Five Works of Theory You Should Consider Reading

[Paul Mackin]

Having a theory gives critics something to write about--over and above 
just saying wow this book is so beautifully written,  or so thought 
provoking, or so multi-layered, or so thoroughly researched, or so this, 
that, and the other.

Theory gives the critic's efforts an air of objectivity. He or she is 
actually measuring their thoughts against some standard. They've got a 
method. They're almost up there with real scientists.

As psychologist Kurt Lewin said many years ago, there is nothing more 
useful than a good theory.

Now for the bad things . . . .

P

ps--wasn't the 'read some theory' piece tongue in cheek?




On 5/28/2012 2:57 AM, Dipanjan Maitra wrote:
> I think it's fucking mutual.When we say that literature which is dense,
> allusive and simply 'difficult' we think of commentaries, annotations to
> illuminate and clarify its obscure aspects. In this case if we think of
> such annotations, paraphrases etc. as 'approaches to literature' that is
> produced, even necessitated by the literary piece then can we not also
> call it a 'theory' of it, one that helps us analyze the work? almost
> like a meta-language, that appears to 'transcend' the literary work and
> offer its analysis, exegesis as an objective footnote to it? In that
> case 'literary theory' is as old as literature itself and not
> necessarily structuralist or poststructuralist.
> But is theory ever meta-linguistic? Take Derrida for in stance.Isn't
> much of his work a series of commentaries, asides on literary,
> philosophical, religious or even political works? In other words the
> fact that deconstruction can be seen as NOT a concrete, /body/ of work
> that establishes its own hegemony of presence but simply as a /strategy/
> aimed at philosophy, art (Derrida of course blurs any such distinctions)
> points toward its own parasitical dependance on literature, art? For
> example he speaks of Joyce's presence in his writing as a 'haunting'.
> Indeed even in his thesis on Husserl, probably his first major academic
> publication he puts in Joyce's /Finnegans Wake /to posit a crucial
> counter-example.
> This 'dependance' is of course not restricted to Derrida. Where would
> Oedipus and his complex be without Sophocles and the circuit of the
> 'letter' without Poe, or the 'sinthome' without Joyce, the
> 'carnivaleque' without Rabelais? On the other hand many literary artists
> also base their work or at least are influenced by theorists. Lacan's
> work features in the 'novels' of Philippe Sollers, Perec interrogates
> Saussurian linguistics in /A Void/ and of course Cixous and Kristeva are
> also known for their literary output. I remember Eagleton saying at one
> point that not subscribing to any theory is also a theory. Lastly I
> don't think the business of 'applying' theory to literature helps much.
> It smacks of instrumental logic: theory=subject, literature=object, you
> apply a to b and you get a nice dissertation as product. It's got to be
> fucking mutual...
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Ian Livingston
> <igrlivingston at gmail.com <mailto:igrlivingston at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I think literature has made theory necessary. As writers have
>     evolved increasingly sophisticated work, readers have found it
>     necessary to analyze what is presented to them. Now, I vehemently
>     agree that theory has got quite out of hand, and seems as
>     prescriptive as descriptive (if not more so), but it is often still
>     useful in offering approaches to understanding abstruse material.
>     The more pertinent question as I see it is, does theory fuck with
>     literature, or is the feeling mutual?
>
>
>     On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Michael Fonash <mff8785 at gmail.com
>     <mailto:mff8785 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Sincerely, not to be an antagonistic prick, but I have to ask,
>         why is
>         Literary Theory necessary at all?  I've never understood it's
>         presence
>         in the contemporary university.
>
>         Mike F.
>
>         On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Mark Kohut
>         <markekohut at yahoo.com <mailto:markekohut at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>          > Cioran is worth reading and Stupidity, about which I learned
>         of from a
>          > generally quiet
>          > plister, is a good book.
>          >
>          >
>          >
>          > From: Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com
>         <mailto:against.the.dave at gmail.com>>
>          > To: Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es
>         <mailto:macissell at yahoo.es>>
>          > Cc: "pynchon-l at waste.org <mailto:pynchon-l at waste.org>"
>         <pynchon-l at waste.org <mailto:pynchon-l at waste.org>>
>          > Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:59 PM
>          > Subject: Re: Five Works of Theory You Should Consider Reading
>          >
>          > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Matthew Cissell
>         <macissell at yahoo.es <mailto:macissell at yahoo.es>> wrote:
>          >
>          >> Did this get forwarded because of the Pynchon mention?
>          >
>          > .... I'm thinking maybe Werner might have come across is for that
>          > reason (I got it from him, he posted it on Google+), it just
>         seemed
>          > like a useful/possibly relevant, even, selection to me, is
>         all.  All
>          > worth reading, depending, regardless of the blogger's
>          > descriptions/credentials/whatever.  I was particularly gald
>         to see nt
>          > only Glas, but Syncope (though The Parasite, maybe Crack Wars,
>          > poissibly Borderlands might be more/most relevant here) ...
>          >
>          >
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     "Less than any man have I  excuse for prejudice; and I feel for all
>     creeds the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the
>     trust in reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments
>     of darkness groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates
>     than the simplest urchin in the streets." -- Will Durant
>
>