Ecocriticism

 

            In Literary Criticism, Bressler explains that Ecocritics are concerned with how people interact with their environments upon a multitude of levels including working and eating.  Ecocritics argue that humans and the natural world are interconnected, so they study how literature portrays this relationship based on an “earth-centered approach.”  Ecocritics don’t just sit around contemplating the natural world.  They want people to become active participants in caring and respecting the natural environment.

            Ecocritics also argue that “nature writing” shouldn’t simply be pastoral and merely focus on the aesthetic beauty of the natural world.  Instead, Ecocritics emphasize the necessity of the natural world and the need for people to be committed to protecting it.  They also believe that the humanities and sciences are interconnected and should maintain a discussion about the planet.  Ecocritics focus on the relationships between characters and their landscape to illustrate how each affects and interacts with the other.

            Ecocritics may use a variety of approaches for analyzing literature.  They may concentrate on geographical areas or question the meaning of what is wild in nature.  Ecocritics may take a historical approach and consider how nature is depicted in a certain time period and how the people of that time thought about nature.  Ecocritics may also consider how social class and gender are related to landscape.

Queer Theory

            In Literary Criticism, Bressler explains that Queer theory utilizes methodologies from feminism, gender studies, psychoanalysis, and deconstruction.  Bressler highlights Millet’s argument that while sex is biologically defined, gender is defined by society often based upon sex.  However, Millet disputes society’s definition of gender.  She argues that gender is not biological rather it is formed and shaped by society.  However, society should not construct a person’s gender identity.  This argument goes against the common concept of essentialism which proclaims that a person’s identity is a stable, unchanging thing which is not influenced by society or education. 

            Feminists recognize social constructivism and argue that gender as a term and terms associated with it are social constructions which change.  They argue that these terms must be deconstructed and reconstructed since a person’s identity is subjective.  At the same time, words associated with gender do not represent stable concepts just as culture and society are not stable.  These words derive meaning from how language is used and created.

            According to Bressler, Queer theory does not concentrate as much on a gender dialogue.  Instead, it sees the topic as “pointless” to differentiate what it means to be male or female since these things are merely social constructions.  Instead, Queer theorists are more concerned with sexual issues that are deemed strange or abnormal, and argue that no person or group “can be defined as abnormal.”

African-American Literary Criticism

            In Literary Criticism, Bressler initiates his discussion of African-American criticism with the simplistic, binary view that Caucasians in America oppress the art and humanity of African-Americans.  He also explains that African-American criticism attempts to define what it is to be an African-American and the racial issues associated with being one.  History has a predominant role in African-American literature and criticism due to the enslavement of African-Americans.

            W. E B. DuBois’ edited the Crisis which proclaimed that “All art is propaganda and ever must be.”  African-Americans like Dubois believed that they should utilize their art to instill pride in the African-American race and culture and draw attention to their inequality in America.  On the other hand, Locke argued that African-Americans should redefine themselves as a counter to the common stereotypes associated with their race and culture.  Yet, the real goal for African-Americans was to gain enough political power to over throw the laws of the U.S. which refuted their equality.

            Gates argued that African-Americans should define African-American literary theory based on African-American culture.  Bates seemed to think that it was important for African-American critics should concentrate on “the language of blackness.”  This language is what distinguishes the African-American culture from the Caucasian culture.  Yet, Gates also argues that there are two dialogues within African-American literature.  One is white and the other is black.  Gates thinks that this is what differentiates African-American literature.  If there are two cultural dialogues within African-American literature, then I think that representatives from both cultures should be able to be African-American critics.

Postcolonial Literary Theory

            In Literary Criticism, Bressler explains that Postcolonialism is a branch of literary study than encompasses cultural, gender, and African-American studies.  It attempts to draw attention to the discussion of oppression and suppression of the colonized by the colonizers who form the dominant culture.  Postcolonialists consider the dominant culture’s ideology and the affects that it has on the colonized through hybridization and “psychic warping.”  Postcolonialists who have been the colonized seem to have a greater comprehension of the social constructs which have defined them.

Said argues for a “historical view that emphasizes the variety of human experiences in all cultures.”  He believes that this can only be done through the form of narrative which shall somehow remove the subjectivity of human experience.  He also proclaims that scholars require first-hand experience in specific regions if they are going to write about them, and they should assist the writers and critics in those regions.    This seems to be a call to go beyond scholarship and for scholars to become activists.  Also, Said claims that colonization is a “social process.”  When different cultures come in contact with each other they are both altered.

