English Education and Literature
Home > CASCISCUS > ENGLISH > English Education and Literature > Literary Criticism Theory : An introduction (for you who read lots)
Total Views: 4828 Share : Facebook ShareFacebook Twitter ShareTwitter Google+ ShareGoogle+
Page 2 of 5 |  < 1 2 3 4 5 > 

kiddiesm - 02/03/2010 04:36 AM
#21

Hello bro, I was lurking around to find some articles until I tried to google "Formalism" word in KASKUS search, and voila! I found this thread! D (well I certainly didn't expect to find it here, actually)

Currently I'm trying to analyze a poem using formalism approach. (yes, it's a school assignment) malu:
Thanks for the reference list. Will try to find them in library \)
mosoklali - 02/03/2010 02:34 PM
#22

pretty familiar with all these theories. lately read Robert Stanton
desprow - 07/03/2010 09:21 AM
#23

damn damn damn...

you must be a hell of a master Mr. Banny..

this is a thread every literature student desperately wants to read..
DON KINGKONG - 09/03/2010 05:54 PM
#24

cooL thread

next time ill learn from you bro

iloveindonesiailoveindonesiailoveindonesiailoveindonesia
Evening - 12/03/2010 12:15 PM
#25

this is quite hard for me to understand... guess i will bookmark it and study it slowly...

btw, i want to ask question;

1. is this a tool used for criticize literature?
2. or this is a tool for help gain understanding of it?
3. or this is a something else??
RockinLabirin - 12/03/2010 04:34 PM
#26

hahaha... nice to find this kind of post on kaskus...
just remember my college days when I drowned in these damn theories...
I chose a rather rare theory called Reception Theory or Reader Response Theory for my thesis... have you heard about such theory?
banny123 - 12/03/2010 10:00 PM
#27

thanks for the positive replies \) walls are all holed by my eye while waiting for this replies malu: updates are coming, just be patient \)

Quote:
Original Posted By kiddiesm
Hello bro, I was lurking around to find some articles until I tried to google "Formalism" word in KASKUS search, and voila! I found this thread! D (well I certainly didn't expect to find it here, actually)

Currently I'm trying to analyze a poem using formalism approach. (yes, it's a school assignment) malu:
Thanks for the reference list. Will try to find them in library \)



wow matabelo: where in Indonesia a kind of such school?

Quote:
Original Posted By mosoklali
pretty familiar with all these theories. lately read Robert Stanton


never heard that name malu:

Quote:
Original Posted By desprow
damn damn damn...

you must be a hell of a master Mr. Banny..

this is a thread every literature student desperately wants to read..


just a regular student majoring literature o

Quote:
Original Posted By Evening
this is quite hard for me to understand... guess i will bookmark it and study it slowly...

btw, i want to ask question;

1. is this a tool used for criticize literature?
2. or this is a tool for help gain understanding of it?
3. or this is a something else??


1. yes. actually I should'd mentioned the era. those theories above are compiled from the past, each theory have characteristics in their era. for me it is just a matter of how those suit you \)
2. yes, but interpretation varies. each person has different understanding in perceiving literature. but they help you to reveal what's covert instead of overt
3. a very basic in mastering literature.
banny123 - 14/03/2010 12:53 AM
#28

Quote:
Original Posted By RockinLabirin
hahaha... nice to find this kind of post on kaskus...
just remember my college days when I drowned in these damn theories...
I chose a rather rare theory called Reception Theory or Reader Response Theory for my thesis... have you heard about such theory?


