January 29, 2007

Keesey: An Introduction to Literary Criticism

"So, as readers see each theory applied to works they know well, they will be able to understand more fully what that approach can accomplish. Equally, to the point, as they see the different approaches applied to the same works, they will be able to estimate more accurately their relative strengths and possible uses" (Keesey 6).

I chose this passage from Keesey, because this is the overall point of this course. This is something that should be placed in the course syllabus, mainly because this is a key component to what young literary critics-in-training should be trying to achieve to make themselves become better literary readers; not to mention, the overall idea some of us being future educators helps us have an advantage to view a piece of literature, in order to have our students grasp important points to the specific writing. This introduction provided a chart, or more of a spectrum, that focuses on different types of criticisms, including historical vs. reader response, mimetic vs. intertextual criticism, but I feel that formalism should not be in the middle of this spectrum. It should be placed as its own spectrum, one on end, across from a platonic criticism. Formalism is the study of the words in an artistic poetic fashion, and platonic (which I prefer) finds the morality and ethical issues behind the piece of literature. Overall, Keesey has been very helpful in providing a balance and a pathway to the different types of literary criticisms.

Posted by The Gentle Giant at January 29, 2007 7:57 PM
Comments

I really think your closing line sums up everything about the Keesey text.

Posted by: Dave Moio at January 31, 2007 5:50 PM

You hit it on the head, that passage should be on the syllabus, hell out it in the couse description.

Posted by: Mitchell Steele at February 1, 2007 3:51 PM

I don't agree. I don't think that styles of literary criticism work on a balance, that implies that there are various degrees of criticism that have more potential than others. Yes, I suppose that some hold more weight for a particular work, but value - no.

Posted by: Diana Geleskie at February 1, 2007 5:20 PM

Ok Diana, then show me how Feminist Criticism really works on a piece of Chaucer, rather than a historical or aesthetic criticism. If you do that, then you can disagree.

Posted by: Jason Pugh at February 4, 2007 3:57 PM

Diana, what is a "valuable" mode of literary criticism?

Something that helps us appreciate a work, something that helps us use the work for some moral or social purpose? Something that challenges you and makes you rethink what you thought you knew? Something that gets you an A on a paper or gets your professor tenure or a promotion? Some combination?

Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz at February 4, 2007 4:21 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux