"Another troublesome feature of structures emerges when we try to think of their origin and development." (Keesey 345).
I want to begin by saying that this chapter has given me an overview of what we have been studying and applying in our casebooks. When I look at the chart that Keesey illustrates, on page 343, I am now able to connect the concepts together and understand why specific types of criticism are used.
Okay, so now onto the quote. Eagleton presented a chapter on Post-Structuralism that was a difficult read, but seemed to over many ideas that relate to post-structuralism. So, it seems that Keesey is trying to tell us that one negative aspect of post-structuralism is thinking about where it began. This is very true because when we think or study something to long, then usually our vision becomes distorted. If we think about where the structures began, then we may begin to imagine certain things or overlook the information that is in front of us.
It seems that Keesey is saying that if what you’re reviewing or criticizing is already in the real world, then why study its past?
Many people seem to think that we must look to the historical aspect of a topic. Well, do we have to? I don't think that it is necessary to always look to the past because the future holds what we don't know and what is to come. In other words, if we are studying how something began, then how can be move forward?
Click here for the web page devoted to Keesey.