English 5000: Topics for First Short Paper

Choose your topic from the list given below. Refer to at least two theoretical works.

You may agree or disagree with any of the theorists listed (including me). The reasoned character of your arguments will be the primary criterion for assessing the quality of your essay. The quality of reasoned discussion, not agreement or disagreement, is what will count.

The topics are the sentences in bold-face. The subsequent comments in each topic are meant only to stimulate your thinking and suggest possible aspects. They are not meant as an outline or guide to your essay. It would NOT be a good idea merely to answer each question posed, in sequence. You need to formulate the topic in your own way, formulate a set of propositions (thesis) about the topic, and construct a coherent essay.

You may illustrate your ideas with reference to any literary texts you like, including those we have read for this class, but be sure not to slip into an extended interpretation or exposition of any literary text. The main focus for these essays must be on the theoretical topics designated here.

*********************************************************************************

1. Formulate what you yourself think is the whole scope, character, and purpose of literary criticism and literary theory. (Remember, you must refer to the formulations of at least two other theorists.) Be as specific as possible about the character of literature and the content of literary theory. That is, what are the central, elementary characteristics of literature, and what, accordingly, are the central principles of literary theory? Some of the issues you might wish to consider are the relation of literature to life, to nature, to any spiritual order (if you think there is one), to the personality of the individual writer, to the culture in which the writer writes, and to science or philosophy or religion. You might wish to consider the issue of whether criticism is or can be a systematic, objective ("scientific") study, or whether it is, rather, one of the fine arts, a matter of taste and intuition and spontaneous, ad hoc description and evocation. You might want to consider the relation of objective knowledge and subjective response or evaluation.

2. What are the constituents of historical period, with (if you like) specific reference to Romanticism, or to some other period? Is it possible to define a period as a coherent entity? If not, why not? If so, what are the characteristics--philosophical, moral, imaginative, psychological, etc.--that distinguish any one period from another? Are there shared ideas or ways of feeling that animate a wide spectrum of writers at a given time and that are sharply different from those of another time? Is socioeconomic context a determining factor? Are intellectual history or the development of new literary forms decisive? What are the literary manifestations of period quality? That is, what literary forms or styles or characteristics help to distinguish a period? Do literary forms interact with intellectual history and with changing social and socioeconomic forces in such a way as to create distinctive periods? Are periods in any way cyclical or dialectical? That is, do we find repetitive patterns, or is there rather a unidirectional movement such that any one period has a unique historical character? In what way do previous periods impinge on later? That is, in what way is the definition of any one period dependent on its relation to earlier periods? Is literary history in any way cumulative?

3. Discuss the issue of realism and symbolism. Is literature representational? Does it reflect the author's personality or point of view? Does it reflect the cultural order in which it is written? What, if any, is the relation between scientific and literary realism? What are the alternatives to realism? Is there a way (Frye's, for example) to treat of symbolism from a religious or transcendental perspective? What relation does symbolism have to Jungian archetypal psychology? Are introversion and extraversion relevant to the dichotomy between realism and symbolism? Are the two forms of representation antithetical, complementary, or essentially unrelated? Do they form a continuum or a contrast? What kind of differences would they produce in characterization, setting, or plot? If this dichotomy is radically faulty or inadequate, what better conceptual construct could be devised to explain the literary phenomena it is designed to explain?

4. Compare the conception of literature in two or more theorists (for example, Abrams, Culler, Wellek, Wilson, Frye, Watt, Fowler, Bakhtin, Jung, Carroll). What elements make up literature? How can it be compared with science or with other forms of mental activity such as scholarship or art? What mental qualities go into it, and to what qualities of mind or character does it make appeal? Is it a form of knowledge? of expression? Is it a reflex of language or culture? Is it based in experience? Does it constitute experience? Or is it irrelevant to experience? Is it a matter of style? Is it a matter of quality? What is the relevance of canonical status? What are the main forms of literature?

5. Is it possible to define literature? If so, how? If not, what characteristics place it beyond description and distinguish it from everything else in the dictionary that can be defined? (You can of course argue that definition is itself inherently impossible or illusory, but if so you will need to explain how what errors of conception animate those who write dictionaries or otherwise make definitions.) What are the components of literature? How wide a range of kinds or genres does it encompass? How can it be distinguished from non-literary works? What relation, if any does it bear to life and experience? What is its nature and purpose? How does it fit, if at all, within the total structure of knowledge (if there is such a total structure)?

6. What order can be discerned in the relations among literary genres? Is there any “natural” generic order or are all systems of genre merely conventional? Would a theory of genres have to be situated within some deeper or broader theory of the origins and functions of literature, or is genre itself an ultimate and irreducible category of literary understanding? What do tone, point of view, and subject matter have to do with genre? How is emotional quality factored in? What of characteristic plot structures, specific life phases (for example, growing up, getting married)? Can any of these factors be correlated with larger natural rhythms, for example, day and night, the four seasons, the phases of the life cycle? Does the development of genres have any discernible parallels with biological forms of development in the individual (ontogeny) or the species (phylogeny)? Do genres change over time? Is ancient tragedy basically similar or basically different from Renaissance tragedy? from modern tragedy?

7. Discuss one or more of the parodies in Postmodern Pooh. If you like, you could compare the parody with one or more of the theory texts, or you could compare two or more of the parody chapters. How do the parodies work? What is their underlying criticism of the views they depict? What is being mocked? How is the mockery made effective? Is there any norm or standard against which the subject of the parody is being measured? If implicit norms do exist and can be detected, would it be possible to construct an essay about Pooh based on these implicit norms? Could you write that essay? If so, that’s an option.

8. Is there a paradigm in literary theory at the present time? If so, what is it? What are its common features? What are its elementary assumptions and characteristic attitudes? What is its relation to other forms of mental activity or other academic disciplines? What are its motives or purposes? What is its rationale or justification? If there is not a paradigm, what set of dispersed, heterogeneous practices and doctrines does exist? Is this heterogeneity right or at least necessary and inevitable? Is it a peculiarity of the historical moment? Is it a reflex of the incomplete or indeterminate character of all knowledge?