Criticism Question

[Tom 0]

Literary criticism meaning the way in which literature is read to reveal meaning. Interpretation, basically. Various criticisms being Psychoanalytic, Feminist, Deconstruction, New Criticism, New Historicism, Marxism, Structuralism....

I assume that anyone up to responding has an understanding of literary criticism. My question: Does Ayn Rand or ARI explicitly address the subject of what “meaning” is in a work of literature and how to apprehend that meaning through reading?

I'm a bit shakey on extrapolating anything of that nature from what I do know of Objectivist esthetics.

Thanks,

Tom

[Arnold 0]

Literary criticism meaning the way in which literature is read to reveal meaning.  Interpretation, basically.  Various criticisms being Psychoanalytic, Feminist, