SuyBus-oa4y 204 (€z-€1) 4 Jo 30m v Jo a9e|d ap dansn ATenize ‘poureyuEUT ays TINA “uP 1H9 Azerodwayuod Jo spup| OU Uo 3pENe [eIOY e paymou ,worreaxds=xu idurexa 203 $961 UE yedaus Appuaredde ancy, ae aso oxey pM Aeur axnyexay 7 2 sip sugBisur ajgeanseard pure uwosuyof fonuuag cq TeX I ‘Aysn01084r 08 axny .sueyonuypor, Arexayy anes9q wey Jo som ‘0 siowonpo payeanows oxey TaM 108.34 0) punog sueppqUHapEDe ppue snoraqo tpns pey 124 Pue 4 ‘aydoad jo sxoquanu aie] 35032 oytuapeoe atp jo a7ed 8 auroseq Aep auo prnoys ame} 49x pays onewuaisds 205 your ywapYS aaey OF 1yBnoMP sem AaqnbNUE Posse ‘Ayuo ‘adosng wxays2M Ur sotmIuED 404“ ag UY sesmno> imua> pUsa.aUTY 34" noa(qns oquapese ue amyesait| eu 1 yong “sisdyeue yemn>ajjouut 30 Ay noepip psounouaad asuodsay [eonIoaIg AY, :Payzeys suey2A HANDBOOK OF CRITICAL APPROACHES TO LITERATURE art and the method of which was to reduce the work of art to content and then 1 interpret that. Her approach is highly provocative and stimulating. Yet despite some last-minute disclaimers that she is not condemning al critical commentary and some advice to critics to pay more attention to form, itis difficult to eseape the conclusion that in her opinion interpretation impoverishes art and that its prac- tice for a number of decades by most academic and professional critics had been ‘unquestionably hermful. She concluded with the pronouncement that “in place of ‘hermeneutics we need an erotics of at” Sach a view would seem to place her in general agreement with Leslie Fiedler, ‘who, addressing a national convention of the College English Association in the carly 1970s, advocated “ecstatics” as a response to literature. Professor Fiedler ‘would make the gut reaction the be-alland end-all ofart. The traditionally accepted standards and clasics were in his view elitist, academic opinions and productions that had been forced on the reading public, who demonstrably prefer sentimental literature, horror stories, and pornography—all of the popular variety. Such pope Jar writings produce almost exclusively emotional effects—particularly feelings of pathos, terror, and sexual titillation. They cause readers, said Fiedler, “to go out of ‘control, out of their] heads” He continued by pointing out that we do have a traditional name forthe effect sought, and at its most successful achieved, by Po; the temporary release from the limits of rationality, the bound aries of the ego, the burden of consciousness; the moment of privileged insan- ity] that traditional name is, ofcourse, “Ekstass" which Longinus spoke of in the last centuries ofthe Clasic ra, not in terms of Popular Art or High Act, hich infact cannot be distinguished in terms ofthis concept but of alart atts Irrational best—or, to use his other favorite word, mos sublime” ‘That political principles underlie Fiedler’s position is clear in his closing remasks: Once we have made esas rather than instruction or delight the center of rit ical crauation, we willbe feed from the neces of ranking mess prodoced and mase-distributed books in ahirarchal oder viable nly ina las te tured society, delivered from the indignity of having to condescend publi to ‘works we privately relish and relieved ofthe task of ying to define categorie ke “high and “low “majority” and “minority” which were from the bepaning deisive and uneal - Sontag and Fiedler express in intellectuslize terms what many a student has sm ply asserted, “All this criticism and analysis ake al the fun out of readingl™ Among the earliest spirited rebuttals to such subjective interpretation were J. Mitchell Morses “Are English Teachers Obsolete” An Berthoi’ “Recalling ‘Another Freudian Model—A Consumer Caveat” and Eva Touster’ “Tradition and the Acsdemic Talent” In the second edition of How Does @ Poem Mean? John Ciara emphatically condemns appreciation and fee association in discussing Poetry in the classroom, calling the one “not useful? the other “permissive and pointless” and both together “ull” (xix-xzi). In an impressive lst of works rang- ing from Literary Theory: An Introduction (1983) to After Theory (2004), Terry 1+ Getting Started: The Precitial Response 3 Eagleton has argued that ll literature expresses political philosophy. More specif: ically, he believes that Marxist theory