Mad Scientist of Literary Criticism

| | Comments (1)

“ And neither those critics who claim to interpret poems nor those who claim merely to interpret readers, are ever free from the web of words. “

 EL 312 Chapter 6 keesey 

Literary critics are mad scientist. I mean someone who truly cares about these different types a criticism must be crazy or getting there. Humans are not meant to solve a problem that’s answer is no answer. Words mean different things at different times and time periods to different people, with different experiences, ethnicities, and cultures. How could one predict all of that? Each writer does not tell you his or her whole identity. And it is not just the writer but also pertains to the reader and their life. I think it is useless to find reality within a work of Literature. Coming up with intertextual criticism and Author intent, reader-response all can have answers but mimetic I feel like there isn’t one but if there is please help me 


Jenna said:

Kayley, I like how you refer to literary critics as mad scientists. Both pick elements apart or put them together to create a new product. I think that there is room for mimetic criticism because you take the work and see how it applies to the real world. Plus the realm of psychological criticism is under the category of mimetic. I found this website; it may help you.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.