English 5000: Topics for Second Short Paper

Choose your topic from the list given below. Refer to at least two theoretical works. Do not write on the same subject you wrote on for your first paper.

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. What relation, if any, is there between literary realism and scientific realism? How would you define the two types of realism? Are there any points of connection in the definition? What kinds of objects do they take as their points of reference? What conceptions of reality and/or knowledge do they presuppose? (That is, what are their metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions?) Do they have any correlation in style, manner, or point of view? What conceptions of human nature are involved in them?

2. Compare the treatment of scientific discovery or theory selection in two writers (for instance, in Kuhn, Popper, Dworkin, Bono, or Fish). What are the criteria of theoretical validity? Of theoretical significance? In what way, if any, does objectivity or rationality enter into theory selection? In what way do subjective factors (personal, ideological, political) enter into theory selection? What is the relation between "normal" science and revolutionary paradigm change? Is theory change a rational process? That is, is it possible rationally to assess theories and to modify them, or is theory, as Fish argues, wholly constrained by the conceptual framework of the theorist at any given time? What is Dworkin's answer to Kuhn and Fish? Is the answer compelling, or inadequate? What is the relation between scientific realism, as represented by Popper, and epistemic conventionalism, as represented by Fish and Kuhn?

3. Does the problem of scientific validity have any relevance to the study of literature? If so, what? If not, why not? Are critical theories in any way like scientific theories? Are they in any way constrained by scientific theories? If not, what is the peculiar character of literary theory and criticism? From what does it arise, and on what criteria does it base its validity? How is literature itself different from and/or similar to the objects of scientific study? How is critical response similar to and/or different from scientific study? What is the role of subjectivity, ideology, evaluation, moral judgment, or emotional response in criticism? In science? In what way is the personal temperament of the critic or the scientist relevant to or an obstruction in his or her study? Is literary criticism primarily a matter of taste, temperament, and unique imaginative individuality? Or does it have any component of rational inquiry making appeal to common understanding in accordance with universal principles of logic and evidence? How can one tell a good theory from a bad, or the good parts of a theory from the not-so-good parts? Is it better not to select theories at all, but just to approach each text without expectations and wait for inspiration? If so, why? What is the theory behind this preference?

4. Discuss the theory of reader-response criticism as it appears in Fish, the Heart of Darkness casebook, or any of other theorists or critics you know). What are its central tenets? What is their rationale? What consequences do they have for reading specific texts? In what way can they be correlated or contrasted with other literary theories or with other theories in cultural studies or the philosophy of science? What kind of connection could be drawn (if any) between the epistemic conventionalism of writers like Kuhn and the theory of interpretive communities? Is indeterminacy in any way relevant to reader-response theory? If so, how, and how would you compare reader-response indeterminacy with indeterminacy in deconstruction?

5. Compare the conception of literature in two or more theorists (for example, any of the theorists in Evolution, Literature, and Film, any of the Freudian theorists, or any of the reader-response theorists). 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?

6. What is Darwinian literary theory? What are its operative principles and procedures? What claims does it make about the fundamental organizing principles for all life, and how does it situate those principles on levels relevant to human interests and to imaginative production? Are there any firmly established basic principles subscribed to across the board by people who could be identified as Darwinians? Are there any serious, basic ideas that are still controverted? If so, what implications would those have specifically for literary study? What is the Darwinian conception of human nature? What are the possible or actual views about art and literature current among sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists? Can the ideas of evolutionary biology have any relevance for high levels of organization in literary meaning—levels on which style, tone, theme, and imagery become active?

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?

9. 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.