and not subjectivity can explain any literary ‘work: Responses to Eagleton have taken the form ofthe defense of beauty itself as {in the work of Wendy Steiner (Venus in Eile: The Rejection of Beauty in Twentieth Gentury Art {2002} and The Scandal of Pleasure: Art in an Age of Fundamentalism [1997)) and Flaine Scarry (On Beatty and Reing Just and Dreaming Dy the Dovk {oth 2001)), who describe a broader, subtler array of how beauty exists within our lives than “erotics” or “ekstasis" can, Sontag, Fiedler, Eagleton’, Steiners, and Scarrys diverse points of view are instructive for readers interested in familiarizing themselves with the vari- ty of critical responses to a literary work. Whether one subscribes to them in ‘heir entirety or in part or disagrees with them categorically, they are invigorating Polemics that can spark further intellectual exchange on the issue in the class” room, in learned journals, and in magazines and newspapers, as well as on web sites, chatrooms, and blogs. Perhaps as a result of such controversy @ dilemma has arisen in the class- 100m for some teachers of literature, namely, whether to discuss material in an essentially subjective manner—the extreme of which could be relativistic and nonrational—or whether to employ the tools of logical and intellectual analysis. ‘We believe tha these options do not necessarily constitute a dilemma. ‘There is unquestionably a kind of literary analysis. that is like using an. clephant gun to shoot a gnat Its practiced by riders of all kinds of scholarly hobbyhorses and may manifest itself in such ways as ascertaining the number cof rhymes in The Rape ofthe Lock or instances of trochees in book 4 of Paradise Lost. The early pages of Charles Dickens’ Hard Times illustrate the imagination stifling effect of one such technique. Thomas Gradgrind, patron of a grammar school in an English industrial town, is listening to a class recite. He calls on ‘one ofthe pupils, “gi number twenty” forthe definition ofa horse. Git] num- ber twenty” (in Gradgrind’s world there is no personal identity) cannot produce ‘the expected rote answer. A better-conditioned classmate can: ““Quadruped, Graminivorous. Forty teeth, namely twenty-four grinders, four eye-teeth and twelve incisive. Sheds coat in the spring: in marshy countries sheds hoof, too. Hoof hard, but requiring to be shod with iron. Age known by marks in mouth ‘Now girl number twenty’ said Mr. Gradgrind, ‘You know what a horse is?” It hardly needs pointing out that such a definition would not do justice to the likes ‘of famous horee like Pegasus, Seabiscuit, or Dlack Beauty. Dut ebvorptioa with extraneous, irrelevant, or even overly practical considerations that detract from aesthetic perception seems tobe an occupational disease of many literary critics. ‘This appears to bea problem, however, rather than a dilemma, and its solution is among the several aims ofthis book. (Our purpose inthis chapter is to show thatthe precritical response is not only desirable but indeed essential in the fullest appreciation of literature. In doing so, ‘we do not mean to suggest that analysis or expertise detracts from aesthetic sensi- tivity any more than we mean to suggest that a precritical response is an unworthy4 A HANDBOOK OF CRITICAL APPROACHES TO LITERATURE ‘one. It is a truism to say that our senses can sometimes mislead us, hence the need to analyze literature that is being studied as well as read for pure pleasure. This book is predicated on the assumption that knowledge anid the intelligent appl cation of several interpretive techniques can enhance the pleasure the reader can derive from a piece of literature. ‘Let us illustrate with an analogy. A college student decides to take in a film on 8 Friday evening as «reward fora week of grinding study. She rounds up a group of friends, and they head for a nearby mall, the site of a huge theater where often over two dozen films are being shown simultaneously in different auditoriums. ‘The sheer joy of weekend freedom is heightened by the sight of hordes of other students laughing and clowning about thei release from labs and libraries into the ‘world ofthe movies. America’s future business and professional leaders are stock {ng up on buttered popcorn and iammoth