Literary theory has been one of the most challenging courses that I have ever taken! During the first few weeks I was terrified, especially because I am not a focused reader; therefore, I had to read everything at least twice in order to have a better understanding of these concepts. However, as the time passed, I became used to studying the various criticisms and I did find some of the theories to be more useful than others.
The two criticisms that I have applied to essays before this class are new criticism and reader-response criticism. New criticism applies best to short stories and poems because they often contain more figurative language and they can be read with more focus because they are usually brief. Themes of universal significance can be detected through images, symbols, metaphors, and similes. However, new criticism is limited because it only focuses on the text itself without using outside sources. In comparison, reader-response criticism is easier to apply because of its broad domain. Reader-response criticism is so broad that it can also be identified through other types of criticisms, such as psychoanalytic, feminist, structualist, and lesbian and gay criticisms. Therefore, reader-response criticism is perhaps the most useful, especially because it relates to the way we understand the text through our own life experiences.
Another highly useful theory is psychoanalytic criticism. Psychoanalytic criticism can be easily applied because it focuses on “how the text shaped by its (intentional or unintentional) representation of the psychological desires, needs, and conflicts of its characters… [and] of its author” (Tyson 451). Since psychoanalytic criticism can include so many different aspects of the author or the characters, it proves to be one of the broadest theories; much like reader-response criticism, it tends to involve other theories.
Deconstructive and lesbian/gay/queer criticisms are the least useful because they are limited. Deconstructive criticism is somewhat pointless because it involves analyzing the self-contradictions in the text, which can ultimately blind us of our first response. Deconstructive criticism is more about searching for careless mistakes than trying to find themes in the text. In comparison, lesbian/gay/queer criticism can also be difficult to detect, that I found myself trying to overanalyze every single character’s sexuality, instead of identifying more constructive aspects of their personalities. I basically invented a plausible analogy of a character in Ceremony, who was probably not intended to be a lesbian or transgendered; therefore, I feel like my analogy was a sloppy, unauthentic representation of this character.
Literary theory has taught me more about human experience than I have ever planned to know. Unfortunately, it has also taught me how all novels are intentionally or unintentionally flawed. I think that my new understanding of literary criticisms will have a negative and positive effect on my future reading experiences. The unfortunate part is that I will always be searching for hidden themes or meanings within the text, which I expect, will alter my appreciation for the text and the author. For instance, I will think less of F. Scott Fitzgerald after identifying the fact that he gave no recognition to African-Americans for the Jazz movement. Also, I understand Leslie Marmon Silko’s Ceremony to contain many self-contradictions about prejudice.
The various literary criticisms that I have studied are important to the literary field because they teach us to read with focus; by breaking down the text, we can identify flaws and themes, making us appreciate the human experience from many different viewpoints. Although some criticisms are more useful than others, all of the criticisms can be applied to certain texts. As a creative writer, this class has clearly shaped my consideration of historical, cultural, and gender accurate details in my works. After all, I do not want to misrepresent a historical era as Fitzgerald did in his novel.
Works Cited
Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print.
The two criticisms that I have applied to essays before this class are new criticism and reader-response criticism. New criticism applies best to short stories and poems because they often contain more figurative language and they can be read with more focus because they are usually brief. Themes of universal significance can be detected through images, symbols, metaphors, and similes. However, new criticism is limited because it only focuses on the text itself without using outside sources. In comparison, reader-response criticism is easier to apply because of its broad domain. Reader-response criticism is so broad that it can also be identified through other types of criticisms, such as psychoanalytic, feminist, structualist, and lesbian and gay criticisms. Therefore, reader-response criticism is perhaps the most useful, especially because it relates to the way we understand the text through our own life experiences.
Another highly useful theory is psychoanalytic criticism. Psychoanalytic criticism can be easily applied because it focuses on “how the text shaped by its (intentional or unintentional) representation of the psychological desires, needs, and conflicts of its characters… [and] of its author” (Tyson 451). Since psychoanalytic criticism can include so many different aspects of the author or the characters, it proves to be one of the broadest theories; much like reader-response criticism, it tends to involve other theories.
Deconstructive and lesbian/gay/queer criticisms are the least useful because they are limited. Deconstructive criticism is somewhat pointless because it involves analyzing the self-contradictions in the text, which can ultimately blind us of our first response. Deconstructive criticism is more about searching for careless mistakes than trying to find themes in the text. In comparison, lesbian/gay/queer criticism can also be difficult to detect, that I found myself trying to overanalyze every single character’s sexuality, instead of identifying more constructive aspects of their personalities. I basically invented a plausible analogy of a character in Ceremony, who was probably not intended to be a lesbian or transgendered; therefore, I feel like my analogy was a sloppy, unauthentic representation of this character.
Literary theory has taught me more about human experience than I have ever planned to know. Unfortunately, it has also taught me how all novels are intentionally or unintentionally flawed. I think that my new understanding of literary criticisms will have a negative and positive effect on my future reading experiences. The unfortunate part is that I will always be searching for hidden themes or meanings within the text, which I expect, will alter my appreciation for the text and the author. For instance, I will think less of F. Scott Fitzgerald after identifying the fact that he gave no recognition to African-Americans for the Jazz movement. Also, I understand Leslie Marmon Silko’s Ceremony to contain many self-contradictions about prejudice.
The various literary criticisms that I have studied are important to the literary field because they teach us to read with focus; by breaking down the text, we can identify flaws and themes, making us appreciate the human experience from many different viewpoints. Although some criticisms are more useful than others, all of the criticisms can be applied to certain texts. As a creative writer, this class has clearly shaped my consideration of historical, cultural, and gender accurate details in my works. After all, I do not want to misrepresent a historical era as Fitzgerald did in his novel.
Works Cited
Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print.