Postcolonialists desire “decolonized culture and literature.”  I do not see how this is possible since history plays such an important role in postcolonialism.  There is no way to remove the past and its effects on culture and literature even if colonization and oppression are defeated.  Removing the colonizers won’t solve everything.  A new culture would have to be established, but how can the taint of the dominant culture be eradicated.  Can it be?

New Historicism

            In Literary Criticism, Bressler describes New Historicism as an evolution of Old Historicism and a reaction to New Criticism.  New Historicism does not accept New Criticism’s claim that there is only one accurate interpretation of a poem.  It also does not agree that literature is merely a reflection of history or that history simply provides background information for the interpretation of a poem. 

            New Historicists use history to focus on human experiences and actions that are unified in some way.  They also proclaim that history itself is subjective based on the biases of authors, and they take this into account when formulating literary critiques.  New Historicists consider history in “relation to culture and society.”  Greenblatt argued that society and art have a reciprocal relationship where each affects the other.  This relationship also exists between readers and poems.  He also argued that New Historicism should be called “Cultural Poetics” since its criticism is more of a “reading practice.”

            The New Historicist, Foucault, took an archaeological approach to his literary interpretation by analyzing the different eras of history and how each era had its own perceptions of what to value and what defined truth.  On the other hand, Geertz took an anthropological approach by placing more emphasis on history and cultural structures.  Geertz also concentrated on aspects of history which others may have deemed trivial to explore contradictory beliefs within a culture.  Geertz showed that all aspects of a culture have meaning and should be part of literary discourse.

Marxist Literary Theory

            In Literary Criticism, Bressler explicates Marxist literary theory as an approach that takes into consideration a text’s historical time period, the author’s experiences, the culture of the time, and the socio-economic issues of the time.  The economic system seems to be of the utmost importance to Marxist theorists who believe that the economy directly influences a society’s ideologies and institutions.  Marxists focus on the class differences and social relationships between the bourgeoisie and the proletariats.  The bourgeoisie have the control over a society’s ideology enabling them to oppress the proletariats.

            A Russian Marxist, Plekhanov argued that artists “best serve society and promote social betterment when their art and societal concerns intersect.”  He seemed to argue that art shouldn’t just reflect culture and society, but should also influence society towards progress.  It is interesting how Russian Marxism later transmuted into Stalin’s retaining only propaganda writers.  The Frankfurt school of Marxist critics argued that art cannot be a purely aesthetic activity in relation to human consciousness.  On one hand, I agree since artists’ work is a part of the market and artists need money.  On the other hand, art may still be art whether it is in the traditional marketplace or not. 

            Althusser proclaimed that art can be used as a revolutionary tool by proletariats to overcome the bourgeoisie’s dominant culture.   When considering all the writing and art that occurred during the French Revolution, I think Althusser might be correct.

Freud and Mythos

            In Literary Criticism, Bressler spends a lot of time on Freudian theory, but I do not want to.  I do not think that it is appropriate to assume that a literary work is merely an author’s dream full of repressed desires.  What if the text is full of the author’s repressed fears?  Will a literary critic using psychoanalysis be able to bring the author back to a state of normalcy?  Are all authors neurotic? Maybe?

            Northrop Frye’s mythic criticism is intriguing.  It is almost a pagan take on literary criticism by applying different story lines to the four-seasons of the year.  I agree with Frye that all stories could be placed on the monomyth diagram.  The monomyth provides readers with an interesting way of discerning what type of literature they are reading.  I also like how Frye went all the way back to the beginning of story-telling, the myth, to create his form of literary criticism.  I will have to consider if there are stories which comprise a whole monomyth.   I am left wondering why anyone might bother telling new stories if people already know them through the collective unconscious.

            I agree with Joseph Cambell that mythic tales are still relevant today, and that their themes persist throughout literature.  Myths provide a way for humanity to come to terms with life and mortality, and are inherent in literature.  However, I am not certain Freud’s logic is an appropriate method for proving that this is the case. 

Reader Oriented Criticism

            In Literary Criticism, Charles Bressler highlights the Reader-Oriented Critic Louise M. Rosenblatt’s notion that a reader may find multiple interpretations for a poem based on the text but also based on the specific reader’s personal interpretations.  Rosenblatt argued that these multiple interpretations are all legitimate.  He also claimed that every time a reader reads a poem the poem is recreated.  I think it is good that literary theory began to give authority to the reader rather than just the poem.  However, I do not fully understand Rosenblatt’s idea that reading is a give-and-take relationship between the text and the reader.  Perhaps this is because I have a different connotation for give-and-take which I consider to be reciprocal.  I don’t see how the reader can give anything to the text, but I may be thinking about it too literally.  After all, a book or text is not a sentient being.

