The Dartmouth Observer |
|
|
Commentary on politics, history, culture, and literature by two Dartmouth graduates and their buddies
WHO WE ARE Chien Wen Kung graduated from Dartmouth College in 2004 and majored in History and English. He is currently a civil servant in Singapore. Someday, he hopes to pursue a PhD in History. John Stevenson graduated from Dartmouth College in 2005 with a BA in Government and War and Peace Studies. He is currently a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago. He hopes to pursue a career in teaching and research. Kwame A. Holmes did not graduate from Dartmouth. However, after graduating from Florida A+M University in 2003, he began a doctorate in history at the University of Illinois--Urbana Champaign. Having moved to Chicago to write a dissertation on Black-Gay-Urban life in Washington D.C., he attached himself to the leg of John Stevenson and is thrilled to sporadically blog on the Dartmouth Observer. Feel free to email him comments, criticisms, spelling/grammar suggestions. BLOGS/WEBSITES WE READ The American Scene Arts & Letters Daily Agenda Gap Stephen Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker and Posner Belgravia Dispatch Black Prof The Corner Demosthenes Daniel Drezner Five Rupees Free Dartmouth Galley Slaves Instapundit Mickey Kaus The Little Green Blog Left2Right Joe Malchow Josh Marshall OxBlog Bradford Plumer Political Theory Daily Info Andrew Samwick Right Reason Andrew Seal Andrew Sullivan Supreme Court Blog Tapped Tech Central Station UChicago Law Faculty Blog Volokh Conspiracy Washington Monthly Winds of Change Matthew Yglesias ARCHIVES BOOKS WE'RE READING CW's Books John's Books STUFF Site Feed    |
Friday, September 06, 2002
Don’t Take It So Seriously Literary criticism is something of a sensation. It’s the academic literature and writings that many love and many others love to hate. It seems to me, however, that so much serious criticism of literary theory is misguided and that many of us should reconsider how we approach literary theory. I used to regard most literary theory, along with psychoanalytic theory, and sociological theory, with extreme suspicion. So much of the time, I find the stuff biased, often convoluted, and directionless. I would throw up my hands in desperation and lament saying to myself “is this where academia is headed?” After talking some with others, I realized that literary theory too often is read seriously. The truth is that literary theory is not and cannot be canonical. It is an ongoing dialogue, not by masters of literature, but by “more senior” scholars. Literary theory is intended to throw around ideas, not to be dogmatic. Unfortunately, both those who love it and those who hate it too often see literary theory as definitive. Literary theory is here and here to stay. Yes, it’s often political and much of it is published for the sake of keeping professors on tenure track. To treat literary theory fairly, however, we must view it as nothing but an attempt at understanding an author’s words. We must remember that non-academics have as much authority to reject a piece of literary theory as academics, but should not move to condemn literary theory as a whole. |