r/AskLiteraryStudies

For example, if I write "Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë is about an orphan who does so and so until she ends up in X", like a really brief, 3 line max, summary of the entire novel, do I still have to add (Brontë, 1847)?

I am explicitly naming the author and have already mentioned the publication year in a previous paragraph, and since I'm covering the whole book it makes no sense to put in the page numbers, so I don't know if the reference is needed.

If it makes any difference, my uni uses the Harvard system.

What genuinely annoys me about some anti-theorists is the way they talk about literature as if it exists in some pure, sacred state that should never be “contaminated” by interpretation, theory, or critical frameworks. They’ll say things like “just read the book for what it is” or dismiss theoretical readings as pretentious overanalysis, but that position itself already assumes a very specific idea of what literature is supposed to be and how it should be read.

I’ve been reading The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, and the introduction puts this problem perfectly:

“Some literary scholars and writers deplore the shift toward ‘theory,’ regarding it as a turn away from literature and its central concerns. These ‘antitheorists,’ as they are called, advocate a return to studying literature for itself—yet however sensible this position may at first appear, it has problems: it itself presupposes a definition of literature, and it promotes a certain way of scrutinizing literature (‘for itself’). In other words, the antitheory position turns out to rely on unexamined—and debatable—theories of literature and criticism. What theory demonstrates, in this case and in others, is that there is no position free of theory, not even the one called ‘common sense.’”

That’s exactly why I find anti-theory arguments frustrating. People who reject theory often act as if their reading is just common sense while everyone else is forcing meanings onto texts. But even saying things like “literature should just be enjoyed emotionally” or “symbolism is overthinking” already comes from a theoretical position about what literature should do.

And anti-theorists always reduce literature into a kind of holy text that must not be questioned too deeply. The moment someone brings in politics, psychoanalysis, feminism, Marxism, postcolonialism, linguistics, or even formal analysis, they react as if the text is being violated instead of examined. But literature has always been tied to ideology, history, language, culture, and power structures.

What made me think about this even more is something I wrote around 4–5 years ago, long before I knew anything about literary theory. I wrote a short story about a boy and a girl preparing to commit suicide while standing on a terrace having their first real conversation. The entire story was focalized through the boy’s perspective his dialogue, his inner monologues, his emotional processing. The girl barely spoke. She mostly zoned out with a poker face, and the only significant thing she said was a monologue about a supernova because she loved astronomy.

At the time, I had absolutely no awareness of feminist theory, gaze theory, or discussions about narrative voice and representation. But when I look back at the story now, a feminist reading almost naturally emerges from it. The girl is emotionally opaque while the boy controls the narrative space she becomes partially constructed through his perception of her rather than through her own subjectivity. Whether intentional or not, the imbalance in voice and focalization creates gendered implications that can absolutely be analyzed through a feminist lens.

That’s exactly why I hate like hateee the idea that theory is just forced interpretation. I didn’t consciously put feminist theory into the story, yet those dynamics still existed in the text. Meaning often exceeds authorial intention, which is basically what ideas like “the death of the author” try to point out. A text can contain tensions, biases, structures, and implications that even the writer is not fully aware of while writing it.

At the same time tho, I also think theory itself has problems sometimes, and pretending otherwise would be dishonest. There are readers who force interpretations onto texts just to make them fit a particular framework. There are analyses where theory becomes a checklist rather than an actual engagement with the work itself. Sometimes literary analysis stops being literary analysis altogether and just turns into a political or ideological essay that barely discusses the text’s form, language, narration, structure, rhythm, or aesthetics.

And honestly, I think part of that problem comes from the overemphasis on ideological/social lenses alone while neglecting structural lenses like formalism, narratology, stylistics, rhetoric, or close reading. Theory becomes shallow when people only use texts to repeat predetermined conclusions instead of analyzing how the text actually produces meaning. A feminist, Marxist, psychoanalytic, or postcolonial reading can be incredibly insightful, but if the text itself disappears under theory, then the analysis do starts feeling disconnected from literature as literature.

So, I'm well into my 30s but occasionally I have this memory of an English assignment we did in Highschool, and I want to know if my confusion is justified or if maybe I just haven't realised what went wrong.

