Some thoughts I had the other day about whether or not reading literary theory would be a good choice. Would like to discuss them with you.
"Show, don't tell" should ideally mean, viewers should independently feel, interpret, and think of something organically. If there's a theory that states "Zooming in slowly means a pivotal moment in the narration, a moment of realization for the character", and the director does this, and the viewer has been taught this, what really is the difference between this and saying it directly? same for lit theory... if it's said that a particular style, choice of vocabulary, environment description, etc. mean something, then there's nothing "subtle" about it it's like "hey, i'll show it like this, and you're supposed to think/feel a certain way" instead of just saying "hey, think/feel this way" ofc im aware that theories/frameworks help us... but just thought of writing this down before i get tainted by the lit theory thing also is related to the "the curtains are blue"
in defence of theory: i've written many times about how a thought suddenly connecting to another thought (eg., Newton's apple, Archimedes' Eureka!) is by chance here, tristan the classics guy talks about how he'd "never thought" of it that way (https://youtu.be/PKMKqQZXh2c?t=181). now, the theorist would argue that instead of leaving the occurrence of the thought to chance, you increase the probability significantly by using a pre-built theory. ofc, the criticism i had still exists... how do i view the text for what it is? perhaps, dickens never thought of it and it's just a case of the blue curtain, reading into something that doesn't exist. but an argument to this would be that dickens might have been influenced by the thought subconsciously, and this framework helps uncover possible influences... after all, the book exists in a particular context, culture, and reading about that culture, author's own life... and we kind of "feed" all that information into the neural net that is the brain, and information "emanates" or "arises"... black box! all just chance! instead, theory just nudges or assists the thinking, giving us some semblance of control. ofc, theory can also be helpful in uncovering actual cultural elements... for instance, in a world without feminism at all, people might not even identify the systemic oppression of females in the medieval era. think of it like, someone, while reading books extensively, "has" a thought... wait why are females treated badly? a hypthesis... followed by validation, clear pattern in books, history... sets out to write a book that later becomes a canon for feminism. theory is good! but isn't everything influenced by what we know... we already are biased. we add one more bias in the form of the theory, it's not like we otherwise approach it with an untainted mind. still confused haha.
this ofc connects to reduction to buckets and what we know (it's about constructing analogies: when we view something new, the first thing is to map it to something we already know risks reducing it to your bucket and not objectively what it is. concepts, instead of being a cloud of closely connected points floating, risk coalescing into a single mass losing detail), and the loss of "virgin experience" when encountering something new i can take a middle approach... instead of approaching every book with a hammer that is heavy lit. theory, i can instead just read it slowly, allowing myself to think about it, writing down thoughts, allowing them to strike me by being patient and ingesting it slowly, and ofc, followed (not preceded) by others' interpretation. this way, i will start identifying patterns myself... just like i've learn grammar to an extent... and i was thinking right now, when i italicized "followed" to kind of emphasize the fact that it HAD (there, i capitalized it as well) to come after and not before my own reading... initially i hadn't italicized it. thought how i (probably) haven't really been told these things, but i just... learnt, perhaps by being exposed to a lot of text, and not like a theory class wherein the teachers drones "use italics for emphasis" and i remembered this fact and used it... it (the italicization). so i can follow a similar approach... instead of an explicit theory in mind, i can just read other's works, and it's fine to read "approaching dickens through darwin's lens", ofc afterwards, instead of drowning in an english lit degree course called "exploring Darwinism in mid-Renaissance Chinese constructionists" that would kind of force (more like, make me unable to unsee - like - you'd try venturing out, forming your own inferences, but inevitably somehow be almost 'pulled' back to the same conclusion you were exposed to, making it challenging to see beyond it.) that view onto everything i read thereon. it's, broadly, a theory vs anti-theory conflict and i think it should have a middle ground like most debates
one step further: theory is just borrowed pattern-recognition. instead of reading a 100 books, doing the "hard" (fine, i didn't do the hard work consciously, the poor brain does it in the background and just "strikes" me with the insight) work of synthesis, and by chance, coming across a solid pattern/insight/observation/world view, someone else did all the hard work for you and present you the end result (and better, the process by which they arrived there, thus sinking it in your brain with experience and the bland cold logical fact) this further ties to reinventing the universe to make an apple pie from scratch... still confused but with more arguments for either side hehe.
How much theory have you read? What is your overall knowledge of western literary theory?
This was what I wanted to ask. I don't see anything in this post that sounds like OP has read much theory or really knows what it is.
I haven't read it. I just wanted to think a bit before starting theory. I'm aware I'm a novice, and I've stated the same in the post. Hence, my opinions could be wrong
Nice. Why not think a bit WITH theory?
