In the case of the real confession, it would be possible, in principle, to check its truth content against known facts. This would not be possible, nor would it be relevant in the case of the story. The reader thinks this way because he or she knows that the story is a literary text. But how is it obvious that the text has a quality which we call literariness? It would seem that a definition of literariness should be of urgent t the authors of books on literary theory provide no such adequate definition. This is likely to be due to the nature of language as much as to the incompetence of e lack of a definition, which could be applied to all works regarded as literature, is not).
Encyclopedia of Contemporary literary Theory: Approaches
Does it finally matter whether it can be proved or not? These are questions which it is difficult enough to answer in the fields of the so-called natural sciences and in sociology, psychology and other disciplines. What of literary theory? It would seem wise to consider first exactly what the object of study. Because many theorists have been primarily concerned with phenomena other than literature (psychoanalysts with the human mind, marxists with human existence in a capitalist society etc it has often been of only secondary importance to them whether a text they are considering can be deemed. Often the same methodology is applied in analysing texts, which may resemble each other in many ways, but which must be identified differently. One can imagine, for example, one text which is a short story told in the first person, taking the form of a confession to a murder, and another text which is an actual signed ghostwriting confession by a real murderer. They might be almost identical in language, structure and content. The important difference is, of course, that the reader knows that one is a story and the other a real confession, and judges them accordingly. In the case of the story, the reader might consider whether or not it was realistic or whether or not the character was telling the truth, but would not need to question whether or not it was an authentic document, written by the person named.
Yet it is paper clearly true that new understanding often comes only after developing a model of some complexity in the mind. Literature, in all its forms, treats of human life, its nature and problems, its mode of existence, its ways of coexistence and thought, and its belief systems. Any theory about these phenomena can, therefore, be considered relevant to the study of literature. However, the actual application of such theories is a complex procedure, fraught with pitfalls, to which the revered academic, as much as the novice scholar, is disturbingly liable to succumb. Misinterpretation, false analogy, unfounded generalisation, reductive argument all these hazards lie in wait for the unsuspecting critic. It is also, therefore, in the nature of theory that not only does it have some complexity but that it is also often difficult to prove or disprove. A theory may sound very convincing but can it be proved to have validity? If it cannot be proved, does it thereby lose its usefulness? And what would constitute proof, or disproof, of any given theory?
They often question our assumptions about great literature and propose different ways to analyse and evaluate. However, any vague statement about literature (such as All literature is escapist) does not constitute a theory. It must meet more stringent requirements to be considered both valuable and valid. What counts as Theory? Clearly, in the first instance, a theory must attempt to explain something. Its proponents may believe that it does this successfully but others may not. Jonathan Culler, an eminent populariser of literary theory, has made a useful distinction: to count as a theory, not only shredder must an explanation not be obvious; it should involve a certain complexity (Culler, 1997). Unfortunately, many theorists have not only recognised this basic truth but have taken it too passionately to heart, cloaking their insights in obscure language.
Most critics and theorists have grappled bravely with the problem but have finally given up, declaring that it does not matter anyway. Some theorists lead one to the conclusion that literary theory does not really exist as an independent discipline. There is, many claim, just Theory, theory about everything from literature to lesbianism, from hooliganism to horror films. Since many books are to be found with the phrases Literary Theory or Theory of Literature in their titles, however, it is clear that there is a body of thought to which the terms can be applied. There is a kind of theory with literature as its is is an important fact to establish, because there are other kinds of theory, such as Critical Theory and Cultural Theory, which rely on the same theorists and schools of thought as Literary Theory. The difference between them all is clearly one of focus and attention. The theorists and schools of thought considered in this book have in common the fact that they challenge common sense notions of what literature.
Bicameralism (psychology) - wikipedia
Nothing was sure or sacred anymore. It was becoming sales difficult to utter a word of comment on anything, especially literary works, without justifying yourself theoretically. Naturally the paper question arose, why do we need theory? Hadnt we been managing quite well without it, thank you very much, for some considerable time? What professors, teachers and lesser mortals did not realise, or were reluctant to admit, was that, in fact, they had been using theory all their adult life, without knowing it (rather as Monsieur jourdain in Molières play. Le bourgeois Gentilhomme does not realise, until it is pointed out to him, that he has been speaking prose all his life).
How could this be? Quite simply because there is live theory (theory we consciously consider when making judgements) and dead theory (the theory which lies behind the assumptions we hold when making judgements but which has become so integrated into our common practice that we are no longer aware. Many had been discussing literature using dead theory, without having bothered to analyse their own presuppositions. So the answer to the question Why theory? Is quite simple: because it is better and more honest to be aware of the reasons why you do something than to be ignorant of them. If this maxim holds good for all human endeavours, then there is no reason why the study of literature should be exempt from. The problem is that defining what counts as theory and what one means by literary is no easy task.
Changes were afoot in the previous half-century but they moved at nothing like the pace and in nothing like the variety of ways that have been evident since the second World War. It is true that writers and critics had been reflecting on the nature of literature at least since Aristotle but, in the course of the twentieth century, the whole concept of a literary text became questionable. As a student of European literature in the 1960s I heard little mention by my professors of literary theory. Genre (tragedy, the novel, the sonnet etc) was certainly mentioned and so were the writer and the critic, but any allusion to the reader was rare indeed. Everyone talked freely of the writers intention and the meaning of the text. When it was deemed necessary, one brought in consideration of the writers background, the historical context, and the philosophical climate.
