I wonder what the fact that I am more fascinated by the world-views of Emerson and Shelley as revealed in their theorizing than in the actual theories says about me...perhaps that I'm in the wrong major? Too late to change so I suppose I shall just have to forcibly direct my attention to the concerns at hand: namely, this theory stuff, seeming, at the moment, to be an endless series of questions [thus the blog title].
However, personality and the bent unique to each mind play a huge part in the use of any theories... literary included. Because each individual will find that certain questions are of much more concern than others: the complier of an anthology certainly wants some guidelines on what to include, making questions such as "Who is classified as an 'author'?" and "What is 'literature'?" relevant; a university provost would like some specifics on why he should be paying people to talk about these books & poems & plays, "Why is it valuable?", a big question in his mind; a poet might be asking himself the questions that relate to value and inspiration; the academician might like to talk himself in circles on how to find meaning in a text.
Clearly, discussions of origins, roles, etc. must not allow themselves to vault off into the airy heights of intellectualism because there are some very practical uses to be made of possible conclusions. And besides, if a theorist really wants his ideas to make an impact, he sure as heck better make sure that a few more people than his thinking buddies will be able to understand.
I appreciate that Shelley makes the connections between poetry and imagination and ethics in his "Defense." And though his writing has been characterized as too full of itself or even of being significantly full of the airy theorizing which might put some readers off, this section of his essay has made quite an impact on me for it's clarity and meaningful statements.
So i have achieved anything here? have I made any of my observations clear and relevant to anyone else? I'm kind-of doubting it...but it's late and I'm sick, so until another moment... g'night.
1 comment:
I think it was F.R. Leavis who said that English is the discipline without one. What he meant by that, I think, was that English self-consciously tries to not bind itself to a singular and narrow conception of its subject matter. Because literature is an artifact of the past, it connects to and reflects on history. Because it contains thoughts, it connects to psychology and philosophy. Because it seeks to embody beauty it is connected to the arts. All of these things and many more are the subject matter of our discipline. Thus, it can be the case that we have majors who are much more deeply connected to philsophy or religious studies, while others might be more like sociologists or anthropologist, and still others might be historians. And others might be more like musicians. And on and on. I think this lends our discipline a great deal of diversity for the most part, but it can also lead to a frustrating lack of definition that some find unnerving.
Post a Comment