Portfolio 2: Discovering Preferences

| | Comments (0)

The concept of Literary Criticism is no longer new to me.  I understand what literary criticism is and I realize that there are different types.  But more than anything else during this second half of the semester, I have been realizing more and more the preferences I have for certain types of criticism.  Part of the whole point in EL312 is to analyze the different schools of criticism and to decide which work best.  It seems more and more to me that which school works best is more just a matter of personal preference than anything else.  I have found that I prefer schools of criticism which focus on the words and the literary.  I like formalism, I like intertextuality, and (so far) I like poststructuralism.  Author intent and reader-response are neither my favorites nor my least favorites.  I think they are very useful at times and at other times, not so useful.  The school of criticism I like least is mimetic.  While I have a more positive attitude towards it now after class and blog discussions, I still don’t like it as much.  Analyzing and viewing a character as real simply seems pointless to me.  The character isn’t real, so treating them like they are just seems silly.  I like the schools of criticism which keep the focus on the literary and don’t diverge into other disciplines.  As I’ve said before, this is literary criticism; the focus should be on the literary.    

Coverage and Timeliness: I completed all assignments and submitted them before they were due.  I placed all my blog entries which did not fall under another category here. 


Depth: As I mentioned in my last portfolio, I would consider almost all of my blogs to belong under the depth category.  However, here are some of the most well-thought out entries. 

  • A Hero’s Fate: Chaucer and CalderonIn this entry I compare two passages, one from Chaucer’s Troiulus and Cressida and one from Calderon’s Life is a Dream.  Both have a preoccupation with fate. 
  • Why all this Ambiguity and Ambivalence? In this blog, I relate Wright’s article to McDonald’s.  Both authors point out ambiguity in texts; however, I explain why Wright’s article worked so much better for me, even though both texts addressed the same issue. 


Blog Carnival: For our second carnival my classmates (Angela, Derek, Katie, and Jenna) and I decided to apply a school of criticism to John Green’s An Abundance of Katherines. 

Interaction: Some of my contributions to my peers’ blogs. 

  • In Mara’s Character Experience, I ponder whether a character can truly be realistic and Angela and Quinn respond.
  • On Erica’s A Little Different But Still Valuable, I share my reservations surrounding Mimetic criticism with Erica.  Angela politely disagrees with me and explains her side.  Erica responds to both of us focusing on the parts of each of our comments that she agrees with.  


Discussion: Here are my blogs that sparked some discussion.  In some cases the discussion was spread over my blog entry and someone else’s.  I found that I had fewer comments for this portfolio than the last one.  I’m not sure if that’s because I’m scaring people away from reading my blogs because of their length or it just turned out that way.  But here is some discussion that did take place.    


Xenoblogging:


Wild Card:


Previous Portfolios


Read my classmates’ portfolios. 

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.