie.

 

According to Encarta, literary analysis is "analysis of literary works: the process or art of analyzing, commenting on, and judging the contents, qualities, and techniques of literary texts."

 

From reading the earlier responses, I get the feeling that folks are actually objecting to forms of literary *criticism* rather than literary analysis. Literary criticism provides different modes or prisms to view literature: feminist, marxist, historical, archetypal, freudian and new criticism. As a high schooler in the 80's, my teachers mostly taught new criticism. I teach literature and prefer to talk about all forms of criticism, but personally gravitate towards historical.

 

Some folks use the terms literary analysis and literary criticism interchangeably. In fact, I (personally) think that criticism is a subset of analysis and that it is confusing to consider these two ideas as synonymous.

Holly

[Stacy in NJ]

Sure, Julie.

 

According to Encarta, literary analysis is "analysis of literary works: the process or art of analyzing, commenting on, and judging the contents, qualities, and techniques of literary texts."

 

From reading the earlier responses, I get the feeling that folks are actually objecting to forms of literary *criticism* rather than literary analysis. Literary criticism provides different modes or prisms to view literature: feminist, marxist, historical, archetypal, freudian and new criticism. As a high schooler in the 80's, my teachers mostly taught new criticism. I teach literature and prefer to talk about all forms of criticism, but personally gravitate towards historical.

 

Some folks use the terms literary analysis and literary criticism interchangeably. In fact, I (personally) think that criticism is a subset of analysis and that it is confusing to consider these two ideas as synonymous.

Holly

 

I think you're right, Holly. We probably are talking past each other with regards to defining our terms. My understanding is that literary analysis is the bread and butter:

 

setting

plot

structure

character

point of view

symbolism

and the all important theme

 

Literary criticism relates to deconstructionist analysis. While I've had undergraduate classes that approach literature from both perspectives, I largely have rejected deconstructionism techniques as, for my purposes, pointless.

[tex-mex]

I think I'm going to put this in my signature line. Except with narcissistic in bold.

 

 

a

 

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[dirty ethel rackham]

I think you're right, Holly. We probably are talking past each other with regards to defining our terms. My understanding is that literary analysis is the bread and butter:

 

setting

plot

structure

character

point of view

symbolism

and the all important theme

 

.

 

While I agree that this list is important, the last two can be very subjective. Symbolism is a very subjective thing. I don't believe for one minute that there is only one right way to talk about symbolism. Theme is another one that is subjective. I agree that there may be universal themes, however, are those decided upon by the ivory tower English professors of long ago the only ones allowed? There have been many English teachers (and many SAT,CLEP prep books) that will only accept a limited set of "correct answers" with no room for alternative ideas.

 

I think it may be important to study what others have thought in the past, but I do think that many English teachers read WAY too much into literature and find stuff that was never intended to be there. In addition to my Christ figure example above, there are many teachers who see sex/depression/hatred in everything. I can't believe that is what every author intends.

 

It is my understanding that literature is an art. I always understood that a part of art is what the audience brings to it that make it a unique experience. If we discount the life experiences (or lack thereof) of the audience, then we discount its value as art. If I see something in a book that relates to my life experience, then it is valid to me. You may see that as narcissistic. I see that as reacting to art. If I can't bring that to a book then, why bother?

[Julie in MN]

While I agree that this list is important, the last two can be very subjective. Symbolism is a very subjective thing. I don't believe for one minute that there is only one right way to talk about symbolism. Theme is another one that is subjective. I agree that there may be universal themes, however, are those decided upon by the ivory tower English professors of long ago the only ones allowed? There have been many English teachers (and many SAT,CLEP prep books) that will only accept a limited set of "correct answers" with no room for alternative ideas.

 

I think it may be important to study what others have thought in the past, but I do think that many English teachers read WAY too much into literature and find stuff that was never intended to be there. In addition to my Christ figure example above, there are many teachers who see sex/depression/hatred in everything. I can't believe that is what every author intends.

 

:iagree:

I recently checked out one of those "annotated" books with all the notes in the margins -- I think it was on the Grimm's or something -- and promptly sent it back because everything was supposedly s*xual (and male).

 

It is my understanding that literature is an art. I always understood that a part of art is what the audience brings to it that make it a unique experience. If we discount the life experiences (or lack thereof) of the audience, then we discount its value as art. If I see something in a book that relates to my life experience, then it is valid to me. You may see that as narcissistic. I see that as reacting to art. If I can't bring that to a book then, why bother?

 

Well, even though I agree in my own opinions, I still think there is a valid place for learning what others say. Only *after* that can you present your own, alternative views to the scholarly world. I find this true in my own life -- when I want to discuss an "issue" with someone, the first thing I need is for them to totally "hear" what I'm saying. Only then can I really listen to their counter-argument.

 

However, meanwhile, we don't need to require them to come up with the other people's way-out views for now, at least in our own home schools. But we can teach them to *look* more deeply, prepare them to narrow down their "own ideas" about what they read, and come up with strong supporting facts. Literature is a great means for developing these skills.

 

Julie

[Stacy in NJ]

While I agree that this list is important, the last two can be very subjective. Symbolism is a very subjective thing. I don't believe for one minute that there is only one right way to talk about symbolism. Theme is another one that is subjective. I agree that there may be universal themes, however, are those decided upon by the ivory tower English professors of long ago the only ones allowed? There have been many English teachers (and many SAT,CLEP prep books) that will only accept a limited set of "correct answers" with no room for alternative ideas.

 

I think it may be important to study what others have thought in the past, but I do think that many English teachers read WAY too much into literature and find stuff that was never intended to be there. In addition to my Christ figure example above, there are many teachers who see sex/depression/hatred in everything. I can't believe that is what every author intends.

 

It is my understanding that literature is an art. I always understood that a part of art is what the audience brings to it that make it a unique experience. If we discount the life experiences (or lack thereof) of the audience, then we discount its value as art. If I see something in a book that relates to my life experience, then it is valid to me. You may see that as narcissistic. I see that as reacting to art. If I can't bring that to a book then, why bother?

 

I think modern lit analysis usually attempts to go beyond that simple list I posted. Most university level English professors are very invested in deconstruction which, rather than trying to understand a book for what it is in itself, seeks to deconstruct it of meaning. Here's a wiki entry if you've never heard of deconstriction as it relates it lit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

 

I've had classroom experience with deconstrutionists and can't tell you how insane I thought they were.

 

I'll have to disagree with you that symbolism and theme are very subjective. While there maybe competing ideas about what any individual symbol or theme means, they are usually part of a complete work which reinforces only a limited meaning.

 

I think of course it is natural to individually react to many types of art, be inspired by it, but just because we view it in a particular way doesn't mean we understand it. What makes art art is it's ability to communicate complex ideas. It's our responsibility to try to understand it's meaning, not just project our own needs onto it. In understanding we can appreciate and even love the work outside of our own experience. Basically, it's not about us all of the time. And if we accept that, we're then open to learning what a new idea or prespective really is.

 

You ask if we can't bring ourselves to the book then why bother? Because we may learn something completely new and even foreign to us that's not about our own needs.

[HollyinNNV]

While I agree that this list is important, the last two can be very subjective. Symbolism is a very subjective thing. I don't believe for one minute that there is only one right way to talk about symbolism. Theme is another one that is subjective. I agree that there may be universal themes, however, are those decided upon by the ivory tower English professors of long ago the only ones allowed?

I have read a lot of literary criticism recently. However, I've not noticed any critics saying that their interpretation is the "only" interpretation that is valued. In fact, they often give several different interpretations.

 

 

There have been many English teachers (and many SAT,CLEP prep books) that will only accept a limited set of "correct answers" with no room for alternative ideas.

 

This is actually important and I'm glad that you included it. In the case of a multiple choice question, there is not only one answer. However, there is only one BEST answer included and that is the one you are supposed to choose. There may even be better answers that have not been included in the multiple choice selections. That does not negate them. They are just not included as choices.

 

I think it may be important to study what others have thought in the past, but I do think that many English teachers read WAY too much into literature and find stuff that was never intended to be there. In addition to my Christ figure example above, there are many teachers who see sex/depression/hatred in everything. I can't believe that is what every author intends.

 

You are preaching to the choir.:001_smile: As a lit. instructor, I first ask my students what they think. We discuss. Then I expand the discussion by informing them of what many experts think. We discuss. Often, the student and expert thinking overlaps and there is lots of agreement. Sometimes, not. I find that the kid react much more to the literature itself, than what the experts think.

 

It is my understanding that literature is an art. I always understood that a part of art is what the audience brings to it that make it a unique experience. If we discount the life experiences (or lack thereof) of the audience, then we discount its value as art. If I see something in a book that relates to my life experience, then it is valid to me. You may see that as narcissistic. I see that as reacting to art. If I can't bring that to a book then, why bother?

