Note: Structuralism, semiotics, and post-structuralism are some of the most complex literary theories to understand. Please be patient.
The structuralist school emerges from theories of language and linguistics, and it looks for underlying elements in culture and literature that can be connected so that critics can develop general conclusions about the individual works and the systems from which they emerge. In fact, structuralism maintains that "...practically everything we do that is specifically human is expressed in language" (Richter 809). Structuralists believe that these language symbols extend far beyond written or oral communication.
c. To locate the essay in relation to the history of criticism, and specifically to compare or contrast it with TWO other extracts from the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism as discussed in the lecture programme. One aim of the course is to give you a sense not only of changing ideas of criticism over the ages, but also of continuity: that we may still be doing the same things with texts, or thinking about them using the same terms and categories, as much older writers. This final element of the assessment asks you to address this by looking at the essay you have chosen in relation to 2 of the extracts which were analysed in the lectures (see CP: Criticism lecture schedule above for details). An ideal answer will seek to show both similarities and differences, for example by seeing how two authors go about different ways to reach similar ends, or how two authors draw different conclusions from similar starting points. Or you might be interested in the ways that quite different accounts of criticism sometimes turn out to harbour very similar unacknowledged or unexamined assumptions about the nature of literature or literary study. Your aim is not so much to ‘classify’ or ‘label’ critical arguments (this is neo-classical whereas that is romantic) but to explore particular similarities and differences between the work of specific critics. After all, it is only on the basis of such specific comparisons that a historian of criticism can draw generalisations about schools of criticism; and the test of a good historian will always be the extent to which they complicate such generalisations. Think of this as a way of revising the course: looking back over what has been discussed in the lectures, and seeing what larger patterns of similarity and difference you can see in the way that the critical enterprise has been discussed or conceived over the last two millennia.
b. To enter into a critical discussion of the essay. Once you have given your précis – which we now see to mean something like an analytical summary – you are in a position to enter into a critical discussion of the extract. The précis is an essential prerequisite for your critical discussion because it is only reasonable to judge the success or validity of an argument once we have clearly understood what it is trying to achieve: it is not helpful to state that instead of doing one thing, an author should have tried to do something else. (Although note that you will have an opportunity to make this sort of point through comparison with another author who has chosen to do something different.) You might also bear in mind that just as literary criticism does not mean pointing out flaws and mistakes in a text, so ‘a critical discussion’ does not require you to find fault with an extract. At a very basic level it means drawing attention to features of interest in the piece, but more specifically it might mean exploring a combination of any number of the following questions: ? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the critical argument? ? Are there specific assumptions or circumstances that we need to be aware of before we can understand the argument, or that we need to bear in mind if we wish to make an assessment of its success? ? To what extent are the author of the extract and its arguments products of a particular time and place? ? To what extent are these arguments about criticism still relevant today? ? Is the approach to literature demonstrated by the extract more relevant to some literary forms or periods than to others? ? Is the style of the extract significant? ? If so, why the author has chosen to write in this particular style? ? Does the style of the extract make a difference to the analytical or persuasive force of the argument?
The basis of the formalist position is that the ob- ject of literary science, as such, must be the study of those speciﬁcs which distinguish it from any other material.
It provides sample papers, and shows the steps for writing good literary essays.
The Purdue writing program has produced a great deal of information to help students get started writing good papers:
The book provides clear explanations and demonstrations of 12 important critical and cultural theories, the main ones include: Structuralism, Post Structuralism, Post Modernism, Psychoanalytic Criticism, Feminism, Lesbian/gay criticism, Marxist criticism, New historicism, Postcolonial Criticism, Stylistics, Narratology and Ecocriticism....
For some current literature or popular books, there may be no criticism published in scholary books or journals, but you may still find book reviews in popular magazines or newspapers.
Tip: To search for criticism on a literary author, you can usually just type the authors name in the 1st search box without limiting to a specific field .If your your literary author has also written criticism, and you want to limit to articles that are about your author, you can use the pulldown to change to SU Subjects-ALL. To narrow your search to criticism of a particular work, you can type the name of the literary work.
During the Bethesda years, with her husband engaged in lunar exploration and her growing children requiring less of her energy, Rita Kosofsky pursued a career in a direction related to Eve’s developing interests. Building on her undergraduate degree in English, Rita took graduate courses at the University of Maryland, earning an M.A. in English Literature. Her master’s thesis was published as a book, by Kent University Press in 1969.
This series of reference books collects and reprints literary criticism that was originally published in other places. It includes both excerpts and full reprints. This makes it easy to find criticism written by different people collected in one place. The reprints are arranged chronologically, starting with the earliest. Therefore, these is a good place to look if you want to learn what people were saying about a particular literary work right after it was published, and then trace how opinions evolved over time. The list below show the different series, which are based on the time period that the author live and wrote. If you don't know which set to use, keep in mind that the cumulative indexes in the last volume of each series cross-index one another.
Applications to Telluride summer programs, and to Telluride House, were reviewed by students currently living in the house. One of these students was Hal Sedgwick, who thus first came to know Eve through her writing. In the fall of 1967 Hal entered graduate school at Cornell and moved out of Telluride House. He continued to spend time at the house, however, to visit Eve and his other friends there.
At Cornell Sedgwick was accepted into a college-wide honors program that allowed her to shape her own course of study and to largely avoid the college’s distribution requirements. (What could not be avoided was the two-year physical education requirement, which Sedgwick satisfied by taking archery in the mild weather and ice skating in the cold weather, two activities in which she became highly proficient.) Sedgwick concentrated on English literature, taking many courses and seminars in that area. Most importantly, she took several seminars with Neil Hertz, who strongly influenced her thinking and became a lifelong friend. A year-long seminar in poetry writing with A. R. Ammons, whose poetry she admired, led to the writing of a substantial number of poems, many of which are still unpublished. Another important influence was Allan Bloom, a political philosopher and student of Leo Strauss. Sedgwick took several courses and seminars from Bloom, who had a close connection with Telluride House and drew a number of Sedgwick’s friends there into careers as Straussian political philosophers. Sedgwick discusses her fascination with Bloom in . Sedgwick also studied anthropology (with James Seigel), history of psychology (with Robert MacLeod), and diverse other courses such as mathematical logic. Sedgwick graduated summa cum laude from Cornell in June of 1971.