You Mean.... this? o


Reception and Reader-Response Theory

Reader-response theory may be traced initially to theorists such as I. A. Richards (The Principles of Literary Criticism, Practical Criticism and How to Read a Page) or Louise Rosenblatt (Literature as Exploration or The Reader, the Text, the Poem). For Rosenblatt and Richards the idea of a "correct" reading--though difficult to attain--was always the goal of the "educated" reader (armed, of course, with appropriate aesthetic apparatus). For Stanley Fish (Is There a Text in this Class?, Surprised by Sin: The Reader in "Paradise Lost" and Self-Consuming Artifacts: The Experience of the Seventeenth-Century Reader), the reader's ability to understand a text is also subject a reader's particular "interpretive community." To simplify, a reader brings certain assumptions to a text based on the interpretive strategies he/she has learned in a particular interpretive community. For Fish, the interpretive community serves somewhat to "police" readings and thus prohibit outlandish interpretations. In contrast Wolfgang Iser argued that the reading process is always subjective. In The Implied Reader, Iser sees reading as a dialectical process between the reader and text. For Hans-Robert Jauss, however (Toward an Aesthetic of Reception, and Aesthetic Experience and Literary Hermeneutics), a reader's aesthetic experience is always bound by time and historical determinants.

Key Terms:

Horizons of expectations - a term developed by Hans Robert Jauss to explain how a reader's "expectations" or frame of reference is based on the reader's past experience of literature and what preconceived notions about literature the reader possesses (i.e., a reader's aesthetic experience is bound by time and historical determinants). Jauss also contended that for a work to be considered a classic it needed to exceed a reader's horizons of expectations.

Implied reader - a term developed by Wolfgang Iser; the implied reader [somewhat akin to an "ideal reader"] is "a hypothetical reader of a text. The implied reader [according to Iser] "embodies all those predispositions necessary for a literary work to exercise its effect -- predispositions laid down, not by an empirical outside reality, but by the text itself. Consequently, the implied reader as a concept has his roots firmly planted in the structure of the text; he is a construct and in no way to be identified with any real reader" (Greig E. Henderson and Christopher Brown - Glossary of Literary Theory).

Interpretive communities - a concept, articulated by Stanley Fish, that readers within an "interpretive community" share reading strategies, values and interpretive assumptions (Barbara McManus).

Transactional analysis - a concept developed by Louise Rosenblatt asserting that meaning is produced in a transaction of a reader with a text. As an approach, then, the critic would consider "how the reader interprets the text as well as how the text produces a response in her" (Dobie 132 - see General Resources below).

Further References:

* Austin, J. L.How to Do Things with Words. 1962
* Bleich, David. Readings and Feelings: An Introduction to Subjective Criticism. 1978
* Bloom, Harold. A Map of Misreading. 1975.
* Booth, Stephen. An Essay on Shakespeare's Sonnets. New Haven: Yale UP, 1969.
* Culler, Jonathan. The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction. 1981.
* Eco, Umberto. The Role of the Reader. 1979.
* Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1980.
* Holland, Norman. 5 Readers Reading. New Haven: Yale UP, 1975.
* Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: John Hopkins UP, 1974.
* ---. The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1974.
* Jauss, Hans Robert. Aesthetic Experience and Literary Hermeneutics. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1982.
banny123 - 14/03/2010 12:58 AM
#29

Feminism

To speak of "Feminism" as a theory is already a reduction. However, in terms of its theory (rather than as its reality as a historical movement in effect for some centuries) feminism might be categorized into three general groups:

1. theories having an essentialist focus (including psychoanalytic and French feminism);
2. theories aimed at defining or establishing a feminist literary canon or theories seeking to re-interpret and re-vision literature (and culture and history and so forth) from a less patriarchal slant (including gynocriticism, liberal feminism); and
3. theories focusing on sexual difference and sexual politics (including gender studies, lesbian studies, cultural feminism, radical feminism, and socialist/materialist feminism).

Further, women (and men) needed to consider what it meant to be a woman, to consider how much of what society has often deemed inherently female traits, are culturally and socially constructed. Simone de Beauvoir's study, The Second Sex, though perhaps flawed by Beauvoir's own body politics, nevertheless served as a groundbreaking book of feminism, that questioned the "othering" of women by western philosophy. Early projects in feminist theory included resurrecting women's literature that in many cases had never been considered seriously or had been erased over time (e.g., Charlotte Perkins Gilman was quite prominent in the early 20th century but was virtually unknown until her work was "re-discovered" later in the century). Since the 1960s the writings of many women have been rediscovered, reconsidered, and collected in large anthologies such as The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women.