 

Well, I agree with you to a point........Because my degree is in music, I'm going to use a musical example to illustrate in what way I disagree. In the arts, there are "wrong answers." Consider a Bach cello suite played by a professional. Many musicians would consider an invalid interpretation to be playing the suite in a Romantic style. Playing the suite Romantically changes the suite to the point that many musicians would feel that the player is playing it "wrong." Even if the player feels that it is right, (according to their life experience) that does not make it so. There is a "Baroque musical box" so to speak. Everyone must play Baroque music within that box. You might deviate somewhat to musically interpret the suite. However, at some point you've completely left the box and your interpretation is no longer valid.

 

After a while, this analogy begins to break down, but it is the best I could come up with.

 

But, Ellen, I would be very interested in discussing an actual example that you might be able to provide. Can you provide a book where you came up with a theme that was considered incorrect?

Holly

[Ester Maria]

Most university level English professors are very invested in deconstruction which, rather than trying to understand a book for what it is in itself, seeks to deconstruct it of meaning.

I am having a very, very hard time believing you on the part I put in bold, though I did not study specifically English literature.

 

From my experience - undergraduate and graduate study of Italian and Comparative Literature, in Europe though - most university level professors are definitely not those in favor of deconstruction. In fact, deconstruction as a kind of "intellectual fashion" seems to be far, far more popular amongst fresh lycee graduates who have just started their university education and quite predictably fall for certain types of "intellectual fashions" (Derrida, Foucault, Fromm, Chomsky and Fukuyama, etc., depending on the field; you know that kind of readings a lot of, if not most 18-19 y.o. kids fall for at the beginning of their university education), than with people who are serious experts in the field.

 

That is not to say that there aren't many deconstructionists in the academia, but they're far from being the majority (thank God :D); also, those I have met and talked to base their deconstructionist views in philosophy and literature far more on Heidegger than on what Derrida (and the "chain" of people after him) made out of it.

What makes art art is it's ability to communicate complex ideas. It's our responsibility to try to understand it's meaning,

I definitely see where you're coming from, but please keep in mind that that too is an ideological position and not a given point.

 

It's a subject to huge debate what makes art an art, whether art's primary purpose is to "communicate" anything to you in a way you are to "decipher" it, whether we have any "responsibility" towards it and any role in it being an art, whether the goal is that our reception of it construct the exact meaning that was projected into it (under the, again, assumption there was one) and whether that is even theoretically possible, etc.

 

I'm not offering answers to any of those, just warning that you too, when saying it is not subjective, are coming from a standpoint which is not free of an underlying ideology and may as well be very subjective in the end.

 

That's basically the message I'm trying to give to my daughters when they attempt to talk about some aspects of theory, though they're at this point way too young for the actual discussions on this level - I really don't want to sink into "it's all relative and depends on how you see it", but on the other hand, I have to admit that an approach which claims the existence of objective findable and observable fixed elements of meaning in a literary work is also a result of a specific ideology, just like deconstruction is, and not a given fact you come from.

 

Ontopic, however, I really believe that most of the things discussed here are not exactly a high school repertory and that that level of theory should be left only to students who ASK for it.

 

For high school purposes, I would stick to the basics: "canonical" works, "canonical" interpretations, students' interpretations must be backed up by text and defended, and the purpose of Literature education seen more like a general culture education (which would include being familiar with that "canonical" aspect) than like overanalyzing of the works read, forced "intellectualizing" on the possible worlds, obscure hidden meanings in everything and so on. :)

[asta]

I just keep feeling like there is an appropriate Andy Warhol quote waiting to come out here...

 

:auto:

 

 

a

[Stacy in NJ]

Hi Ester Maria,

 

Most of my English and literary classes were taken in the late '80's and early '90's, and I can assure that deconstructionism was all the rage at the American Universities I attended.

 

As to my position being ideological, well of course it is. My ideas and feeling about art and literature rise out of a particular world view. The point is to not encourage subjectivism, but to discipline oneself toward objectivism (not Randian Objectivism - but run of the mill objectivity).

[Ester Maria]

As to my position being ideological, well of course it is. My ideas and feeling about art and literature rise out of a particular world view. The point is to not encourage subjectivism, but to discipline oneself toward objectivism (not Randian Objectivism - but run of the mill objectivity).

Sure, I wasn't really disagreeing with you (regarding deconstructionism though, it seems to be another of the big differences of the approach to many topics in Europe and in the US... though I have to admit, you surprised me with that one, I really thought/hoped that specific approach wasn't as prevalent as it seems to be after all) or thinking you aren't aware of it; it was more like taking your post as a starting point to think aloud about some more things.

[at the beach]

I am no expert in this area, but I have found this conversation enjoyable and interesting.

 

I can appreciate that Shakespeare and Twilight are not the same. I agree, we still read Shakespeare today for many reasons. But IMO one of the main reasons is that Shakespeare touches our hearts, speaks to our humanity. He expertly illuminates the human condition with his unique voice that shines through in his writing. His themes are universal and they resonate still today. So, we are drawn to his work again and again and again. We are moved emotionally by his words and voice on the page. Without that, the patterns would not matter, would they?

 

Shakespeare appealed to the masses just as Ms. Meyer does. My point in bringing up that many classics were simply popular novels of their time was that I don't necessarily agree that those authors had a specific intent, purpose or larger goal in writing their text. ETA: Other than attempting to put to the page the story that lives within. As Wordsworth said, "Fill your paper with the breathings of your heart."

 

IMO what makes something art is more than the ability to communicate a complex idea. Art must move us emotionally. "A book must be the axe for the frozen sea within us."--Kafka

Edited December 28, 2009 by Violet

[Lizzie in Ma]

I absolutely despised the TA who ran the discussions in my college class on Fairy Tales, He was a Freudian and made the class a psychobabble hell of glass slippers really being vaginas blah, blah.

I could have lived without that one let me tell you. :D

 

I do think literary analysis has it's place and I believe it is important to have some idea of how to go about doing so; that having been said, much of literature should just be enjoyed without being ripped to shreds by someone's subjective opinion. And, to my old TA, do not come near my Tolkien you Freudian ass!

[Mama Lynx]

Hi Ester Maria,

 

Most of my English and literary classes were taken in the late '80's and early '90's, and I can assure that deconstructionism was all the rage at the American Universities I attended.

 

 

 

This was my experience as well, in this same time period. In fact, I did not get into the honors program in my major because I thought the deconstructionist and Marxist and feminist criticism we were being taught was hooey, and I wouldn't buy into it. The kids who were excited about Derrida were the department favorites.

[dragons in the flower bed]

Again, for the high school level for most kids, that's just enough.

Speaking "professionally", it's pretty wrong.

 

I admit I enjoy deconstruction and every other method of sucking a good book through your nose like an addict on crack. But, my own habits aside, why would you teach high school level kids something that's pretty wrong? If they aren't mature enough to do it right, wouldn't it be more efficient to wait until then and let them just enjoy reading in the meantime?

[Nan in Mass]

I read the Wiki article on deconstruction. Would you please tell me if I have this right? I think I must have misunderstood the Wiki article on deconstruction because I don't see how so many people can be invested in doing something that is so obviously wrong?

 

It seems like the article is saying that deconstruction says writing can't mean anything because words mean different things to different people and the original meaning of the author can't be determined unless you are talking to the author and can question him? Isn't that obvious? And yet, people do get meaning out of writing; sometimes large groups of people appear to get the same meaning out of a piece of writing. And why does that matter, anyway? Why does a book's meaning and usefulness to you have to have anything to do with the author's intentions? It seems like deconstruction is wanting a piece of writing to mean the same thing to everyone, and just because it doesn't, it says it can't mean anything to anybody? Isn't it significant that a piece of writing can mean the same thing to lots of people? And, getting back to homeschooling, isn't it potentially useful for our children to know that many people like work this because they see this-and-such in it? And that the author might have written it deliberately to mean that, or that the book and the author might have been influenced by these historical events? Or that people reading the books and interpreting it this way produced this result? Once a piece of writing is out in the world, it has its own life apart from the author and the author's intentions. The writing will accomplish many things. Is the article really saying that deconstruction claims something has to be perfect in order to accomplish anything and that the author can never do a perfect writing job because we all interpret words differently?

 

Books, as far as meaning goes, are an analogy or a collection of analogies. All analogies break down at some point, therefore the meaning in books breaks down at some point; life is complex and messy. That doesn't make analogies useless, nor does it make finding meaning in imperfectly written books senseless. It only is senseless to try to carry the analogy too far. The very limitedness of books and their worlds is what makes them useful. The limitedness unmessies life enough for us to begin to see the patterns, if our experience (even just vicariously) overlaps with some of areas dealt with in the book. And yet it seems like the Wiki article is saying that deconstruction insists on every piece of writing and every philosophy of life being a perfect analogy. Isn't that like saying our general rules for living are useless because they don't work in every single situation? The general rule "Don't lie" is a good guideline, even though there are many circumstances when consider it better to lie.

