For instance, there is someone who would like to be in a situation of criminal investigation, but it is impossible for him to inter such a place. He might be able to get a quite clear picture, by the help of linguistic features, for what he dreams about through following a piece of literature. Being familiarized with linguistics would let people to understand literature in a better way. They would also think about it in a more critical way and engage to the depth of the meaning. Some people would argue that the only thing would be talked about is the sense of literature which comes from the heart of a poet, novelist or playwright.
Having an understanding of philosophy can help in this process and allow people to more thoroughly understand each perspective to take when studying literature and literary criticism. Wimsatt and Beardsley, The Intentional Fallacy 1. The author’s intention should not be an area addressed in literary criticism. a. What he or she intended to write should not be part of the formula that critics use to make meaning of the work.
So, instead of trying to conclude what good literature is, I decided to tackle the idea of what well- constructed literature is. It is important to remain aware of the fact that good literature is many things to many people. Different people will try to reach a different type of fulfillment. In my opinion, it is impossible to judge or define good literature, one may only attempt to judge or define what well-constructed literature is, as I hope to have done here, in this essay, for you.
Philosophical Aspects of Literary Objectiveness ABSTRACT: Gadamer’s hermeneutic philosophy avoids the problem of literary objectiveness altogether. His approach witnesses the general fact that an indifference towards literary objectiveness in particular, leads to a peculiar neglect of par excellence literariness as such. It seems obvious, however, that the constitutive aspects of the crisis of literary objectiveness cannot be shown to contain the underlying intention of bringing about this situation. At this point, one can identify what could probably be the most important element in a definition of literary objectiveness. In contrast to ‘natural’ objectiveness and objectiveness based on various societal conventions, the legitimacy of a literary work is solely guaranteed by its elements being organized in accordance with the rules of literary objectiveness.
In both of the articles, each author is trying to share his view, or theory on the short story. The view of Edgar Allen Poe is very pessimistic toward the novel and other forms of long fiction, while B.M. Ejxenbaum takes a more analytic approach. Poe writes, 'The novel certainly requires what is denominated a sustained effort—but this is a matter of perseverance, and has but a collateral relation to talent. '; Is the main difference between the authors of short stories and those of novels that the novel writers are just non-talented over-achievers?
This makes the author specific to a certain style, and outside of that style, the author must be someone else. He uses the example that if it were discovered that someone other than the man from Stratford wrote Shakespeare’s works, it would not change the function. Either way, the works will still be called the works of Shakespeare. So essentially, Shakespeare is no longer an individual’s identity; it is an ideal for a certain form of writing. This loss of identity can be seen in the raging debate over the Shakespeare auth... ... middle of paper ... ...bjectivity in Barthes, Focault, and Derrida.
Although the text may become derivative as it is translated from author to text, the inability to conquer the true meaning of the authors is solely left up to the subjectivity of the reader. The birth of the reader is sacrificed at the author’s death. “Perception without reason is mere experience, but reason without perception is nothing.” The theories presented in Barthes’s literature promote the reader’s perception with reason. The text promotes independent thinking knowing the reader may posses a subjective bias. The birth of the reader through reading texts similar to Barthes’s consciously challenges the reader’s perception and reason of experience to connect to novellas such as Balthazar’s Marvelous Afternoon.
Jones thus determined that Hamlets unconscious motives led to his delay. Through psychological strategies, one can better explore both conscious and unconscious motives of the writer and the characters... ... middle of paper ... ...ritics believe that there are many ways of interpreting a text, they believe that a reader create meanings in literature. Reader-response critics are concerned with a readers experience with literature. This criticism does not aim to determine the meaning of a text, but to draw to our attention the ways in which we read and our influences on our reading. Deconstructionist: Deconstructionist critics simply believe that there is no singular meaning to a text.
These two concepts are in contrast however it depends on how the audience perceives the text to decide for themselves if its a readerly text or writerly text. In comparison, both writerly and readerly texts can have an unexpected ending which would be done by the author intentionally. “Opposite the writerly text, then, is its counter value, its negative, reactive value: what can be read, but not written: the readerly. We call any readerly text a classic
Does such a designation deny the agency or even apply to the beloved? The question to ask is whether contemporary criticism can be applied retroactively; that is, whether theories concerning objectification or ‘othering’ are relevant merely because they fit. The real challenge is to decide if evidence of objectification can be discovered or simply applied to a text that has no concept of it. It is particularly disconcerting that much of the modern renaissance criticism researched for this essay sees no possible contradiction in linking rhetorical evidence to intent; that is to say, they show little evidence of investigating the possible discrepancies between treating objectification as ahistorical and socially contextual, even when they argue for the historically situated nature of identity. One must also consider the fact that theories of objectification interpret and interrogate the text, not the author; that is unless one presumes they are the same thing.