            Reader-Oriented criticism requires an active reader to assign meaning to the text.  Jauss argued that a text cannot have one universal meaning, because as time passes and culture changes reader’s values change as well affecting their interpretations.  Iser argued that a text does not have meaning on its own.  It only has meaning when read by a conscientious reader, and all readers have their own distinct interpretations.  Iser argued that readers fill in “gaps” within a story about the characters and such through expectations and readers expectations adapt as a story progresses.  I wonder if Iser actually tested different readers to compare their different expectations as they read through the same text.

Russian Formalists and New Critics

            In Literary Criticism, Bressler explains how the Russian Formalists developed a scientific model based on devices for analyzing literature as an entity separate from religious or political notions.  The Formalists were more concerned with the structure of a text than the text’s subject matter.  They also seemed to consider literary language as different from and better than vernacular language.  I agree with the Formalists that literature should be studied as its own field.  However, I do not agree that a text’s content should be deemed less important than a text’s form.  I think that structure and content work together to unify a work of writing.

            I appreciate the way that New Critics concentrate on the close reading of a poem.  I agree with Bressler that this approach is very useful for all types of readers.  I also agree with the New Critics that literature should be treated as an art and not be bound by scientific analysis.  Also, I think the New Critics are wise about the intentional fallacy in regards to the poet.  However, I do not think that historical or biographical information should be completely ignored.  I would argue that after a close reading of the text where the reader discerns the meaning of the poems denotations and connotations, then the reader may turn to historical or biographical information since this information may be able to shed even more light on the importance of the poem’s content and provide it even more contextual perspectives.

Defining Literature

            In Literary Criticism, Bressler explains Horace’s definition of the best writings.  They should be edifying and enjoyable for the reader.  I agree with Horace on this.  Readers who find a work of writing tedious rather than enjoyable are less likely to learn from it.  Also, a text which is merely for pleasure will not be as pleasurable if it lacks the substance to keep the mind active. 

            I find Bressler’s account on Longinus to be lacking.  He states that an author is “one who must possess a great mind and a great soul.”  I find this ambiguous and widely open to interpretation.  Is a “great mind” one that is highly-educated, or is it one that is creative?  Also, how is a person able to judge if an author’s soul is great?  Can this be based on the author’s writings or their other actions?  In any case, I appreciate Longinus’ concentration on the reader’s response, but I find issue with it as well.  Are only educated people allowed to determine a text’s merit?  How is a “learned audience” defined?  I think that all reader’s thoughts on a text can be valuable, instead of just those of a higher “learned” class.

            I can appreciate Matthew Arnold’s obsession with culture and how literature may elucidate it.  However, I do not agree that the critic should be “the preserver of society’s values.”  I think that the author and the critic should be observers and recorders of culture’s evolution.  They may make commentaries on culture however they desire.  Yet, I do not believe that the critic should be forcing society to uphold certain values, even though Arnold was seeking what he felt was best for society.

Getting Acquainted with Charles Bressler

            In Literary Criticism, Bressler poses the question, “can’t the story have more than one meaning?”  I contend that the answer is yes.  A single story may have numerous interpretations.  Bressler explains that all readers have their own unique “worldview” which provides readers with a dynamic personal context for how they assign meaning to what they read.  This personal context makes every interpretation of a text as unique as the individual doing the interpreting.  For example, I might read a poem for the first time and be drawn to specific elements which lead me to a certain interpretation, but upon rereading the poem at a later time my worldview may have changed which leads me to a dissimilar understanding of the text.

            Bressler proclaims that “formal training in literary criticism or working understanding of literary theory” is necessary for readers to become critical readers.  I do not agree that this is imperative, although I am sure that it does help.  I think that people are capable of reading and assigning multiple and even contradictory meanings to a text without having to study Pope or Marx.  Many readers are capable of critically evaluating what they read without “training” in literary criticism.  Bressler also states “When we oppose, disregard, or ignore literary theory, we are in danger of blindly accepting our more frequently than not unquestioned prejudices and assumptions.”  I do not agree with this statement.  Bressler contends that many readers are practicing literary critics without formal training.  Readers do not necessarily need to be trained how to think in order to assign meaning to a text, nor do their minds need training to be inquisitive and inquiring.