It was back in the good old days of 2007, we were all about 17 and were focusing on narrative themes, interpretations of text, symbolism/metaphors etc. The lovely area of "Why do you think the author said the curtains were blue?" kinda stuff. We were told that we would be sitting an in-class Assignment, that we would be played a song and we would need to write a narrative interpretation of said song. We would be marked on our originality of our narrative, as well as our ability to interpret different themes and symbolism used in the song.

We go in on the day, and we're given an hour in total. We were played the song twice, and given the lyrics to work off of.

The song was Summer Lovin, from the musical Grease.

I was one of the top English students in the grade, and I have this vivid memory of staring at the lyrics sheet thinking "What the fuck am I supposed to do with \this?!" And I, along with apparently the *entire grade*, just threw in the towel after panicking for 15 minutes and wrote down the Summer Lovin narrative.

We stood at assembly a few days later whole the English department Head stood there and berated us, how he expected more, that no one wrote anything original and that they were all incredibly disappointed in our performance. I'm not exaggerating when I say that *literally the entire grade failed*. They had to toss out the assignment and figure out a different way to make up the gradings.

I'm wondering if the English departments upset with us was warranted, I've wondered ever since it happened. I've had a lot of clarity in my years since I graduated, but this event still nags at me, because I still hear that song occasionally and wonder "What DID they expect us to do with that?".

So, in your academic opinion- who failed who here?

Edited:

Greets and Salutations! (I do not mean "wierd lit" in its strictest definition, moreso as a description.)

I am an adult (27) returning to complete my undergraduate degree. Upon graduation, I plan to further my education and pursue a doctorate. My undergrad is in English Lit with an minor in Art History, and after working in the corporate world for the past nine years, I have come to the conclusion that academia is where I belong. I understand the associated risks, and am still here. Please do not try to warn me of low pay, poor markets, or lack of tenure track positions. I have done my research and am still pursuing my passions, as I firmly believe the humanities to be an essential stepping stone upon which our cultural future depends on.

My question lies in what research I would like to pursue. The intersection of historical feminist literature/female authors and occultism/spiritualism is by no means a common sphere, and I am struggling to find the best path. Are there any particular institutions that possess faculty with an interest or focus in this area, outside of the university of exeter? I have found a few working at the university of washington, which would be ideal.

For cost and accessibility reasons I am attending ASU online, which does not possess the broadest collection of literature classes. Is there a topic or era I should hone in on when selecting classes to assist in qualifiying for a graduate program, such as renaissance literature or medieval studies? I began my degree when I was eighteen, with absolutely no idea of what I wanted -- several of my electives are around education and theatre, so I need to be aggressively selective in my remaining coursework to ensure my transcript paints a clear and enticing picture for potential faculty sponsors.

I guess I am just looking for some insight overall. What would pursuing this path even look like, and how would I pitch/frame this area of study?

The mods have deleted my post because it was apparently structured in a way that looked to be asking for ‘homework help’, which is ironic since I’m a math student lol. Anyway, my question was out of sheer curiosity, as I was looking for suggestions of some primary texts on formalism, and how certain schools that oppose it act as a counterweight when all literature is fundamentally formalistic in essence? Do they criticize the form itself or the mode of analysis taken by formalists?

Is there any solid literary criticism works regarding Jane Austen. I can't seem to find any that focus on JUST her, but rather the era she wrote in. I am nearly at the end of my project of reading all of Jane's works so I don't necessarily need to be about a single novel, but if it is that's fine too.

Curious what everyone's favorite lit crit about poetry is. I'm specifically looking for anything about metered poetry rather than free verse. I don't have a particular period in mind beyond traditional form being a component of the criticism.

If something about poetry comes to mind that doesn't fit this, I'm still interested, but please let me know which category it fits.

I'm starting a Literature degree this autumn and one of the compulsory courses is on postcolonial theory, the issue is I just don't really find this field to be very appealing to my own interests. I can appeal somewhat to my own family history in being immigrants from colonised countries, but when it comes to analysing texts in light of colonialism I don't find it to be a particularly interesting task. I genuinely want to appreciate postcolonialism and enjoy studying it because I understand the importance, but I don't know how to frame it in a way that appeals to me. What am I missing and how do I begin appreciating it?