cups of soft drinks before disappear {ng into dark caverns fall of luxuriously upholstered reclining theater seats, there to thrill vicariously to torrid love scenes, gory detective brutality, wild and crazy ‘comedy, complex psychological drama, and science fiction, Everything combines toimmerse them in a pool of sensation. ‘Not far away from these avid fans, a smaller, somewhat less ebullient group of students are making their way into one of the auditoriums, but they lack none of the other groups excitement and anticipation. They are members of one ofthe col- lege film classes, and they are accompanied by their professor. They are informed. fn the history of moviemaking; they know both classic and contemporary films; they understand some of the technical operations of the camera and its myriad effects; they are familiar with many acting styles, past and present. On the level ‘of sense experience, they are receiving the same impressions as the other group of students, But because oftheir special knowledge, they comprehend what they are witnessing, Their knowiedge does not dim ther pleasurg it does not nullify any precritical, amateur response. It may even intensify it; it certainly complements it. or there is no real opposition of responses here. These more knowledgeable mov- Jegoers do not say to themselves at one point, "Now were feeling,” and at another, "Now were knowing.” By this stage the knowing is almost as instinctive as the feeling What the academic critic needs to keep in’ mind is that the precrtical response is not an inferior response to literature. (After all, we may be sure that Shakespeare did not write Hamlet so that scholaey critical approaches to it could be formulated.) Rather, the precritical response employing primarily the senses and the emotions is an indispensable one if pleasure or delight isthe aim of art Without it the critic might as well be merely proofreading for factual accuracy ot ‘correct mnechanical form. It may be said to underlie or even to drive the critical ‘response. To illustrate the point, we cite the experience ofa colleague of ours who gave a birthday party for her 11-year-old son. She chose to take him and eight of his friends to see the film The Village (2004). She and another mother sat behind the boys as they watched the fil. The moment it was over, a certain George M. jumped to his fect, whirled around to the mothers, and loudly announced, “That 1 + Getting Started: The Precieal Responce 5 1 ‘sour commitment to analogies from film throughout this handbook empha- sizes, Iteray cits today must acknowledge the Importance of visual cufture for ‘teaching and employing approaches to any at, including iterate, Throughout ‘ur chapters we draw comparisons between visual and verbal interpretations of texts, particulary fr what is possibly the most popularly reproduced iterary Image in the word, the image ofthe Creature from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (see Chapter). na few inerpretive exercises instructors using Chapter 1 of his handbook may tur to visual ads to convey the literary ideas of basic elements ‘of narrative such as setting, character, and style. We have found that one mysta= ‘ous painting is especiolly appropriate for this beginning segue of visual inter. pretation into verbal Diego Velazquez’ Las Menifs (1656), ostensibly a Spanish court panting but also a teasing instance of art asking viewers for multiple and conflicting Interpretations. Throughout our handbook we itduce Pablo Reading Las Meniaas by Diego Velézquez Figure 1.1, Diego Velézque2, Las Menifas (1656). Gey nagevtnegra6 A HANDBOOK OF CRITICAL APPROACHES TO LITERATURE Picasso relnterpretations ofthis seminal painting as representative of a mod- Em approach to understanding is completes Wears eter nes claim that techniques to interpret an oil = heen ee ‘Phenomenon (Chapter 9) furnish a concentrated ‘sh a concentrated sample of images but with the famous painting Las Meniias we can offer 2 few pall exercises in"Yeaduogs these ae further explored on the web site for A Handbook, Approo Jon the web site of Critical Approaches ‘otiterature at wwewoup.com/us/guein, fotally sucked! Itwas so lame!” Then he caught himself realizs was s elf, realizing that he was shar- ing ht