The words on this page
I must admit that this whole graduation thing is a fraud (no, not a Freud). I may be receiving a fancy Latin phrase and the same pretty water-colored tassel that my fellow English majors receive, but deep down inside I know that I am really a History major who just loves to write. I have had such sneaky suspicions before ever taking this literary criticism course - though surveyish in its nature as it may be - but it has cemented my uncertainties into truths. Thank you Salem State English Department.
When undertaking the discussion of literary criticism I am always sure to bring two tools with me: Number One- my dictionary, which helps me decipher such phrases as: spatiotemporal coordinates (P.552), concomitant utilization (P.549), and typical double-accented, double-styled hybrid construction (P. 426). Noah never intended this, but I digress... Number Two: my sleeping pills, which help me stay awaking during seemingly endless tirades over the Rule of Hyperdense Intertextuality as it applies to the assumption that any intertextual connection is interpretively relevant. I now know that any perceived overlap, no matter how small, is sufficient justification for claiming an intertextual connection in the first place (P. 143). My goodness!!! This material for discussion may appeal to some social circles out there somewhere but it AIN'T here (see, I am a history major at heart). Just a square peg and a round hole.
I can certainly appreciate the fact that there is a place in this world for literary critics and many various schools of thought. However, my problem is that literary criticism reminds me more of a private school than a public one - with each school screaming out from atop of their soapbox about how much greater their religion is than the next guy's. It's religion mixed with politics and there is simply nothing worse in this world than that unless it starts raining NASCAR/Wrestling fans. Seriously, it's no joke. I have found that my belief in using a lone specific interpretative style is similar to my beliefs about organized religion and political parties: I can't yet say that there is any single one of them out there that I put my full faith in. In fact, many comparisons can be drawn between the various literary schools of thought (formalism, psychoanalytic criticism, etc) and the numerous political parties of America (The Green Party, Democrats, etc), not to mention organized world religion (Christianity, Buddhism etc). Let me expand on this idea...
Although we constantly seek to see the world in black and white, life - and all that encompasses it - is filled with shades of gray. Eerly, my beliefs about literary criticism overlap my ideas on religion, which, conveniently, border upon my views on politics. Let us draw some parallels, shall we? This is my idea of literary criticism:
First, let's start with the Formalists. New critics remind me of Republicans in the sense that they are very pro-war. They start fights with all of the other schools of criticism (just ask the deconstructionists what they think of the central
---
unity of the text). Formalists are big businessmen - and their business is in the pre-mentioned centrality of the text. With Republicans, money is everything. New critics practically disregard all other factors except for the text. They don't want to pay taxes to search for other ways of critiquing literature. They think that they have found the secret to interpretation and if you differ in opinion then they send a missile in your general direction. They're the big boys on the block that everybody loves to hate. Their religion is that of Bahai - for the Bahai believe that a single world government will be led by the Bashai at some point in the future. The leader of New Criticism will be holding the sacred text at the head of the procession while leading the way to a world controlled by the Bashai formalists.
Next come the Biographical / Historical Critics. These guys are definitely Democrats and are greatly resentful of the Formalistic Republicans. They want to jump outside of the text and make connections between the author and the author's life and times and how that influences the text. These Democrats don't believe in the big business of the text and want to put the power back in the hands of the people. They're not concerned with money because they believe that time is money - and if you search throughout history...then you're sure to find plenty of time. Historical and Biographical Critics believe in education and the school system like good Democrats do and they absolutely adore History lessons. These guys pay the extra taxes in doing extra reading so that they can draw parallels between how the ideologies held within the time period of the author's life helped shaped to the text. When it comes to religion, Historical Critics are probably Jewish. They don't need a savior to rise from the dead to show them how to interpret a text. To them, the first and only testament they need is a big old history book. They worship history in a big way.
Psychoanalytic Critics are the Christians who are trapped within the tormenting torture of accepting original sin. To them, their unconscious desires are Adam's apple. How unknown thoughts manifest themselves through an artist's art is their intriguing mystery. They would be having a good old time in the garden if not for the ego, super ego, id and subconscious mind. They truly carry the cross when it comes to speculation, much like the faith that these Christians have in Heaven. If they had a platform then they'd probably end up joining the Prohibition Party since they're very radical in their belief of rejecting time honored traditional ways of critiquing literature. The psychoanalytic critics practically seek to prohibit prohibition as they attempt to repress, project, displace, deny and reverse the desires of the author, the reader, or the characters. So, sit down and tell me about your forefathers....