However, merely unearthing women's literature did not ensure its prominence; in order to assess women's writings the number of preconceptions inherent in a literary canon dominated by male beliefs and male writers needed to be re-evaluated. Betty Friedan's The Feminist Mystique (1963), Kate Millet's Sexual Politics (1970), Teresa de Lauretis's Alice Doesn't: Feminism, Semiotics, Cinema (1984), Annette Kolodny's The Lay of the Land (1975), Judith Fetterly's The Resisting Reader (1978), Elaine Showalter's A Literature of Their Own (1977), or Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar's The Madwoman in the Attic (1979) are just a handful of the many critiques that questioned cultural, sexual, intellectual, and/or psychological stereotypes about women.

Key Terms (this list is woefully inadequate; suggestions for additional terms would be appreciated):

Androgyny - taken from Women Studies page of Drew University - "'...suggests a world in which sex-roles are not rigidly defined, a state in which ‘the man in every woman' and the ‘woman in every man' could be integrated and freely expressed' (Tuttle 19). Used more frequently in the 1970's, this term was used to describe a blurring, or combination of gender roles so that neither masculinity or femininity is dominant."

Backlash - a term, which may have originated with Susan Faludi, referring to a movement ( ca. 1980s) away from or against feminism.

Écriture féminine - Écriture féminine, literally women's writing, is a philosophy that promotes women's experiences and feelings to the point that it strengthens the work. Hélène Cixous first uses this term in her essay, "The Laugh of the Medusa," in which she asserts, "Woman must write her self: must write about women and bring women to writing, from which they have been driven away as violently as from their bodies. Écriture féminine places experience before language, and privileges the anti-linear, cyclical writing so often frowned upon by patriarchal society' (Wikipedia).

Essentialism - taken from Women Studies page of Drew University - "The belief in a uniquely feminine essence, existing above and beyond cultural conditioning...the mirror image of biologism which for centuries justified the oppression of women by proclaiming the natural superiority of men (Tuttle 90)." Tong's use of the term is relative to the explanation of the division of radical feminism into radical-cultural and radical libertarian.

Gynocentrics - "a term coined by the feminist scholar-critic Elaine Showalter to define the process of constructing "a female framework for analysis of women's literature [in order] to develop new models [of interpretation] based on the study of female experience, rather than to adapt to male models and theories'" (Bressler 269, see General Resources below).

Jouissance - a term most commonly associated with Helene Cixous (seek-sou), whose use of the word may have derived from Jacques Lacan - "Cixous follows Lacan's psychoanalytic paradigm, which argues that a child must separate from its mother's body (the Real) in order to enter into the Symbolic. Because of this, Cixous says, the female body in general becomes unrepresentable in language; it's what can't be spoken or written in the phallogocentric Symbolic order. Cixous here makes a leap from the maternal body to the female body in general; she also leaps from that female body to female sexuality, saying that female sexuality, female sexual pleasure, feminine jouissance, is unrepresentable within the phallogocentric Symbolic order" (Dr. Mary Klages, "Postructuralist Feminist Theory")

Patriarchy - "Sexism is perpetuated by systems of patriarchy where male-dominated structures and social arrangements elaborate the oppression of women. Patriarchy almost by definition also exhibits androcentrism, meaning male centered. Coupled with patriarchy, androcentrism assumes that male norms operate through out all social institutions and become the standard to which all persons adhere" (Joe Santillan - University of California at Davis).

Phallologocentrism - "language ordered around an absolute Word (logos) which is “masculine” [phallic], systematically excludes, disqualifies, denigrates, diminishes, silences the “feminine” (Nikita Dhawan).

Second- and Third-Wave feminism - "Second-wave feminism refers to a period of feminist thought that originated around the 1960s and was mainly concerned with independence and greater political action to improve women's rights" (Wikipedia). "Third-wave feminism is a feminist movement that arguably began in the early 1990s. Unlike second-wave feminism, which largely focused on the inclusion of women in traditionally male-dominated areas, third-wave feminism seeks to challenge and expand common definitions of gender and sexuality" (Wikipedia).

