My understanding of perhaps the largest criticism of literary theory is that it lacks praxis. Critics of the kinds of theory that professors of Literature tend to engage in tend to say things like, "This essay lacks any sort of action or practical application beyond philosophizing about life, the universe and everything." These critics usually do not go so far as Dyre in saying that these professors actually "kill" the literature they devote their lives and careers to studying and reading. What does it mean to kill literature or even an author that for all intents, purposes, and accordances are already dead? I'm not exactly sure how you can kill ideas, so I apologize for asking a question without really speculating answers. Maybe others have opinions on this subject?
I suppose then my reluctant task is to defend theory against this strange charge of murder. I'm not sure I want to defend theory, but if I think back to my earlier theory days, I recall Paul DeMann writing somewhere that the "resistance to theory is the resistance to language," and Derrida saying something (much more eloquently than I can paraphrase) to the effect of "Well, people who think that deconstruction means destroying a text by pulling apart all the pieces, simply do not understand what I'm really talking about." The crowned-prince of Theory, Derrida, suggests that in deconstruction some meaning is always constructed simultaneously with this often misunderstood act of 'deconstruction.' Deconstruction afterall, is not the same as Destruction. Truth be told however, I get skeptical and a little suspicious when I see words of 4+ syllables and the presentation of ideas that could not be explained to and made sense of by, say, a 15 year old of average intelligence. In other words, I like it when things make sense. Killing Literature (when I think of writing as already, in some ways, dead) makes no sense. How many theory books must become an effigy before Dyer's pyromaniacal appetite for denying people's will to philosophize is sated? May I humbly suggest Mr. Dyer that you leave Foucault alone and go after people like Paris Hilton, Brian Bozworth, Donald Trump and others who are really killing literature by publishing their thoughts in any form of written print.
A defense of theory must also be defense of philosophy and in this case, with respect to Dyer, also a defense of how important it is to foreground and examine the sustaining postulates of the "literature" we read, rhetorics we encounter, and cultural ideologies that influence and form the human condition. Finally, Dyer uses a literary theory to denounce literary theories. This hypocritical move is not surprising though. After all, Dyer is not an uneducated man. He is familiar with literary theory and seems to have created a non-theory, which as a thing in itself, is a theory. So ultimately he is guilty of representing the very things he sees as oppressive of Literature, i.e., people telling other people how to read books and what to think about them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't see it as "telling others how to read" a text so much as a dialectic between individuals about how literature can be read. A lot of theory is far from encapsulating- it merely offers new perspectives. I do wish however, that it was easier to read as you say.
Kellan, I liked your post. I guess that's kind of a duh, since I'm commenting on it. I was intrigued by your point that Dyer is essentially engaging in the same activity he's criticizing. In fact, when I read that I had to reconsider my own post. But then I decided I had to somehow get around the fact that I kind of love Dyer anyway. I like him because even though he puts a potentially inflammatory opinion out there, he phrases it in such a way that's easy to understand. So I can process it, and then respond back. That's nice.
Sure, maybe he's trying to tell us how to read books, but I suppose we're free to ignore him. To me, that's the beauty of discussion, particularly academic discussion. We're supposed to go out on a limb and see if people follow. Maybe most of the time people will ignore us, but I think if we're doing it right, we'll occasionally say things that get people riled up.
Post a Comment