I think employing some theory would be useful yes. Some structure than I can ofc later modify
That’s how it’s done. Yep.
NGL this is is pretty hard to read. There is no reading into something that "doesn't exist" because whatever the reader can glean from the text, does exist. Some theory takes intent more seriously than others, but that doesn't mean the reader response approach is wrong.
Theory, like you say, is just a set of frameworks. It's the language theorists use to talk to each other. You don't have to embrace that language, but it can make it easier to take up a conversation instead of reinventing the wheel.
There's also a weird digression into rhetorical analysis here. I think you would really benefit from actually reading some theory. Knowing what you're actually talking about would probably help you articulate your thoughts more coherently.
I'll admit, as I've done in the post, that I've not read theory, and I just wanted to get my "unbiased" thoughts out, just like you like of write your own interpretation of a book before reading others'.
My, admittedly novice and potentially wrong, thought here is that we can always come up with something new, as literature as a whole is subjective and not "constrained", for lack of a better word, like physics or math is as there can only be one objectively right formula/method in physics or math. I kind of think this way in general too... Can I come up with something entirely new and not stick to the current methods, as it's possible I'll be limited by them. Can I use a new language altogether as adopting the current language might kind of narrow down my scope to whatever this language allows Sorry for the ramble though.
Follow your bliss. If you like reading literary theory, go for it. Just remember, it is descriptive not prescriptive. Literary theory describes what past masters have done, but does not constrain what future masters might do.
That makes sense. Thank you
You need literary theory, a lot, to write a better ramble
Yep. Just wanted to write down my thoughts before i start reading theory, kind of similar to how you write down your thoughts about a book before you read others'.
These are so many words and thoughts to come to the conclusion that most modern readers who want to explore literature rather than just read books have come to. If you just want to read books because you like to read books and don't want to think about it any further, don't apply theory to your reading practices. If you want to discuss the theory of how literary art is put together or why it exists, then there are frameworks and shorthands for naming the things you are word vomiting about here.
It's pretty simple at the end of it all.
Pasting my reply to another comment: I'll admit, as I've done in the post, that I've not read theory, and I just wanted to get my "unbiased" thoughts out, just like you like of write your own interpretation of a book before reading others'.
My, admittedly novice and potentially wrong, thought here is that we can always come up with something new, as literature as a whole is subjective and not "constrained", for lack of a better word, like physics or math is as there can only be one objectively right formula/method in physics or math. I kind of think this way in general too... Can I come up with something entirely new and not stick to the current methods, as it's possible I'll be limited by them. Can I use a new language altogether as adopting the current language might kind of narrow down my scope to whatever this language allows Sorry for the ramble though.
to keep it short: for me literary theory is more of a guide to interpretation, not the end all be all of how to interpret any one work. using one interpretive lens doesnt make your own conclusions invalid or irrelevant. in my experience, engaging with more theory is what helped me further develop my ability to assess what i've i read on my own, and its made me feel more knowledgeable about my conclusions. letting theory color your reading experience to the extent where it's like you have too many preconceived notions about the text is more of a personal choice/flaw in how it's been taught than it is a facet of literary theory.
I understand that it makes reading better and easier. All i thought was - if i borrow existing tools to approach a task, won't i kind of be "constrained" to whatever range of motion and functionality this tool uses, and won't I reduce the entire work as it is to an aspect of it that the prism that is the theory enables me to see, instead of viewing the work as a whole? Can I come up with my own, original/organic way of approaching a work of literature
But yes, i could be wrong, I'm a novice as I've admitted in the post
Sometimes I'm so, so glad I'm not other people.
Sorry, wdym by that? Do you mean to say you're glad you don't think this way?
They’re saying they’re glad they’re not you.
I had a similar impression if I’m being honest. To say it in kinder words, I think you’re doing yourself a disservice to think so much about this wholly abstract topic, it seems mentally exhausting in a bad way. You’re too far down your own mental rabbit hole, come back to earth and breathe the fresh air.
Haha, maybe yeah. But that's how I work in general... It can be rewarding at times but it does get lonely I can't lie.
Theory gives you tools for literary analysis and interpretation, and a framework for classifying what you read in a way that helps identify exactly how the work delivers its thematic content. You don't strictly need those tools to simply interpret what you read and put it into your own idiosyncratic perspective. But literary theory provides the structure and common terminology that allows different readers to discuss a work by using a common language. Even if you don't study it formally, you will pick some of it up just by reading critical reviews and research on various works.
Got it. I should employ a combination of theory and my own idiosyncrasy. Some structure does help i get.
My understanding of literary theory is that it only helps you understand books by authors who have read a lot of literary theory.