Semiotic - "[Julia] Kristeva (kris-TAYV-veh) makes a distinction between the semiotic and symbolic modes of communication:

Further Reading

# Cixous (seek-sou), Hélène. "The Laugh of the Medusa" or "Sorties: Out & Out: Attacks/Ways Out/Forays."
# Flax, Jane. Thinking Fragments: Psychoanalysis, Feminism and Postmodernism in the Contemporary West, 1990.
# Gallop, Jane. The Daughter's Seduction: Feminism and Psychoanalysis, 1982.
# Grosz, E. A. (Elizabeth A.) Sexual Subversions: Three French Feminists. Boston : Allen & Unwin, 1989.
# Irigaray, Luce. Speculum of the Other Woman. Ithaca, N.Y : Cornell University Press, 1985. HQ1154 .I7413 1985
# Kristeva (kris-TAYV-veh), Julia. The Kristeva Reader. Ed. Toril Moi, 1986.
# Marks, Elaine, and Isabelle de Courtivron, eds. New French Feminism. Brighton: Harvester, 1980.
# Moi, Toril. Sexual/textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory. London ; New York : Methuen, 1985.PN98.W64 M65 1985
Anti-PERPAKIN - 16/03/2010 03:31 AM
#30

brilliat...good job brother!
Quote:
Major figures of New Criticism include I. A. Richards, T. S. Eliot, Cleanth Brooks, David Daiches, William Empson, Murray Krieger, John Crowe Ransom, Allen Tate, F. R. Leavis, Robert Penn Warren, W. K. Wimsatt, R. P. Blackmur, Rene Wellek, Ausin Warren, and Ivor Winters.


anyway, I've read little about critical paradigm - which was born in Frankfurt or mostly known as Frankfurt School. Are those names I quote above come from Frankfurt School? I'm wondering the differences between Criticism Theory and Frankfurt School. Or perhaps they're all the same?p

I saw Freud's psychoanalytic and feminism in this threadp as far as I know, psychoanalytic was also used by Habermas (well-known Frankfurt School scholar) to analyze social phenomenon, he integrated psychoanalytic in his critical theory, while feminism is a branch of critical paradigm about women's social and political emancipationp

but I see the similarity, both are inspired by marxistp



----------

Hahahahaha...I'm very sorry brother, I should've googled before i post something herep actually, It has two different meanings; sociology and literary criticismp I was talking about sociology while yours is all about literaryp I skipped your thread's titlep maybe it's too early in the morningp
banny123 - 17/03/2010 02:30 AM
#31

@antiperpakin D

hahaha that's okay, actually I am available in both talk, Literature and Philosophy D I started in reading them before I launched my interest in literature. like most people will agree, philosophy creates science and the mother of all critical thinking.

btw, Frankfurt School also creates experts in critical arts or language, like Walter Benjamin. but if you prefer to have it sociologically, our mates have it here https://www.kaskus.co.id/showthread.php?p=142352549 enjoy D
GetaVisco - 24/03/2010 09:57 PM
#32

Nice post anyway...i have learnt some of them when i was a college student (and still now,,,i'm currently trying to achieve my thesis for my S1 degreehammer: )

well i'll keep this post by left this comment,,if you don't mind, could you just find me a theory about Hegemony? \) (i'm about to find the right theory for my thesis, and i've taken a novel by sophie >kinsella--the confession of a shopaholic...well, i guess materialism ideology in that novel brings it to hegemony, then, now i'm currently trying to analize it with the concept of hegemony \)

so if you have something or more information, i'll really apreciate it \)

(i have googled them so far, but if you have another information please send it again here \)
banny123 - 26/03/2010 04:04 PM
#33

@getavisco

so, you're into cultural studies, huh? well, I think the key to your theory is the person named Antonio Gramsci a philosopher in the regime of Benito Musolini. The point is to get into the society's mind, changing it without being considered, very smooth. Used by the political institution to drive society into the situation that they call "Utopia" even for some people, either in the right or left -and the people who do it are in both sides- considered false.

