The portion of the Literary Theory excerpt that resonated with me the most was that which mentioned how the discipline of English was viewed during the 19th century.
"The rise of English in England ran parallel to the gradual, grudging admission of women to the institutions of higher education; and since English was an untaxing sort of affair, concerned with the finer feelings rather than the more virile topics of bona fide academic 'disciplines', it seemed a convenient sort of non-subject to palm off on the ladies, who were in any case excluded from science and the professions."
While this observation was certainly more pertinent in a time period of Romanticism, when Literature was generally considered to be that which is fictional and not always culturally relevant, one must still inquire as to whether or not the stereotype still exists today.
Much to my dismay, when I mention that I'm considering English as my second major, I often hear mutterings of various put-downs, usually along the lines of: "So you can earn your MRS degree?"
I fear that many don't realize how all-encompassing literature truly is, sharing differing perspectives on nearly all topics, from science to politics.
The second portion that stood out to me is a bit contradictory to the first, but piqued my interest nevertheless.
In reference to New Criticism, Eagleton states that "One needed, to be sure, to know what the poem's words would have meant to the original readers, but this fairly technical sort of historical knowledge was the only kind permitted."
This essentially epitomizes my viewpoint on New Criticism. Of course certain basic background information is necessary, as language has a way of morphing over time, and certain words could take on an entirely new meaning. Otherwise, however, knowing the name of the author could seriously hinder one's interpretation of a work. Credible authors could intentionally produce garbage, knowing that it will be revered anyway, which is dangerous.
0 comments:
Post a Comment