Week Two Responses

This assignment is deceptive. Although posting excerpts from seven response papers sounds easy, the act of editing a peer’s work is daunting because with every edit I had to stop and ask, “Am I editing or rewriting someone’s paper?” I aimed for the former, but am afraid I did the later. In any case, I have arranged the excerpts to reflect the class’ feelings regarding literary theory and its relation to scholarship.

“To understand a work of literature, my professor in Germany focused on inter-textual categories. Literature was considered as an end in and of itself. Thus, we approached it without any socio-political perspectives. Instead, we were guided by common sense or, if theory was included in our analysis, we never focused upon it. In retrospect, I find this method wanting because I am interested in a text’s context. However, this week’s reading has me reconsidering how theory can enhance an analysis since it seems theory, too, becomes an end in and of itself. My understanding of theory suggests that the spheres of discourse that theory open are enriching, but also reflexive. Taken to its extreme, this could turn out to be an endless self reflexive discourse.” –Johannes

“An overarching theme of these articles suggests that literary studies, if it is to remain relevant, must go beyond its own audience and reach, to use Gerard Graff’s word, the ‘laymen.’ Interestingly, both Culler and Graff suggest that theory can be an instrument through which a specialized interest can be ‘generalized.’ Although it seems obvious, it is not as easy as it sounds. Speaking from personal experience, I have written papers in which my point has been lost in someone else’s theory. These unsuccessful attempts with literary theory left me bitter and, as a result, I avoided theory at all cost. If this is how an English major feels about theory, how is the profession to engage the ‘laymen?’” –Peter

“The other piece I found useful was Gerard Graff’s ‘The Scholar in Society,’ because it addresses a question I often ponder: the accessibility of literary studies and the general public. Although there is a multitude of conflicting views on this topic, my favorite examples would be those of James Joyce and Sherman Alexie. Joyce writes intentionally as an elitist, attempting to create multiple layers of meaning, as a puzzle of sorts, for scholars to unlock as in, for example, Finnegan’s Wake. For me, this illustrates Graff’s point about society viewing the study of literature as a highbrow endeavor reserved for stuffy, arrogant men and women in dusty studies. On the other hand, Sherman Alexie’s connects with another aspect of Graff’s piece. As a Native American author, Alexie is keenly aware of public perception on multiple levels and includes this awareness into his texts by blending pop culture, his Native American heritage, and academic discourse to present himself on a variety of levels. This is what Graff means when he talks about the new generation of theoreticians expanding academia to explore how society can relate to literature.” –Keen

“Although Graff begins his article with a critique of the academy, ultimately he asserts that there is a breadth and a vitality in the humanities. Indeed, Graff suggests that academic theory and research are more relevant to the lives and interests of the “common man” now than ever before, which I find to be both persuasive as well as encouraging. Graff reminds me that my academic freedom is indebted to the proliferation of theories that have destabilized the canon. For instance, I have the option to write my Master’s thesis on an antiquarian text or a contemporary, ‘experimental’ text that I find engaging.” –Sarah

“[T]he challenge of teaching is mastering and conveying new material to students responsibly. It would be a mistake to teach dogmatically. Indeed, subscribing to one literary theory and teaching it as the ultimate key to analysis starves the student’s curiosity. Instead, the classroom should be a platform to introduce and make accessible new theories and schools of thought from which the student can whet his or her palate from an academic buffet.” – Thorsten

“Literary theory’s interdisciplinary approach reflects literature’s ability to identify and express aspects of an individual as well as a culture’s perception. A concentration of study in one field quickly raises questions pertinent to another field, which eventually leads outside the realm of theory. This widespread “domino” effect is inevitable as one questions begets yet another, which can illuminate common threads and enhance an analysis. What ultimately emerges in theoretical approaches to literature is a growing social and cultural bond forged through an interdisciplinary, multifaceted “reading” of human experience.” –Veronica

“I am particularly interested in [Jonathan Culler’s] remark that texts understood as merely physical literature must now encompass all discourses—such as philosophy, psychology, history, and post-colonialism to name but a few—for the expansion and diversification of literary studies. Theory, which I find synonymous with approach, was once a rigid domain that scholars sought to master. However, Culler suggests that, ‘theory itself is the questioning of presumed results and the assumptions on which they are based. The nature of theory, by this account, is to undo, through a contesting of premises and postulates, what you thought you knew, so that there may appear to be no real accumulation of knowledge and expertise’ (pg. 7). Thus, current literary studies must challenge or, in other words, deconstruct the appearance of naturalness and illuminate its cultural construction. “ –Dono