Literary theory Study Guide

📖 Core Concepts Literary Theory – systematic study of what counts as literature and the methods for analyzing it. Interdisciplinary Nature – draws on intellectual history, moral/social philosophy, semiotics, cultural studies, and philosophy of language. Meaning & Interpretation – most theorists reject a single, fixed “correct” meaning; meaning is seen as unstable or co‑created. Close Reading – detailed textual analysis that foregrounds the text itself over external factors (authorial intent, biography). Defamiliarization – making the familiar seem strange to reveal underlying structures (Russian Formalism). --- 📌 Must Remember Foundational works: Aristotle’s Poetics, Longinus’s On the Sublime. Major schools (in roughly historical order): New Criticism → Formalism/Russian Formalism → Structuralism → Post‑structuralism → Marxism, Feminism, Post‑colonialism, New Historicism, Deconstruction, Reader‑Response, Narratology, Psychoanalytic criticism. Theory Wars (1980s‑1990s) – debate over whether theory should teach close reading or critique culture/ideology. Post‑structuralist legacy – “theory” becomes an umbrella term encompassing diverse approaches beyond pure text. Key questions: What is literature? How should we read? --- 🔄 Key Processes Close Reading (New Criticism) Read the text repeatedly. Note paradoxes, ironies, formal patterns. Ignore author biography & historical context. Defamiliarization (Russian Formalism) Identify devices that make language “unusual.” Ask: How does the text force the reader to see the ordinary anew? Structural Analysis (Structuralism) Map underlying binary oppositions or mythic schemas. Compare with universal structures (e.g., Frye’s “order of words”). Deconstruction Locate self‑undermining concepts or internal contradictions. Show how the text’s own logic destabilizes meaning. Reader‑Response Record personal reactions, affective responses. Argue that meaning emerges in the reader–text encounter. --- 🔍 Key Comparisons New Criticism vs. Reader‑Response New Criticism: meaning resides in the text; author intent ignored. Reader‑Response: meaning is created by the reader; text is a stimulus. Structuralism vs. Post‑structuralism Structuralism: seeks universal, stable structures. Post‑structuralism: argues structures are fluid; meaning is undecidable. Marxism vs. Feminism Marxism: focuses on class conflict & economic forces. Feminism: centers gender power dynamics and representation of women. Deconstruction vs. Formalism Deconstruction: looks for paradoxes that collapse meaning. Formalism: celebrates formal devices that produce meaning. --- ⚠️ Common Misunderstandings “All theory denies authorial intent.” – Only New Criticism and some post‑structuralist strands downplay intent; many approaches (e.g., Marxism, feminist criticism) still consider the author’s social position. “Post‑structuralism says meaning doesn’t exist.” – It argues meaning is unstable and multiple, not that it is absent. “Literary theory only applies to novels.” – Post‑structuralist and new historicist methods extend to film, non‑fiction, cultural events, etc. --- 🧠 Mental Models / Intuition Text as a Puzzle – Treat the work like a system of clues; each device (metaphor, structure) is a piece that reshapes the picture. Meaning as a River – Flowing, never the same spot; the reader rides the current, shaping and being shaped. Lens Metaphor – Each school is a lens that highlights certain features while dimming others. Switching lenses changes what you see. --- 🚩 Exceptions & Edge Cases Authorial Intent can still matter in Marxist or feminist readings when the author’s position informs ideological content. Historical Context is not wholly excluded in New Criticism; some scholars blend close reading with contextual insights. Deconstruction sometimes preserves a text’s rhetorical power even while exposing its contradictions. --- 📍 When to Use Which Close textual analysis, no external info needed → New Criticism or Formalist reading. Explore how language makes the familiar strange → Russian Formalism (defamiliarization). Identify universal patterns or myths → Structuralism / Frye’s synthesis. Question stable meanings, expose contradictions → Post‑structuralism or Deconstruction. Analyze class, labor, economic power → Marxist/Historical Materialist criticism. Examine gender, power, representation of women → Feminist or French Feminist criticism. Investigate colonial legacies, cultural domination → Post‑colonial criticism. Link text to its historical moment → New Historicism. Focus on reader’s role in meaning‑making → Reader‑Response. Study narrative mechanics (plot, time, focalization) → Narratology. Probe unconscious drives of author/characters → Psychoanalytic criticism. --- 👀 Patterns to Recognize Binary oppositions (e.g., nature/culture, male/female) – hallmark of structuralist analysis. Defamiliarization tricks – unusual metaphors, narrative disruptions. Power/Ideology markers – class language, gendered discourse, colonial references. Self‑referential paradoxes – deconstruction loves texts that undermine their own claims. Reader affect cues – emotional peaks, gaps that invite personal filling (reader‑response). --- 🗂️ Exam Traps Distractor: “Deconstruction proves that texts have no meaning at all.” – Wrong; it shows meaning is undecidable, not nonexistent. Distractor: “New Criticism always ignores historical context.” – Over‑generalized; some scholars integrate context while maintaining a text‑centric focus. Distractor: “Marxist criticism only looks at economic class.” – Inaccurate; it also examines ideology, production relations, and cultural hegemony. Distractor: “All post‑structuralist approaches are the same.” – Incorrect; the umbrella includes distinct methods like deconstruction, new historicism, and certain feminist strands. Distractor: “If a theory mentions the author, it cannot be post‑structuralist.” – False; many post‑structuralist works still consider authorial position for ideological analysis.