Reader Response Critics worship at the altar of Sikhism. RRC's are sick and tired of all the names, phrases, and jargon typically associated with literary criticism. Just as the Sikhists believed in a single, formless god with many names, the RRC's skip all of the B.S. and go with what they know...themselves. Like the Sikhists, they're prohibited from worshiping idols or icons (i.e. other schools of thought). They focus on how the reader brings the literature to life
---
opposed to the author or the text inciting the response. Actually, they're more like atheists because they don't believe in the text being god as the Formalists do. They're their own god. Hey, that's a good point. So, let us agree not to disagree that RRC's would appear to resemble Sikhsits with serious reservations regarding the status of their own faith. That would be a more accurate depiction. They seek an ideal response that is shared by others - try imagining a room full of Beatles fans listening to Imagine being sung by John Lennon. That works. That's them. RRC's idea of a political party is the Libertarian Party. Libertarians aren't on the left or the right; they maintain a complete laissez faire ideology in regards to the economy. Chiefly, they're concerned with total individual liberty. The RRC's don't worry about being caught up in " the big game" of literary criticism. They know they exist and they know Descartes existed. That's all they need to take stock in. They can find all the answers inside of themselves. Yeah, that's definitely an atheist.
Next in line come the Feminist Critics. Yes as a matter of fact, they are towards the bottom of the list because I'm a guy. But I digress... The feminists are Confuciants at heart. Confucianism seeks to deal with morality, ethics, and the proper exercise of political power. These are all issues that the lit crit chicks will scratch and claw to the death over. The feminist critics are fighting to be at their rightful place atop of the equal high ground with the great men of the literary world. Or what does that famous t-shirts say about what Confucius says about sh.... More digression, sorry. If feminist critics were members of any organization then it would have to be the Green Party. Not just because they've always been green with (Freud's penis) envy of men - but because they're kind of out there in their own little isolated world. Just like Ralph Nader. They have that single-minded theme thing going on. Where Nader wanted to make all of the tree-hugging hippies happy while killing AI (no war, bore) Gore's chances to disgrace the country in his own personal way, the feminists just want revenge, er, respect. Just don't forget that the females had a lot of obstacles in their way. Some patriarchal hierarchies can sometimes be difficult to overcome.
Deconstructionists like to walk around with fat bellies because they're all Buddhists. Buddhists don't need a savior (such as Freud to psychoanalytic theory), they don't believe in any particular type of god (such as history or the centrality of the text) and they attain a state of Nirvana by releasing all attachment to desire and the self. Deconstructionists, actually Reform Party members who often like to deconstruct things, find their Nirvana in the undecidability of all texts. Contradiction is their mantra, binary opposition their Heaven and formalism their idea of hell. Deconstructionists are members of the Reform Party because they took a look at the institution of formalism and wanted to deconstruct it. Ross Perot doesn't care about many social issues but he's a real stickler against organic unity.
Marxists critics decided to create a new party and, since they've never had much creative energy when it comes to naming things, they decided to call it the
---
New Party. Much like the political institution in America that goes by the same name, Marxist critics push the idea that literary texts are products of work that does identifiable cultural work of its own. Just as Marxists critics believe that literary works reproduce, resist and revise cultural beliefs and ideologies, the New Party seeks to advance social, economic, and political progress in America. The New Party doesn't find its own candidates -- it just endorses the ones that it likes. Marxist critics are big believers in Taoism since Taoism is a combination of philosophical and psychological writings, by Lao-Tse, in his attempt to end the constant feudal warfare. Taoism preaches planning your action in advance in order to achieve a desired result with minimal effort. Marxism attempts to analyze the effect of literature on culture and we know what effect the right literature can have when read at the right time. See Paine's Common Sense, Hitler's Mein Kampt and God's Bible.
The followers of New Historicism remind me of the America First Party, that group of Pat Buchanan disciples who are religious right wing nuts obsessed with themselves. They might as well be believers of Islam since the history book represents all five of their pillars. When they kneel to pray it's towards the local public library or nearest museum of history and not Mecca. Only it's not Pat Buchanan -who's even eviler than that certain chairperson over in Meier Hall - whom they believe in - they worship (fill in famous historian here) and yet reject Jesus... Go figure...
So that sums up what literary criticism means to me. If I go by my conversion chart: I am an atheist... so that makes me a reader response critic according to what I have written above. I have to agree that I would tend to fall into that category. I am also a Democrat by nature so that makes me a Biographical / Historical Critic. As I stated in my introductory paragraph, I am a history major inside. I also agree that this is a match. Amazing. Simply amazing! Does your conversion correspond as well as mine did? I just thought to test my alignment hypothesis right now and it was astrologically perfect. Hmmm. Can you get this paper published??? Test yourself for your criticism preferences.... I'm curious if it lines up for others as well. I spent about four or five hours matching everything up and drawing parallels. I had a ton of fun on this final process paper. I know it isn't typical of most of the papers you'd get for this assignment but I've never strived to blend in.
Here's the quick cheat chart:
Biographical / Historical
Formalism
Psychoanalytic
Reader-Response
Feminist
Deconstructionist
Marxist
Jewish
Bahai
Christianity
Sikhism / Atheism
Confucianism
Buddhist
Taoist
Democratic Party
Republican Party
Prohibition Party
Liberatarian Party
Green Party
Reform Party
New Party