here, I give you the more elaboration to it. I got it from here

Hegemony and Ideology

False consciousness is the desired end product of the process of hegemony, which U.S. cultural historian Todd Gitlin (1980) and Williams (1977) both applied in relation to the mass media, as does the tradition of British cultural studies extended by Stuart Hall. According to Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, hegemony is the ruling class’s domination through ideology and the shaping of popular consent. Hegemony unites persuasion from above with consent from below. The concept helps Gitlin’s work and other cultural studies scholars explain the strength and endurance of advanced capitalism. In his study of the news media, Gitlin suggests that hegemony is secured when those who control the dominant institutions impress their definitions upon the ruled. The dominant class controls ideological space and limits what is thinkable in society. Dominated classes participate in their domination, as hegemony enters into everything people do and think of as natural, or the product of common sense—including what is news, as well as playing, working, believing, and knowing, Gitlin argues. Hegemonic ideology permeates the common sense that people use to understand the world and tries to become that common sense.

In capitalist society, the media and other institutions formulate the dominant ideology, Gitlin believes. The media also incorporate popular opposing messages into the dominant ideology, redistributing them through journalistic practices. Gitlin focuses on the struggle between the media, which uphold the dominant ideology, and groups out of power, which contest the ideology. The hegemonic ideology is reproduced in the media through media practices that stem from the ways journalists are socialized from childhood and then trained, edited, and promoted by media. Although journalists do not consciously consider ideology when they make news decisions, they tend to serve the political and economic elite’s ideology by doing their jobs. Gitlin suggests the media remain free as long as they do not violate the essential hegemonic values or become too sympathetic to radical critiques. Opposition groups can exploit the contradictions in hegemonic ideology when elites conflict, but opposition groups and autonomous media will be muffled if the challenge to the hegemonic ideology is critical.

Gitlin contends that the media are controlled by corporate and political elites who bring media professionals into their social spheres. The ruling elites depend on the culture industry to advance their unity and limit competing ideologies. The media frame the ideological field within which the dominated classes live and understand their domination in order to perpetuate the hegemony of the elites. The elite economic class, however, does not produce and distribute ideology directly. Media workers do this within the culture industry, but only the media owners are directly linked to corporate and political leaders.

Gitlin suggests indirect control of the hegemonic ideology is difficult because liberal capitalism contains contradictions. The economic system generates ideologies that challenge and alter its own rationale. The hegemonic framework narrows the range of worldviews, preferring its version. To do this, the internal structures of the framework have to be continually re-created and defended, as well as challenged and adjusted superficially. The dominant ideology seems natural to media workers, who reproduce and defend it unconsciously. Gitlin says the media owners and managers reflect the ruling class’s interest in private property, capital, the national security state, and individual success within the bureaucratic system.

The media also reproduce the discontinuity and detachment that characterize capitalism, Gitlin adds. Natural life rhythms are replaced by the artificial time of the workplace. Reading the newspaper or watching television reproduces the rhythms of capitalist production. The media reflect the production system’s interchangeable time segments, such as the thirty-minute television show and the three-minute rock record. The fleeting images and abrupt changes of television socialize viewers into the discontinuity of the system. “Revolution” is co-opted in the changing of commodities, fashions, and lifestyles in a cycle that reflects the economic system. Individually, perpetual adaptation becomes the goal of comfort and status. The fast pace of consumer goods and advertising fuels the growth of new technologies and capital. This process culminates in a “tradition of the new.”

The cultural-commodity process allows minor changes in the hegemonic ideology and may even require it, Gitlin argues. Contradictions within the ideology make it flexible enough to bend with the times and make opposition profitable. Opposition movements may be directed into other channels, from politics into culture and lifestyles, for example. The media balance, absorb, marginalize, and exclude to manage opposition or turn it into a commodity. The media may intensify change, but as long as the political economy provides goods that most people define as essential, the hegemonic system will prevail.

