I began thinking that the text was all, because that was the critical approach I was taught in school. But there was a sea-change, when critics began commenting on authorial intention. (As if they knew! But white male critics: of course they know everything, especially what's in women's minds) I broke away from critical theory right about the time of another sea change, evaluating everything in terms of Marxist thought. It just seemed irrelevant to anything actual human beings thought. I mean, supposedly Marxist governments couldn't even get Marxism right.
So . . . I went back to considering the text as lone work of art, and yet I still wanted to know the thoughts of the artist behind the art.
Now I tend to think that art is in dialogue with other art, and what the artists say is a part of that dialogue.
I agree about arts being a dialogue and that the person with their life is one part of the puzzle.
But eventually I might change my mind - after all, I am just a casual reader, not a professional.
... not that I believe professionals are always to be trusted more than the general public, sometimes the professionals (like literature critics) can be the ones wearing blinders
Wow, good questions! I think literary history must, in some ways, be a history of both work and writer because the views, personality, place in society, capacity for critical thinking and empathy--the list is so long!--of the writer always informs, to lesser or greater extent, the style and content of the work.
And the modern criticism and study must also be taken in context of the critic's views and agenda in studying the authors and texts. What one generation can't even see, another may decry as the worst possible treatment of a person, class, gender, environmental question...
I agree about the things being different from point of view of different generations.
The profession of a Soviet writer can be very tricky - how much to judge? Especially in 1950s it was time, when very few were able to keep their heads high (and even those wrote the mandatory odes to Stalin)
Comments 6
So . . . I went back to considering the text as lone work of art, and yet I still wanted to know the thoughts of the artist behind the art.
Now I tend to think that art is in dialogue with other art, and what the artists say is a part of that dialogue.
Reply
But eventually I might change my mind - after all, I am just a casual reader, not a professional.
... not that I believe professionals are always to be trusted more than the general public, sometimes the professionals (like literature critics) can be the ones wearing blinders
Reply
Reply
And the modern criticism and study must also be taken in context of the critic's views and agenda in studying the authors and texts. What one generation can't even see, another may decry as the worst possible treatment of a person, class, gender, environmental question...
Reply
The profession of a Soviet writer can be very tricky - how much to judge? Especially in 1950s it was time, when very few were able to keep their heads high (and even those wrote the mandatory odes to Stalin)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment