I personally am on vacation, so my question to you is: If you caught a striped bass in the Atlantic ocean, which work of theory would you recommend the bass read for personal edification, and why?
To be perfectly honest, I believe it's entirely hubristic to assume that a text of human origin would be remotely edifying to a striped bass. I'd probably ask her what I could learn from her.
That aside, I'd recommend the Minghella. Reading the book convinced me that film was the most potent (and complex) of all the arts, and that, given skill and vision, the art of creating a film from scratch requires absolutely precise application of theory. If theoretical frameworks can help us understand structures and improve on them, then this is one of the best guides to the practical application of theory that I've ever read. It's not theory that engages with other theories and loses itself in abstractions that are ultimately nothing more than facetious, as so many theoretical works become. It really gets into the nuts and bolts of how one goes about creating specific works of art, and I love that.
No, I didn't say he said that. Film is a combination of writing, composing music, acting and several other arts, so I was merely indicating that it has a lot of potential in terms of its abilities.
To answer your second question first, the Tolkien made my list because it was one of the first texts I'd read that actively and seriously examined fantasy as an 'authentic' literary form. In academia, especially when one is a student, it can sometimes seem as if only certain forms of writing are worthy of careful reading and reflection. The academic in me was as delighted to discover the essay as the child had been to discover Middle Earth.
How it has shaped my thinking: it led me into more reading on the theory and practice of literary genres that include alternative histories and magic realisms. Most of my current research focuses on mythical realism and imagined realities, and among the origins of this interest is Tolkien's marvellous endorsement of the authenticity and relevance of storytelling.
Tolkien's perceptions of fantasy led me to explore magic realism in great detail, which in turn brought me to palimpsest history and related genres such as the 'novel of memory' (Jane Kramer, The Politics of Memory. I was particularly interested in Tolkien's insistence that the 'fairy-story' can address empirical issues. In this, I think he has established the basis for other literary forms such as science fiction to gain credibility as mediums that can represent and explore the contexts in which we live. In terms of specific theorists, this text led me to explore the work of Jonathan Coe, Jane Kramer, Christine Brooke-Rose and Umberto Eco.
I have difficulty in willingly suspending my disbelief when you - apparently - willingly include a rather poor primer of literary theory with Eagleton's textbook. Surely, you didn't mean it?
Because someone already asked about Tolkeinknut_hamsonJune 23 2010, 16:05:04 UTC
Please talk to me about the Eagleton. A few questions:
1. Eagleton's work is a survey of literary theories. In what way, then, does it operate as theory itself, rather than simply an introduction to literary theories more thoroughly developed elsewhere? (That is, in what way is this work outlining a theory, rather than cataloging other theories?)
2. What makes Eagleton's introduction to literary theory better than the others available? That is, of all such introductions, why does this one make your list?
3. Eagleton's work, like the work of many others, ignores the vast history of literary theory before the Romantics. What are your thoughts on the general approach to the teaching of literary theory that avoids an historical approach?
A palimpsest is a tablet with a surface that can be written on and erased multiple times. Brooke-Rose is one of the theorists who use the idea of the palimpsest as a metaphor to suggest that history is rewritable. She differentiates between various genres, and declares that only magic realism (as opposed to fantasy and science fiction) may be granted the status of palimpsest history. In theoretical terms, there is a difference between alternative worlds and alternative histories. Brooke-Rose argues that fantasy and science fiction are capable only of creating alternative worlds, whereas magic realism, in its habitual way of setting narratives in 'real', easily identifiable locations, can write alternative histories (or rewrite histories from the point of view of formerly marginalised peoples).
1. Just as a disclaimer, the terms "alternative history" and "palimpsest history" are not mine; they are Brooke-Rose's.
Even a text that is historical fiction or such is not "history".
Actually, theory supports the idea that a text can constitute "history". For example, consider the concept of "imaginary homelands". A writer who is exiled from his/her homeland can actually situate his/her loss in the text itself, because there's no other empirical location in which such a writer's identity can truly be 'found'.
2. One of the primary texts that Brooke-Rose analyses is Salman Rushdie's Shame, in which the author intersperses actual historical events with the stories (both real and imagined) of marginalised peoples. In this sense, the palimpsest metaphor refers to filling in the gaps in the narratives of official histories. It's not about completely rewriting history, but rather filling in the spaces and telling the untold stories.
Comments 135
Reply
That aside, I'd recommend the Minghella. Reading the book convinced me that film was the most potent (and complex) of all the arts, and that, given skill and vision, the art of creating a film from scratch requires absolutely precise application of theory. If theoretical frameworks can help us understand structures and improve on them, then this is one of the best guides to the practical application of theory that I've ever read. It's not theory that engages with other theories and loses itself in abstractions that are ultimately nothing more than facetious, as so many theoretical works become. It really gets into the nuts and bolts of how one goes about creating specific works of art, and I love that.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
How it has shaped my thinking: it led me into more reading on the theory and practice of literary genres that include alternative histories and magic realisms. Most of my current research focuses on mythical realism and imagined realities, and among the origins of this interest is Tolkien's marvellous endorsement of the authenticity and relevance of storytelling.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
1. Eagleton's work is a survey of literary theories. In what way, then, does it operate as theory itself, rather than simply an introduction to literary theories more thoroughly developed elsewhere? (That is, in what way is this work outlining a theory, rather than cataloging other theories?)
2. What makes Eagleton's introduction to literary theory better than the others available? That is, of all such introductions, why does this one make your list?
3. Eagleton's work, like the work of many others, ignores the vast history of literary theory before the Romantics. What are your thoughts on the general approach to the teaching of literary theory that avoids an historical approach?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Even a text that is historical fiction or such is not "history".
Actually, theory supports the idea that a text can constitute "history". For example, consider the concept of "imaginary homelands". A writer who is exiled from his/her homeland can actually situate his/her loss in the text itself, because there's no other empirical location in which such a writer's identity can truly be 'found'.
2. One of the primary texts that Brooke-Rose analyses is Salman Rushdie's Shame, in which the author intersperses actual historical events with the stories (both real and imagined) of marginalised peoples. In this sense, the palimpsest metaphor refers to filling in the gaps in the narratives of official histories. It's not about completely rewriting history, but rather filling in the spaces and telling the untold stories.
Reply
Leave a comment