| |
|
If it's about literature it can stay here, I think.
Can you give us a link or quotes re: the theory itself?
If you don't mind, I will re-post a rather frivolous sentence on the question of 'Theory' and literature and whether the two work together, as I feel it may have some bearing on this question. It goes like this:
Some of these people might as well have not read the book. Ah, there's periphery in it! And that bit's carnivalesque. Oh good.
The tone isn't right for a proper discussion, but it sums up a problem I have with theoretical criticism quite succintly. Telling us that an idea or opinion (perhaps my terms are too simple) is present in the book is all very well, but the critic also has another job, which is to tell us whether or not they found the book 'pleasant to read', or 'exciting', or 'vital'. This is important, because a novel with good ideas about (say) race in it is not neccesarily of any relevance to the way the 21st century understands race unless people are going to enjoy reading it. A text-book doesn't need to be thrilling in this way, of course.
I would argue that a book which is sentimental, manipulative or downright laughable is not to be promoted even if it promotes an idea we find interesting or valuable - and the corrolary of this, that books with bad ideas in them are often some of the best as books, is also true.
Now the obvious counter to this is that there is no clear definition of what is vital or deadening, exciting or boring, sentimental or piercing, etcetera. Perhaps not, but the reader is still a good measure of these things. It may not be legitimate to say 'this book is boring' in the sense of 'it is a scientific fact that all human beings, naturally, will find this book boring'; but it is legitimate to say 'this book is boring' in the sense of 'I am bored by it'. The response of the critic to the text is worthy of note, as long as they note it with intelligence.
I don't know how useful any of this has been, but I think it's worth pointing out if this thread is for Thoughts in "using" theory. |
|
|