opinion with his hostess. He shamefacedly shuffled out ofthe theater along {ithe friends. Our colleague, when she quit laughing, told him not to worry: is Janguage may not have been proper, but his opinion was absolutely correet! We tll Precriticel responses to settings inthe works tobe dealt with in this handbook ae likely tobe numerous and freewheeling. One reader of Huckleberry Finn wil ‘respond to the nostalgia ofan earlier, rural America to the lazy tempo and iylic mood of Huck and Jimi raft trip down the Mississippi. Still another will delight in the satiric description ofthe aristocratic Grangerfordss bourgeois parlor fur. ‘nishings or the frontier primitivism of Arkansas river villages and the one horse 1+ Getting Started: The Precitical Response 7 plantation of the Phelpses. Yt a third will fel repelled by the violence and racism that unfolds. The Gothic texture of the New England forest in "Young Goodman Brown" will sober some readers, a will the dark and brooding castle of Harmlet. ‘The actual seting of “To His Coy Mistress” must be inferred (a formal garden? the spacious grounds of a nobleman’ estate?) but ronsantically connotative settings such asthe “Indian Ganges" and the “tide of Humber” are alluded to, as are mace bre or mind-boggling places like “marble vaults” and “deserts of vast eternity” The simple living conditions ofthe Johnsons in “Everyday Use” will seem historically distant to most modern young readers. ‘The multiple settings of Frankenstein enhance the theme and the plot of the novel. The raging storms of the rugged Alpine mountains, the shocking sights in Frankenstein's laboratories, the remote windswept Orkney Islands, the frozen ‘wastelands ofthe polar North—all play a most important role. 1, PLOT ‘The students’ uncomplicated view of an individual film equels the reader's pre critical response to the conflict (plot) involving protagonist and antagonist (Hamlet versus his uncle; Batman versus the Joker). Readers who delight in action will tril tothe steps in Hamlet’ revenge, even when itightson the inno- cent, and will feel the keen irony that prevents him from knowing his Ophelia to be true and guiltiess and from enjoying the fruit of his righteous judgment. Such time-honored plot ingredients as the escape, the chase, the capture, the release—sensationaly spiced with lynching, tar-and-feathering, swindling, feud- ‘ng, murder, and treachery —may form the staple of interest for precritical readers ‘of Huckleberry Finn. Such readers will also be rooting for the white boy and his, black slave friend to elude their pursuers and attain their respective freedoms. Enigma and bewilderment may well be the principal precritical response elicited. by the plot of “Young Goodman Brown’ is Brovwa's conflict an imaginary one, or is he really battling the Devil in this theological Heart of Darkness? Or in "Yo His Coy Mistress? will the young Cavalier prevail with his Coy Mistress to make love before they are crushed in the maw of Time? In Mary Shelley classic thriller Fratkenstein, will the young scientist befriend, control, or kill the monster he has, ‘created, or will the monster wreak vengeance on the world for his “miscreation”? Epona Dizoasmant Figure 12. Freytag’ pyramid.8 A HANDBOOK OF CRITICAL APPROACHES TO LITERATURE (Gastav Freytag (1816-1895), a German dramatist and novelist, invented what ‘as later called “Freytag’s Pyramid” He organized his study of ancient Greek and Shakespearean drama into five plot sections and illustrated them with a pyramid ‘ith lines extended outward from each side: exposition, rising action, climax The epoton provides the tckround information needed t po understand «sory, ich asthe protagonist the antagon, the base ea and the eting coding withthe inci moment. The elag soe ce ‘einer ofthe story in mtion, beginning withthe gatos Deno cs scion the base conctiscomplted byte noun toto nee sesetbacks advenaris ced antagonist) ool tat aia tae onist. The lina, o tring point marisa major change noe ee somes things aia et ote penis at tape te the protagonist wl fc his lima esa the clin Dung gg ea th tant wins aginst oss tthe antag. The ng me as contin a moment of ial suspense, ding whch the fal cue ete fitisin dott Comedy ens witha dénousmen (eosaanoee gee an,