In Gitlin’s analysis, ruling elites control media to spread a blanket of false consciousness over dominated classes, who are left with no room systemically for change. By contrast, Williams builds a hegemonic model that leaves more room for the emergence of a counterhegemony. Gitlin draws his concept of hegemony from Williams, who allows for the seeds of liberation and oppositional hegemony to grow. He identifies hegemony as a process rather than a system or structure. This approach to hegemony lets the process shape individual perceptions as a lived system of meanings and values that permeates all aspects of life. Hegemony defines reality for most people in the culture and sets the limit of reality beyond which it is difficult to think or move. However, as a complex process, hegemony does not passively exist as a form of dominance. It continually has to be renewed, defended, and adjusted. Because it is not absolute, hegemony is always resisted, challenged, and changed by counterhegemonies and alternative hegemonies that are produced by emergent social classes. A new class is always a source of emergent cultural practice, but as a subordinate class its practice is sporadic and partial. If the new class opposes the dominant social order, the new practice must survive attempts to co-opt it into the hegemonic ideology. As an example, Williams gives the emergence and successful incorporation, or co-optation, of the radical popular press in nineteenth-century England.

For Williams, the chink in the armor of the dominant ideology is that no hegemonic order includes or exhausts all human practice. Hegemonic ideology is selected from the full range of human practice, leaving the rest as the personal or private, natural or metaphysical. The danger of advanced capitalism is the media’s seizure of these reserved areas of human practice. The dominant culture now reaches much further with mass media. Williams calls for resistance to the seizure of these private, personal human practices. He provides no program for resistance other than the study of the ownership and control of the capitalist media tied with wider analyses of capitalist structures. Williams helped create the strong commitment of cultural studies to a Marxist position as the only position that offers the potential of creating a new society. He also advocated the cultural studies assumption that culture is ideological.
rennitoy - 27/03/2010 01:23 PM
#34

Wow i just to young to read all of this D
GetaVisco - 27/03/2010 05:22 PM
#35

wooww thank you very much for helping me dude!! it really helps me a lot.... yep i'm using cultural studies to analyze that novel..have you read it before? how's your opinion about that novel ? \)
babisoundsystem - 24/04/2010 02:33 AM
#36

woww! it's kinda lovely jubbly thread. cant believe it!
BUTTERCHOC - 19/05/2010 06:59 PM
#37

tank you so much for sharing dude...
I really need it for my final assignment

would you please give me an example of the analysis of a movie
please..
thank you before...kisskiss
GetaVisco - 28/05/2010 10:31 AM
#38

left another comment in case when i need to read this thread next time D
banny123 - 26/09/2010 06:29 PM
#39

long time, long left, and just a few of replies \(

Quote:
Original Posted By rennitoy
Wow i just to young to read all of this D


helo there, well, you just have to start it out from enjoying, maybe \)

Quote:
Original Posted By babisoundsystem
woww! it's kinda lovely jubbly thread. cant believe it!


yea, I tried to make it easy to read, but I'll try to explain if there's something stuck in your mind \)

Quote:
Original Posted By BUTTERCHOC
tank you so much for sharing dude...
I really need it for my final assignment

would you please give me an example of the analysis of a movie
please..
thank you before...kisskiss


movie has its own method and school of critic, but in a major perspective, I think you might consider those theories above \)
like we can have an example in movie analysis of how women are so humiliated by using Feminism but the method of the critic of why the angle of view to the audience, is just another way in movie's critic.

Quote:
Original Posted By GetaVisco
left another comment in case when i need to read this thread next time D


I'll wait D
LadyElfstone - 24/10/2010 08:07 PM
#40

I'm too lazy to read all those words and sentences, could you sum it up?



I'm kidding!


This is an amazing amount of information that you've managed to have gathered. Have you learned all those theories? In which semester do you start learning criticism theories?
I'm just curious to know because I almost took English literature as a major.
Page 2 of 5 |  < 1 2 3 4 5 > 
Home > CASCISCUS > ENGLISH > English Education and Literature > Literary Criticism Theory : An introduction (for you who read lots)