Close Reading in the Secondary Classroom. Jeff Flygare

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ these cases, the historical critic is unsure how to proceed. Historical criticism, while an important step forward beyond the biographical, was clearly not the answer for literary critics.

      Formalism

      As literary criticism moved into the 20th century, critics sought to bring a more stringent analysis, one grounded in the intrinsic elements of the text (Richter, 1998)—in other words, those portions of the text that can be identified and analyzed separately, using agreed-on analytical techniques. The result of this effort was what has come to be known as formalism. Formalism sought a scientific approach to interpretation of the written word. At its heart was a fundamental shift in the way critical reading was applied to the written text. Rather than seeing the text as an author’s product or a historical moment, early formalism sought to see the text as an object in and of itself, independent of the influence of anything else. Early American formalists advocated seeing the text as a microcosm—a totally self-referential text world (Richter, 1998). The critical reader approached the text analytically to view that world. To do this, formalism accepts some of the precepts of the scientific method and applies them to the analysis of the written word. Science approaches the understanding of a phenomenon by isolating the object of study and applying a universally agreed-on, carefully defined, repeatable scientific method to its analysis. In applying this to literature, formalists began by isolating the subject of their analysis, the text. They claimed that the influence of an author on his or her writing was not to be considered in interpreting the text. Further, the reader’s reaction, which can vary widely, could not be considered either. If one was to approach a written text scientifically, then the written text on the page must be the sole object of scrutiny (Richter, 1998).

      Next, formalists needed a set of analytical tools to apply to the written text. Eventually, these tools became the well-known set of literary strategies still taught in English classes today—the elements of literature. These include plot structure, characterization, point of view, figurative language, tone, and theme, to name a few. In attempting to emulate the repeatability of scientific analysis, formalists advocated a very specific method of analyzing these elements. They claimed that if literary critics all studied the same text and properly analyzed that text through the elements of literature, each critic would arrive independently at the same, single, correct interpretation (Richter, 1998).

      In the 21st century, few people would wholly agree with this approach to interpreting texts. Most people have been taught that the influence of the reader in unpacking meaning is as valuable and important as the text itself. Some argue that the author’s intention should also be taken into consideration when interpreting a text (Richter, 1998). Yet formalism had a long run and found advocates well into the 20th century. The idea of one right answer continues to be appealing, especially for situations such as standardized test questions on the interpretation of a passage.

      Although formalism as a school of criticism has lost its rank as the primary method of interpretation, it still has a place in the wider world of literary criticism today. Formalism provided other critical theories with the nomenclature and tools of analysis those theories use. Thus, when a reader-response critic (see page 13) or feminist critic (see page 12) discusses a passage, he or she will speak about theme, tone, or figurative language. In addition, formalism still provides students with the analytical tools they need to read and interpret written texts.

      While literary critics’ primary interpretive method was formalism, by the middle of the 20th century, things had begun to change (Crews, n.d.). A series of interpretive methods that brought other points of view to the reading and interpreting of texts began to emerge. Many of the critical schools rejected the formalist notion that a text is a thing in isolation (Richter, 1998). These methods include Marxist, feminist, and deconstructionist theories. Most of these schools viewed a written text as a product, not just of an author, but also of a culture that strongly influenced the creation of the text, which might adhere to cultural norms or reject them (Richter, 1998). One way to think about these methods is to consider them as lenses one applies when reading and interpreting texts. Each lens will clarify a particular perspective on the passage in question. In approaching the interpretation of texts from a variety of viewpoints, these methods signal a moment when regularity and agreement on meaning were less valued than before, reflecting the shift in Western cultural values more broadly (Crews, n.d.). At this point, many literary critics also began to look for diversity of perspectives, not just in their criticism, but also in the texts themselves, and pushed back against the notion of the Western canon, which predominantly consisted of dead, white, male, Judeo-Christian, straight writers (Richter, 1998).

      Marxist Criticism

      The ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels—particularly of the struggle between socioeconomic classes of the proletariat (workers) and bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production)—have had an enormous effect on the study of history, politics, and economics (Magee, 2001; Popkin, 2000). Literary critics have not missed the opportunity to apply the Marxist notion of economics and social structure to literature, providing a lens that can be productive in interpretation (Richter, 1998). Foundational to a Marxist approach to literature is the idea that history is economic. From a Marxist perspective, history can be reinterpreted not as a series of actions by great men (kings, generals, politicians) or great countries but as the working out of class struggles, with economics driving historical decisions. Marx owed a great deal to philosopher Georg Hegel, who saw the world in terms of conflict, with opposing powers constantly in a struggle to allow a world spirit to reveal and fulfill itself (Magee, 2001). Marx saw the struggle as primarily one of class. He also advocated using history as a political weapon in promoting the emergence and triumph of the proletariat in its struggle against the bourgeoisie (Magee, 2001). Marxist literary critics are often unafraid of taking Marx’s advice in this matter and reread literature as a weapon against Western capitalism.

      Critic Warren Montag (1992) provided one example of how the Marxist lens can yield a very different reading of a text. In his article “The ‘Workshop of Filthy Creation’: A Marxist Reading of Frankenstein,” Montag (1992) rewrote the traditional reading of Mary W. Shelley’s (1818/1992) famous novel. Readers often interpret Frankenstein as a comment on the limitations of science, suggesting there are actions that scientists—even if they could—should not take. Death is meant to be final, and the reanimation of dead flesh means that a scientist at some point is playing God. Readers often take the ending of the novel, tragic for both creation and creator, to mean that some things are better left unknown.

      Montag (1992), on the other hand, approached the novel from the perspective of class. Victor Frankenstein, brought up in a wealthy home, provided with a first-class education, and clearly a part of the ruling class, is the perfect example of the bourgeoisie. In animating his creature, he is in fact, through his horrible actions, giving birth to a symbol of proletariat man. In the conflict between these two characters, Shelley captured the fundamental conflict of Western capitalism—the need of the bourgeoisie to create, use, and control the proletariat, and the desire of the proletariat to rise beyond that control and be totally independent. This is a very different reading of the novel, but a legitimate one nevertheless.

      Placing the presuppositions of Marxist criticism on the reading of any text, particularly a nonfiction one, can help students quickly see the results of changes in perspective and help them understand that different readers can experience the same text very differently.

      Feminist Criticism

      Equally surprising are the changes that emerge when looking at a work through a feminist lens. As feminism became more and more a force in Western culture through the mid and late 20th century, literary critics sought to apply some of the basic presuppositions of feminism to the interpretation of literature (Richter, 2007). There are many feminisms, approaches all sharing the basic ideas of feminism but approaching literary interpretation with different agendas (Richter, 1998). Still, there are a few common traits nearly all feminisms share, and they are often focused on the politics of gender.

      First, СКАЧАТЬ