Literary Theory - Lecture 11

LITERARY THEORY 15.01.22 WHY THEORY? - everybody already has a theory, but just isn’t aware of it —> everybody has assumptions about the text they read task of theory: - make assumptions more transparent - people emphasize different aspects (<—) context - one can see texts really context-based —> context-based approach text author reader — Author-based approaches: biographical criticism — Text-based approaches: • New Criticism • Structuralism • Deconstruction • Russian formalism • Narratology — Reader-based approaches: • reader response theory • cognitive literary studies • empirical literary studies — Context-based approaches: • New historicism • Feminism and gender criticism • Marxism • Post-colonialism & critical race theory • Psychoanalysis • Ecocriticism THEORY BEFORE THEORY before theory: AUTHOR-BASED THEORY — 19th century: focus on the author’s life and times — Literary analysis tries to unearth the ‘intention of the author’ — doesn’t sufficiently address.. …context: text: —> isn’t talked about, even though so prominent — very biographical based, more about life of the author —> not really literary analysis of the text itself Example: Heart of Darkness − Joseph Conrad actually worked as a seaman in the 1880s, around the time he wrote Heart of Darkness − His voyages also took him to the Congo, which was then a private colony controlled by the Belgian king Leopold − As we know from Conrad’s personal letters, he witnessed atrocities, such as slave labour, horrible punishments (cutting off hands) committed by Belgian colonial authorities − His experiences in the Congo changed Conrad forever, he didn’t write about them for years − In Heart of Darkness he breaks the silence. From a biographical standpoint, the novella could be read as a way of dealing with his traumatic experiences in the Congo. —> positive − It also conveys Conrad’s twofold vision of colonialism: he saw British colonialism as philanthropic (“civilizing mission”), whereas he saw king Leopold as an exploiter and tyrant § Criticism: − Where do you draw the line between interest in biography and literary gossip? − Little basis in the literary text itself − A text has more to say than the author initially intended, textual meanings may change over time —> Seeing what HoD says today more important than what did it mean in it’s time and for it’s author TEXT-BASED APPROACHES: NEW CRITICISM … − New Criticism: reaction against biographical approaches that were still widespread in first half of 20th century − They regard search for “intention of the author” as invalid: criticize the “intentional fallacy”, i.e. readers mistake their own understanding of the text as the author’s intention − New Critics argue that we can treat the text as an autonomous entity which we can analyze without any knowledge about the author − New criticism is an intrinsic approach —> just focuses on text itself, cut off of author’s intention Key Concepts: − Close reading: − going through the text line-by-line, concentrating on the words on the page, analysing its verbal patternings − the intense scrutiny [Untersuchung] of a piece of prose or poetry − “unity”: The close reading technique is supposed to reveal how the individual verbal elements of a text work together to create an organic whole, or textual unity. − The literary text has an intrinsic artistic worth, transcending all particularities of time and space. Who were the New Critics? − Brooks, Cleanth.“The New Criticism.” The Sewanee Review 87: 4 (1979), pp. 592-607 —> instrumental in coining the term − Wimsatt, William K. “The Intentional Fallacy.” The Sewanee Review 54: 3 (1946), pp. 468-488. —> concept of intentional fallacy Problems & Advantages 333oz − Problems: − Close reading can become a mere paraphrase of the text —> bc they are so close to the text − It is implausible that a text should be cut off from its historical context − There are ambiguities and contradictions in literary texts that resist the idea of “unity” − Advantages: − Highlights the importance of the verbal structure of a text, which remains a crucial aspect of literary analysis − Close reading can be a very good starting point New Criticism: Example − The way we analyse poetry today still hails back to new critical approaches TEXT-BASED APPROACHES: STRUCTURALISM − Coined by Ferdinand de Saussure (1857- 1913), linguist − Concentrates on the structure of language: dynamic relationship between individual signs in a text STRUCTURALISM: LINGUISTIC BASES Key concepts: − Arbitrary [willkürlich] relationship between − Signifier: sound or graphic image of a word: “tree”, “Baum”, “l’arbre” − Signified: mental concept of a sign, the way we image an individual tree = a sign − Main premise: Meaning is created in a process of signification, i.e. through differences, oppositions and syntactical structures: we understand “tree” because it sounds minimally different from “see” /“bee” [immanent / innewohnend] − Structuralism rejects the idea that meaning could be intrinsic or derive from the author’s intention. [dazu gewinnen] Language “speaks us”. - - from Linguistics to Literary Criticism: − Taking their cue from Saussure’s linguistics, structuralist approaches to literature try to group together central elements (signs, structures, differences, oppositions etc.) in a set of texts − Patterns are regarded as transhistorical or not typically examined through a historicist lens − Structuralist approaches focus more on the way meaning is created than on the meaning of the text itself: this could also be seen as a shortcoming What do Structuralists do? practical implications: − Example for structuralist criticism today: Narratology − Strong focus on patterns within texts such as focalization, narrative voice, plot structures etc. Example: A Structuralist Reading − Recruitment advertisement for the German army Sign 1: visual sign − Signifier: Image of group of soldiers, automatic weapons, sunlight coming from the top right − Signified: teamspirit, heroism Sign 2: textual sign − Signifier: “Multiplayer at its best” − Signified: army as video game, fun adventure Sign 3: textual sign − Signifier: caption “bundeswehrkarriere.de” − Signified: website of German army’s recruitment office − Meaning created through interplay of signs 1 + 2 + 3: — Being a soldier in the German army is a fun adventure — it will make you look like your cool character your ego shooters — part of a great team — and you might even get a lovely suntan too TEXT-BASED APPROACHES: RUSSIAN FORMALISM − Similar to structuralism in terms of its interest in patterns and linguistic structures, but emerged independently from it − Important thinker: Victor Shklovsky − Main premise: literature is defined by its deviation from ordinary language − While ordinary language is conventional, literary language draws attention to language itself and thus raises awareness for that which we usually take for granted − Key concept: “defamiliarization” = literary defamiliarizes our perception of the everyday, makes that unfamiliar which is actually quite familiar Defamiliarization − Victor Shklovsky, “Art as Technique”: − “[A]rt exists that one may recover the sensation of life; it exists to make one feel things, to make the stone stony.” (Shklovsky, “Art as Technique” p. 9) − Defamiliarization: drawing attention to the ‘stoniness of the stone’ —> it recovers the sensation of life TEXT-BASED APPROACHES: DECONSTRUCTION What is Deconstruction? − Theory coined by Jacques Derrida, who came to be know as one of the key French philosophers of the late 20th century − Influenced by Structuralism but more radical in its rejection of traditional philosophy − Main premise: language never really refers to an outer reality (“Il n’y pas d’hors-texte”, there is nothing outside the text), it does not replicate something that is already there, but involves a process of signification Premises: − Meaning is created by differences - we understand the word “mat” because it is different from “cat” and “mad”: Thus, meaning is always deferred, it can only be established provisionally − An important component in the creation of meaning is the binary opposition (‘man vs. woman, nature vs. culture, black vs white’) —> we understand black bc it’s not white − If we unearth a binary opposition in a text, we usually discover a hierarchy —> unpacks a history of exclusion, violence − Method: deconstruction looks for internal contradictions within a text, unpacking its underlying binary oppositions − According to Derrida, each text actually deconstructs itself, the only thing the critic has to do is to read it carefully Key concepts: µ not relevant for exam!!! − “trace” – a text always contains a trace of that which it seeks to keep at bay: “If the term ‘civilized’ needs the term ‘barbarian’ to define it, it is difficult to use the one without the other” (Meyer, p. 117) − “différance” – neologism playing on the fact that the French word “différer” means “to differ” and “to defer” at the same time. Différance highlights the processual and open-ended character of the creation of meaning. It is actually an ‘anti-concept’, it is not supposed to mean anything but to point to the way meaning is slippery and unstable. What do Deconstructionists do? − Which terms or concepts are privileged in the text, and how are they undermined by their opposite? In other words: which binary oppositions are laid out in the text and how do they ‘deconstruct themselves’? —> how to unpack them − What is considered to be ‘normal’ or ‘self-evident’ and then turns out to be quite unstable? − How do self-referential statements (for instance, comments on the process of storytelling, storywithin-the-story forms) undermine the text’s underlying assumptions? A Deconstructionist Reading - HEART OF DARKNESS − Privileged concepts: European superiority, rationality and legitimacy of colonialism: − “’The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it, not a sentimental pretense but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea—something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to ...’ He broke off.” (HoD 7) - Marlow Privileged Concepts & their Opposites − Idea of white superiority, “white man’s burden” (Kipling), “unselfish”, “sacrifice” − Accompanied by “trace” of violence: “conquest”, “taking it away”, & racism “different complexion”, “slightly flatter noses” —> text seems to be saying two things at a time —> text is deconstructing itself Binary Oppositions − “Sentimental pretense”vs.“unselfish belief in idea” − Maybe the two are not so different from each other? − European vs. Africans − Difference is not essential but rather superficial “different complexion”, “slightly flatter noses” Self-Referentiality − story-within-story structure: narrator relates what Marlow says about imperialism − Embedded narrative raises the question of reliability − Marlow breaks off in mid-sentence —> maybe he wasn’t so sure of the unselfishness of the idea himself Peter Brooks’ Analysis — “AN UNREADABLE REPORT: CONRAD’S HEART OF DARKNESS” − “Heart of Darkness is a framed tale, in which a first person narrator introduces Marlow [...]; and embedded within Marlow’s tale is apparently another, Kurtz’s which never quite gets told—as perhaps Marlow’s does not quite either, for the frame structure here is characterized by notable uncertainties.” (376) − “[...] one needs to read Heart of Darkness as an act of narration even more than as narrative or as story.” (384) —> looks at narrative form and doesn’t stick with just narratological analysis, but draws conclusions about contradictions, ambiguities [Doppeldeutigkeit] Problems − Deconstruction does not actually offer a tool to criticize violence, imperialism, racism etc.: if even the most racist text “deconstructs itself” and conversely, if every Black Lives Matter text also deconstructs itself, where do we draw the line? —> if criticizing texts deconstruct themselves, where is the political outlet & how helpful is it, when it discovers uncertainties? − Deconstructionists also admit that binary oppositions are nothing you can escape