There was also such a thing as practical criticism, which literature departments made their students do, although no-one explained to us why we had to do it, or how it would be useful to us in our studies. It was assumed that its usefulness was obvious. You took a sample of an unfamiliar text, translated it, if necessary, pointed out a few significant figures of speech that you recognised, such as a metaphor or a simile, discussed its meanings and implications, brought in a bit of background knowledge, if you had. If you did this well under exam conditions, you passed the exam, proving to all who cared to know that you could analyse ere were the great writers and the not so great writers and, by heeding ones professors, one gradually learned to distinguish them. Occasionally, one heard of a psychoanalytic interpretation or a marxist approach, but, more often than not, they were mentioned in a tone that suggested that these were slightly disreputable activities. If you were lucky, you might be blessed with one lecturer who was open to new ideas and en, suddenly, when I was a postgraduate in the late 1960s, all these keen young lecturers appeared telling us that our very notion of a literary text. Whole edifices of carefully constructed bodies of knowledge started to shake at the foundations.
Literature - literature and poetry resources, literary
Finally i would like to record here thesis the seminal influence on my own thinking about literature of my doktorvater,. Hans Popper, one of that rare breed, which i allude to in my introduction, who made me think seriously about the nature of literature long before it became fashionable to speak of literary theory. The literary canon and New Criticism. Hermeneutics and Reception Theory. Sexual Orientation Theories. Theory and After. Reference materials, introduction, attitudes to the study of literature have undergone nothing short of a revolution in the last half-century.
Motives combine in different ways to help create different cultures and different individual identities, which influence experience in individual minds. The mental experiences produced in authors and readers by fictional narratives have adaptive psychological functions. By encompassing the minds of authors, characters, and readers within a comprehensive model of human motives, this article situates the psychology of fiction within the larger research program of the evolutionary social sciences. Keywords: perspective taking, motives, psychology of reading, biocultural theory, evolutionary literary theory. Family, acknowledgements, the debt to other scholars is enormous, but there is simply no scope within the confines of this modest volume to acknowledge them all. The authors of the works included in the section of Reference material are owed the greatest debt: I frequently compared my opinions with theirs and checked for general agreement on factual punjabi details. On the personal level I have greatly appreciated discussions with Kim Chan young, well read in the field, and Kim duk yung, a sociologist. I have also consulted students for their opinions on the usefulness and accessibility of available books on literary theory.
framework for an evolutionary understanding of minds and meaning in fictional narratives. The article aims to demonstrate that meaning in fiction can be incorporated in an explanatory network that includes the whole scope of human behavior. In both reality and fiction, meaning consists of experiences in individual minds: sensations, emotions, perceptions, and thoughts. Writing and reading fiction involve three sets of minds, those of authors, readers, and characters. Meaning in the minds of authors and readers emerges in relation to the experiences of fictional characters. Characters engage in motivated actions. To understand minds and meaning in fiction, researchers need analytic categories for human motives. A comprehensive model of human motives can be constructed by integrating ideas from evolutionary biology, anthropology, and psychology.
Chrestomathy of, paper literary Theory, umberto, eco, aspects of Aesthetic Perception In the meddle Aqes (Georgian translation by maka elbakidze). Download, theory of poetry, lela, khachidze, theodore. Studites in Old georgian Writing (Georgian Text, English Summary download, tamar Barbakadze mirza gelovani s Returned Sonnets and Other Verses (Georgian Text, English Summary) Download Philological Researches maia nachkebia geography and National Characteristics of Literary baroque (Georgian Text, English Summary) Download Ketevan Nadareishvili The Problem. Remarque and the Story In the hometown. Nekrassow (Russian Text, English, georgian Summaries) Download Anatol Andreyev existentialistic Aspect of Literary event (E.Hemingway and ekhov) (Russian Text, English, georgian Summaries) Download. Lazaridi Ascension to Spirituality According. Kazantzakis (based on the novel The last Temptation) ( English Text, georgian Summary) Download Critical Discourse manana kvavchantiradze authors Problem. Rcheulishvilis Works (Georgian Text, English Summary) Download Paradigms of Culture Unknown Letters of akaki gatserelia (Publication was prepared. Tkeshelashvili ) Download Debut Ilia patchkoria stephen Dedalus as a ghost of Prince hamlet in joyces Ulysses (Georgian Text, English Summary) Download Elena Chkhaidze towards the development of meanings of the concept nostalgia in Modern Research (Russian Text, English, georgian Summaries) Download Memoria nona kupreishvili.
Bob Jensen's Accounting Theory summary part
Contents, the authors of This Issue (Georgian - english download, problems of Literary, theory. Ivane Amirkhanahvili, hagiographic Citation (Georgian Text, English Summary download. Irakli kenchoshvili, the Intertext of georgian Modernist poetry (Georgian Text, English Summary download. Gaga lomidze, romanticism: Text and Context (Georgian Text, English Summary download. Irma, ratiani, lLiterary School of realism and its georgian Model (Georgian Text, English Summary)L. Download, poetical Practices, konstantine pdf Bregadze, european and National Context of georgian Modernist Literature (Georgian Text, English Summary download. Maia, jaliashvili, variations of Musical Narration in georgian Modernistic novel (Georgian Text, English Summary download. Kateryna, gurdus, annti-war novels Genre matrix and Contemporary literature (Russian Text, English, georgian Summaries download.