Pg. 100 NF Entire Literay edu by taking one conventional poem and following Archetypes as they stretch out into the rest of literature.
Frye's poem: Lycidas
Critics as parasites.
criticism- What we talk about when we talk about Literature- Life transforming!?!
rhetorical tropes
Ecstatic/ecstasy/vision
Anagogical criticism.
Anagog of Christ.
Literature...connections
Homework over the weekend: Keep up on reading the three texts. Read Frye's Archetypes of Literature. Blogs.
Frye-realist V/S
nominalists.
"Frye advocates a 'rhetorical or structural analysis of a work of art'" Dr. Richard Clark
The sea, for example, is what
he terms an “archetypal symbol” (506), the significance of which resonates in the work of more than one
poet. Indeed, he points out, any “profound masterpiece seems to draw us to a point at which we can see
an enormous number of converging patterns of significance” (507) in a single work(Clark).
"Literary criticism can rely on patterns" Frye.
My response to the material today:
When I first acquired a love for poetry, I was in ninth grade. I remember vividly, that while reading Romeo and Juliet, I developed a passion for literature as well as a passion against high school English teachers. My teacher, who I have named Mrs. Rabbit, asked the class to interpret a poem. Then, she corrected (or critiqued) the students' interpretations as they spoke. Or maybe she just critiqued mine...anyways...
Now, being the youthful, hot-headed teenager that I was, I took great offense. "Poetry is for the reader," I screamed in brilliant shades of entitlement. And I shamelessly pioneered a class rift. My fellow rebels joined me in heated arguments against our rigid, fifty-some-year-old ninth grade teacher. Mrs. Rabbit insisted that every piece of literature had to be considered from the authors perspective, and interpreted the way the author meant it to be, otherwise it would contain no real meaning. And I insisted that each reader brought his or her own knowledge to the text, changing its meaning for every individual.
At the time, I had never heard of the subject literary criticism, and I wish that I had. Instead, I experienced literature as a dichotomy of something that was personal, magical, and provoking, yet arrogant, and overly-structured. I felt conflicted. I didn't comprehend yet, that our views are often full of dichotomies.
So I chose to fight for literature to be something that I could love; something that included me, and I was unwilling to accept that it could be both.
The argument, I learned ten years later, was one of the age old literary theory discussions. How is Literature understood? What are the boundaries, or demarcations, of criticism, in what ways do we derive meaning from texts, and who decides what is brilliant?
I don't believe what I fought for so passionately as a Freshman. Since then, I have read many more pieces of literature, and I have experienced life enough to know that my initial reactions can be quite shallow. Often, I miss the point completely. Because of that, reading has become something that is active. I usually have to do a little bit of work to feel confident that I am approaching a topic in a way that feels good.
It seems that Frye would have approved of my professors stance in some ways but not in many ways. He definately
Ooops...I have to go. I'll get back to this.
No comments:
Post a Comment