I have a terrible confession to make: I have never studied literature.
Ok, I know I am a graduate student in a languages and literatures department, but I've never really touched the stuff. Ready for confession number two? I've never really studied Philosophy, either. Imagine my dismay when Paul Fry told me that Literary Theory is kind of like Philosophy --- "Oh really? Great. That helps me a lot, Paul."
In reading the first two chapters of Professor Fry's Lecture series on Literary Theory, I confirmed my belief that I am SO not ready for this. But you know what? I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way... So, in case any of you out there feel like I do, then, you know, "this one's for you" as they say.
Since I'm already confessing, I think I should explain that I didn't really spend much time with Academia, and our relationship never really took-off. I got my BA in three years, I graduated in 2011, and I got the hell out of Dodge. Since that time, I haven't been able to stay in one place for more than a few months. I travel, I teach, I work, I sing, I eat great food, and I speak a lot of Russian because it makes me happy.
So, back to Fry --- I was thankful at first that Fry was going to break everything down for me (baby steps, Sarah, you can do this): First of all what is Literature? Great question! ...Too bad there isn't really an answer, since it all basically came down to "Literature is whatever your community thinks it is." Ok, Fry, I like that --- we're keeping an open mind as to what literature can be. That's chill.
Step #2: Define Theory. Theory? Oh yeah, that's a lot like... practice. Well, depending on how you look at it. It could be practice, but it doesn't have to have an application, so it's basically just speculation. And not only that, it is LIMITLESS speculation --- you can apply literary theory to ANY literature: Children's books? Hell yeah, Fry gets me.
I also get to be a skeptic, Fry tells me, which I love to hear --- because honestly, I've always thought of both literary theory and criticism as a whole lot of B.S. (Academic B.S., mind you --- I hold it in high regard!) and I'm happy that Fry seems to understand this opinion as well. Aparently this skepticism makes literary theory different from philosophy, but I have to disagree there --- maybe that's because my definition of literature is broader than Fry's (He is the Author, but as he mentions in the second chapter, that doesn't necessarily mean I am going to take him as an authority. Did I get that right? Oh boy...)
The following pages define more terms, like "introduction" and "reader," as Fry continues to pull more philosophers and writers out of their graves to teach me that Literary theory is a big fat mess, that history has changed the way we view and teach theory, and that there a bunch of different schools that I can subscribe to: Skeptics, see Freud! My issue is that I don't know a lick about Freud, or Nietzche, or Marx or Cervantes orKantorDescartesorFoucault (though I can pronounce their names, do I get a cookie for that?).
I got to the end of chapter two and thought to myself: "Well. There's my introduction..." but after reading it a second time (and a third, and a fourth), I decided for myself that an introduction isn't supposed to make perfect sense. Fry himself reassured me when he said, at the end of his second lecture, "So much then for those introductory lectures, which have touched lightly on key topics that we'll keep circling back to."
...You mean we're gonna talk about this in more detail later, so that I can get a better understanding of what the heck is going on? Aw, shucks --- Thanks, Fry.
Ok, I know I am a graduate student in a languages and literatures department, but I've never really touched the stuff. Ready for confession number two? I've never really studied Philosophy, either. Imagine my dismay when Paul Fry told me that Literary Theory is kind of like Philosophy --- "Oh really? Great. That helps me a lot, Paul."
In reading the first two chapters of Professor Fry's Lecture series on Literary Theory, I confirmed my belief that I am SO not ready for this. But you know what? I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way... So, in case any of you out there feel like I do, then, you know, "this one's for you" as they say.
Since I'm already confessing, I think I should explain that I didn't really spend much time with Academia, and our relationship never really took-off. I got my BA in three years, I graduated in 2011, and I got the hell out of Dodge. Since that time, I haven't been able to stay in one place for more than a few months. I travel, I teach, I work, I sing, I eat great food, and I speak a lot of Russian because it makes me happy.
So, back to Fry --- I was thankful at first that Fry was going to break everything down for me (baby steps, Sarah, you can do this): First of all what is Literature? Great question! ...Too bad there isn't really an answer, since it all basically came down to "Literature is whatever your community thinks it is." Ok, Fry, I like that --- we're keeping an open mind as to what literature can be. That's chill.
Step #2: Define Theory. Theory? Oh yeah, that's a lot like... practice. Well, depending on how you look at it. It could be practice, but it doesn't have to have an application, so it's basically just speculation. And not only that, it is LIMITLESS speculation --- you can apply literary theory to ANY literature: Children's books? Hell yeah, Fry gets me.
I also get to be a skeptic, Fry tells me, which I love to hear --- because honestly, I've always thought of both literary theory and criticism as a whole lot of B.S. (Academic B.S., mind you --- I hold it in high regard!) and I'm happy that Fry seems to understand this opinion as well. Aparently this skepticism makes literary theory different from philosophy, but I have to disagree there --- maybe that's because my definition of literature is broader than Fry's (He is the Author, but as he mentions in the second chapter, that doesn't necessarily mean I am going to take him as an authority. Did I get that right? Oh boy...)
The following pages define more terms, like "introduction" and "reader," as Fry continues to pull more philosophers and writers out of their graves to teach me that Literary theory is a big fat mess, that history has changed the way we view and teach theory, and that there a bunch of different schools that I can subscribe to: Skeptics, see Freud! My issue is that I don't know a lick about Freud, or Nietzche, or Marx or Cervantes orKantorDescartesorFoucault (though I can pronounce their names, do I get a cookie for that?).
I got to the end of chapter two and thought to myself: "Well. There's my introduction..." but after reading it a second time (and a third, and a fourth), I decided for myself that an introduction isn't supposed to make perfect sense. Fry himself reassured me when he said, at the end of his second lecture, "So much then for those introductory lectures, which have touched lightly on key topics that we'll keep circling back to."
...You mean we're gonna talk about this in more detail later, so that I can get a better understanding of what the heck is going on? Aw, shucks --- Thanks, Fry.
No comments:
Post a Comment