The Theoretical Sacagawe

After our discussion on Tuesday, I continued to think about what the role of the literary critic is. I think his job, above all else, is to simply open the field of literature to as many different interpretations as possible. The critic is the one who shows the everyday, average reader how to interact with a text in a manner that suits her needs and interests. The critic is responsible for taking theory from the moment to the hour (1). The critic provides new approaches to engaging a text which can be followed by readers who share an intellectual ability, social concerns, and outlook on life. The great variety of theories that are used to interact with texts provide readers a chance to find a relationship with literature that “fits” for him. Nothing shows this more clearly than the variation between modernism and postmodernism. As Barry explains, the basic approaches in both of these fields are the same. The key difference, or at least the one he emphasizes, is the reader’s outlook on the fragmentation that they seek to uncover. If the reader sees the fragmented nature of the world and wishes for “the good old days” of unity and cohesion, she is a modernist. If that same reader sees the disjunction in a text and embraces with a sense of freedom and revelry, she is a postmodernist. Critics are the ones who blaze the trails that give the rest of us these options.

Look at the Cute Little Theories

As I was completing this first reading in Barry, I was continually amazed to see just how new these theories of criticism are. There is such a strong contrast between the age of the Greek and Roman rhetoric that we began with and the newer forms of literary criticism that it makes them seem like infants in the world of thinking. Even the oldest of these forms, the new or practical criticism, is under 100 years old. I have studied these theories before, but never in the context of the ancient origins. When we consider theories like Marxism or feminism, it is easy for us just to assume that these methods of seeing the world have always been around. They don’t seem like the recent developments that they really are. It has put into perspective what will follow in this course. It has also piqued my own interest in what will be coming soon in the world of literary theory. If we have seen so many developments in the last 30 years, what can we expect next? It seems to be taking less time for new theories to be introduced and then accepted into the ‘hour’ of theory.

Oh, Now I See It.

I think that Augustine makes a very interesting statement in the opening paragraph of the first excerpt. He says that discussions of Scripture require to posses the, “means of discovering what the thought may be, and the means of expressing what the thought is” (4.1). I think that he makes a very clear distinction here that will be important as we begin to move from these ancient theorists into the more modern realm of literary theory. Augustine claims that the first step to discussing the Scriptures (literature) is the ability to discover what the thought might be. He does not say that you must find a truth within the texts. He does not even suggest that there is only one possibility for what the text is saying. He leaves it open to a number of readings. The key is that the reader has the means to discover some thought within the text. His second point is that the reader must be able to not only discover the thought, but must also be able express that thought. This seems to be the basis for literary theory. The theorists must be able to find a thought within a text and then tell his reader/ listener what that thought is, and how the text supports it. We are no longer looking for Plato’s single truth, or even the words of a “good man.” We are using a text to discover a thought and then discussing that thought. Welcome to lit theory.

In It For the Rhetorical Benjamins?

I was amazed to see how many of the Renaissance rhetoricians seemed to be motivated, either partially or entirely, by the money that could be gained from their innovations in the field. While this was at least a factor for the earlier rhetoricians, the lack of mass production limited their financial reimbursements to what they obtained from their tutoring. The printing press seemed to feed a boom in new rhetorical theories. Everyone who had any background in the works of the Greeks seems to have stepped up and tried his hand at revising what they had written centuries before. It seems to have been easier for the first members of this group to succeed. They had novelty on their side. When they would stumble upon the remainder of some long-lost manuscript, it offered them the chance to make a name for themselves. It was also easier for them to present these ideas as their own, not that there was any real ethical argument against plagiarism at the time. From here it was a question of trying to develop your own take on the same material. These scholars would find any way possible to reiterate, reorder, retranslate, and package rhetoric in order to find a new way to present it to a growing audience. Then they would issue a new edition a few years later in order remind people of their importance. Some of these editions had only minimal changes - a few Catholic jokes added on behalf of the Protestants. And thus, the textbook industry was born.

I Blame Cicero

I am not sure what to think about the readings from Matsen. As I read through the sections of these ancient texts, I was impressed at how thorough these men were when it came to discussing their field. The long lists of different types of style, different purposes for speaking, ways to adapt to the audience all seemed to be a great resource for young students. As I think about it a little bit more though, I am not so sure that I feel the same way. What we find is a very prescriptive set of rules that must be followed in order to be “a good speaker.” I have seen very little that encourages students to break these rules in order to provide their audience with something new and unique. It seems to me that if everyone has read Cicero’s treatise on defending and prosecuting a court case, then those involved are really just going through the motions. You know what the other person is going to say, and then you respond in the appropriate manner. There seems to be less emphasis on speakers thinking for themselves, and more focus on pluggin different topics into the same mold.If every speaker ended up following the same pattern in their orations, then it seems like the audience would begin to lose interest. Eventually they would find themselves in a society that was complete disinterested in listening to public speakers because they all “sound the same.” Wait, I think we are that society. Thanks Cicero.

Ah, To Be a Roman Schoolboy Again

What I find most striking from the reading in Conley is the huge difference in the importance that is placed on speaking by the Greeks, and later Romans, and our modern culture. He discusses the extensive programs that young boys went through in order to become educated men. While this enkyklios paideia (rounded education) focused on many different areas, it is clear that the end goal was to produce a young man who could speak well on a number of different subjects. The success and prosperity of these students depended on both their natural abilities as a speaker and their assimilation of skills and knowledge from an experienced rhetorician. This is not the case today. Most courses that address the area of speech and rhetoric are seen as optional. They are electives that students may choose to either take or avoid altogether. There is no focused effort applied to a student’s ability to speak well in any formal setting. The result is clearly seen in the world we live in. You do not have to speak well in order to gain power and notoriety. We have world leaders who are among the worst offenders in terms of their speech and rhetoric skills. Even the leaders of educational facilities can be found gravely lacking in their ability to speak and reach a group. How far we have come.