Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Blast from (one of) my (many) past(s)
This is a very interesting article from the Chronicle of Higher Education about the state of literary theory today. I like it for a few reasons.
First, it's very clear about the things literary theorists do, so one can read it if even if one isn't currently immersed in the field.
Second, it presents an interesting contrast between hermenutics (the idea that the main task of criticism is interpretation, which is inevitably political - the author of the article writes thus: "Interpretation is the revenge of moralism upon art, and that is what makes it so politically dangerous") and aesthetics (studying how we respond to art, emotionally, physically etc - famous quote from Susan Sontag: "In place of a hermeneutics we need an erotics of art").
The author comes down strongly on the side of aesthetics, and I think I largely do as well, though more so in forms other than literature. That is to say, when presented with paintings or sculpture or movies, and so forth, I frequently find the question "What does it mean?" unhelpful and pointless, preferring (when I'm feeling deep) to look at the effect the artwork has on us and how the artist has achieved that effect. The wonderful thing about music (at least, that music with either no lyrics or meaningless lyrics, eg, "Fatboy Slim is fucking in heaven") is that the former question hardly ever arises, crackpot theories aside. With literature, one is sometimes forced to ask what it means, but I still think that is a less improtant question. With much poetry, for example, you have to actively figure out what the poet is saying before you can appreciate its effect - but the effect is the more important.
The third reason is that it reviews very favourably a new book and the way of thinking by an old professor of mine, Hans-Ulrich Gumbrecht (known as "Sepp"). I took a couple literary theory classes with him and they were wonderful. I saw him recently, when I returned to Stanford for my reunion, and he gave a talk on sports (you can see why we get on). So I feel a little connection.
The fourth reason is that it takes me back to the days when I was immersed in literary theory, and actually understood most of it. I found it fascinating and even at times important. However, it was a very specialised knowledge, and once you stop using it, it tends to go. A little while back, I was reading some papers I wrote in college. Some I was quite proud of, some a little ashamed of. But two of my bigger literary theory papers - both of which received A's - I didn't understand. Guess I'm just not as smart as I used to be.
Finally, one piece of literary theory (kind of) that I have always understood and always considered brilliant is Orwell's Politics and the English Language. All who care about language should read it. Anybody who does any sort of editing, paid or unpaid, for themselves or others, should read it right now.
First, it's very clear about the things literary theorists do, so one can read it if even if one isn't currently immersed in the field.
Second, it presents an interesting contrast between hermenutics (the idea that the main task of criticism is interpretation, which is inevitably political - the author of the article writes thus: "Interpretation is the revenge of moralism upon art, and that is what makes it so politically dangerous") and aesthetics (studying how we respond to art, emotionally, physically etc - famous quote from Susan Sontag: "In place of a hermeneutics we need an erotics of art").
The author comes down strongly on the side of aesthetics, and I think I largely do as well, though more so in forms other than literature. That is to say, when presented with paintings or sculpture or movies, and so forth, I frequently find the question "What does it mean?" unhelpful and pointless, preferring (when I'm feeling deep) to look at the effect the artwork has on us and how the artist has achieved that effect. The wonderful thing about music (at least, that music with either no lyrics or meaningless lyrics, eg, "Fatboy Slim is fucking in heaven") is that the former question hardly ever arises, crackpot theories aside. With literature, one is sometimes forced to ask what it means, but I still think that is a less improtant question. With much poetry, for example, you have to actively figure out what the poet is saying before you can appreciate its effect - but the effect is the more important.
The third reason is that it reviews very favourably a new book and the way of thinking by an old professor of mine, Hans-Ulrich Gumbrecht (known as "Sepp"). I took a couple literary theory classes with him and they were wonderful. I saw him recently, when I returned to Stanford for my reunion, and he gave a talk on sports (you can see why we get on). So I feel a little connection.
The fourth reason is that it takes me back to the days when I was immersed in literary theory, and actually understood most of it. I found it fascinating and even at times important. However, it was a very specialised knowledge, and once you stop using it, it tends to go. A little while back, I was reading some papers I wrote in college. Some I was quite proud of, some a little ashamed of. But two of my bigger literary theory papers - both of which received A's - I didn't understand. Guess I'm just not as smart as I used to be.
Finally, one piece of literary theory (kind of) that I have always understood and always considered brilliant is Orwell's Politics and the English Language. All who care about language should read it. Anybody who does any sort of editing, paid or unpaid, for themselves or others, should read it right now.