Edit: Any reading recommendations would be appreciated

This will be a very strange question, admittedly. But I have been writing my first paper to submit to an academic journal. I am working independently so I dont have any professor to ask for help. My question is, when writing literary scholarship, do you ever feel like you are straight up writing whatever? I feel like I am just bullshitting, sorry for the language. How do you make your argument and the content actually academically rigorous? And this is not about the fancy language, but the actual material. Thanks.

I’m looking to deeply study structuralism, so I decided to start with a secondary text by Jonathan Culler. My plan was to use it as a foundation before moving on to the primary texts, but now I’m second-guessing myself. Am I better off sticking with this introductory book, or should I just dive straight into the primary sources?

For those who have read Culler's work, do you think it’s a good starting point for a serious study of structuralism?

I was going through my Goodreads list to find some stuff I wanted to add to my read list when I came across East of Eden by John Steinbeck. Heard they are adapting this into a Netflix show but I would actually rather just read the book. However, I am picky with books when they come to having strange prose or sentence structures. Should I give it a shot?

What are some niche theoretical frameworks? In school, we studied all the big ones- Gender, Postcolonial, Queer, Ecocriticism, Disability, Trauma, Structuralism and Post, Urban Studies, etc. I recently learnt about Kinetic Modernism and found it to be quite fascinating. I wish to read about more very niche subsets of literary theory. Any recommendations are welcome.

I'm reading currently The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov. I noticed that he often breaks the fourth wall and addresses the reader directly.

here are some examples from the book:

• “...A citizen seven feet tall, but narrow in the shoulders, unbelievably thin, and, kindly note, with a jeering physiognomy.”
• “It must be noted that the editor was a well-read man and in his conversation very skillfully pointed to ancient historians”..
• “But enough, you are getting distracted, reader! Follow me!...”
• “What other prodigies occurred in Moscow that night we do not know and certainly will not try to find out - especially as it has come time for us to go on to the second part of this truthful narrative. Follow me, reader!”
• “Follow me, reader! Who told you that there is no true, faithful, eternal love in this world! May the liar’s vile tongue be cut out! Follow me, my reader, and me alone, and I will show you such a love!”

I want to know if there's a reason why Bulgakov decided to use authorial intervention or what's the point/purpose of it. Sorry if this is a dumb question.

Across twenty-four books of the Odyssey, the hero weeps openly seventeen times. He also lies in nearly every book, sleeps with two goddesses while his wife waits at home, refuses an offer of immortality, and gets every single one of his men killed. The Greeks called him polytropos — many-turned — and meant it as praise.

See the full blog post here: https://storica.club/blog/odysseus-was-a-liar/

Good evening, all! English major here. I'm currently working on a new project, which is a D&D campaign that I'm writing for my group. I am the only literature-focused major in our circle, so I thought it would be really cool to write a campaign that draws from some of the classics. I thought it best to gather some suggestions from others on some literature I can read over the summer to get inspired and ready to write.

The campaign will be low fantasy and political intrigue-focused. I'd like to incorporate some grimdark themes. I currently plan on re-reading Macbeth and Hamlet. Feel free to throw in any other titles you think would be a good fit!

i dont read poetry too often so i want to know how to best go about this. im not familar with any of his work yet. should i go in order? i know langston wrote several novels too so should i start with them? what would y'all consider his most influential peice of work?

Hi all, I’m looking for a Masters in Literary and Cultural Studies program (or a Masters in English with a Literary and Cultural Studies track). What are some of the best in-person or hybrid programs? And, when looking at programs, what should I be looking for? (I.e. graduate assistantships, etc.)

More context: I currently have a bachelor’s in English. I did graduate summa cum laude, but I don’t feel like I did enough extra curricular things to make it into a super exclusive program.

Guys I'm using reddit for the first time I just need some help I want to pursue PhD abroad in english literature most probably from Europe . I want to do it in interdisciplinary fields like trauma studies, gender studies, women studies. Could anyone help me on what's the process to apply there and what are the requirements as I'm from India

Thank you

Basically, I want writers who have written for/against sentimentality and didacticism in literature. I have already read Tolstoy's "What is Art?" which is for simple, moralistic stories. There is also James Baldwin's essay "everybody's protest novel" which criticises the sentimental strain in American protest novels and I have Nabokov's lectures on Doestoevsky which harshly criticises him as a sentimentalist.

Any more essays to be aware of?