 

Here is an example from the Wiki article: "Informed by this conclusion the deconstruction of a text will typically demonstrate the inability of the author to achieve their stated intentions within a text by demonstrating how the meaning of the language they use is, at least partially, beyond the ability of their intentions to control." Isn't that saying that writing always fails, when experience tells us that it doesn't? My son had an author come speak to his class and the author cried because the class had read his book and understood it. But I'm beginning to repeat myself. And, of course, I'm leaving out the whole paradox of a man writing in full expectation of being understood about writing not working.

 

I also think I might differ from the "it's not all about you" people. Obviously, what the rest of the world sees in a book is not unimportant, but in the end, I live in me. Books are a way of not living in me for a small period of time, but in the end, when it comes to choosing whether or not I reread this book, it is all about me. It is also all about me when I do literary analysis, not necessarily all about how this book relates to or is useful in my one small life, although that, too, is important, but how the book relates to and changes my own ideas of the world. My ideas of the world are me. It is a physical reality that we are all stuck in our heads.

 

Thank goodness for TWTM/TWEM. I don't care what school it is or isn't; it works for us. I have never understood this stuff. I'm not sure I ever will. I think I'll go back to rescuing seagulls now.

 

-Nan

[HollyinNNV]

I'm still reading the Wiki article. Nan, your response is very interesting and I'd like to respond, but I'm still thinking.....:tongue_smilie:

 

One very interesting component of the article states that deconstruction is NOT analysis, at least in the traditional sense. I'd like to make the point, although you all probably know this, that the OP was about analysis. I'd hate for someone to read through this thread and equate deconstruction with analysis and throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

Holly

[HollyinNNV]

Holy cow! I just stumbled upon an article that you guys have just got to read! It is written by an engineer who decides to learn about deconstruction. The only bad part about the article is that it ends......I absolutely wanted to keep reading. Parts of it are funny (my sense of humor) and at the end he actually shows you how to deconstruct. I didn't know a lot about deconstruction and this was the ticket. Much more fun and illuminating than Wiki!

 

Read it!!!

http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html

[Nan in Mass]

It seems like you all are talking about two different things. By literary analysis, some of you seem to mean "how most people (or most experts) interpret piece of writing" and the rest of you seem to mean "what a book means to you as an individual". "How most people..." is less subjective. "How you..." is more subjective. Or maybe I have this wrong?

-Nan

[Michelle in AL]

Aagggh! I'm laughing out loud! That is the perfect article and the precise reason I think my dd wouldn't pass the AP Lang and Comp test no matter how hard I try to teach her. The preferred answers to the free response questions go way off the bogosity meter, even my English-major brother couldn't comprehend some of the responses.

[HollyinNNV]

Aagggh! I'm laughing out loud! That is the perfect article and the precise reason I think my dd wouldn't pass the AP Lang and Comp test no matter how hard I try to teach her. The preferred answers to the free response questions go way off the bogosity meter, even my English-major brother couldn't comprehend some of the responses.

 

No! I thought the bogosity meter only applied to AP Lit! :lol:

Holly

[HollyinNNV]

It seems like you all are talking about two different things. By literary analysis, some of you seem to mean "how most people (or most experts) interpret piece of writing" and the rest of you seem to mean "what a book means to you as an individual". "How most people..." is less subjective. "How you..." is more subjective. Or maybe I have this wrong?

-Nan

 

Well, that was my point earlier. We are discussing without defining.

 

What a book means to you as an individual is reader response theory:

"Reader-response criticism is a school of literary theory that focuses on the reader (or "audience") and his or her experience of a literary work, in contrast to other schools and theories that focus attention primarily on the author or the content and form of the work."

 

What a book means to everyone-hmmmm-couldn't find a "name" for this. I would guess that it started with Aristotle. But, some lit major could probably do better.....Anyone.....

[nmoira]

 

I admit I enjoy deconstruction and every other method of sucking a good book through your nose like an addict on crack. But, my own habits aside, why would you teach high school level kids something that's pretty wrong? If they aren't mature enough to do it right, wouldn't it be more efficient to wait until then and let them just enjoy reading in the meantime?

You'll probably get a kick out of Perry Nodelman's essay on Mr. Gumpy's Outing. It's worth tracking down via ILL if your local library doesn't have the book. This used to be my party piece: I'd read the crowd Mr. Gumpy and then follow up with highlights from Nodelman. Wait until you get to the bit about the punt pole. :D