Sunday, September 27, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Exactly -- the reader is the one who utilizes these theories that the critics present. What do we, as the readers want to see? Will we see anything different?
ReplyDeleteBut then is the reader confined to the theories of the critics, or are they free to make their own interpretations without fear that they will be ridiculed? For example how often does a secondary teacher, or even an undergaduate professor tell a student that they have "never thought of that before and it was a very plausible explanation of a text"? Sometimes, yes... but not too often. I think it's because teachers (the professional critic) is pounding their own ideas into others' head, leaving no room for any other interpretations or differences of opinion. Can well all be critics with valid points?
ReplyDeleteI agree that the critic is a gateway from text to reader, offering new options in interpretation. I disagree, however, that the critic targets the 'everyday, average reader'. It seems that critics are a more esoteric lot who are at the top of the textual food chain. They read, interpret/formulate/respond, etc., then share their wisdom with us - a specific academic community. We, in turn, accept or deny their work and then filter it further to our underlings (students) and colleagues.
ReplyDeleteI think we sorted out something of the role of the critic but than that also brings up the qualifications of the critic. Do we give any group of critics more credence than others? Certainly we have the ones who have been influential, but popularity need not equal quality. For what, if any reason, do we consider a critic's views worthy of study?
ReplyDelete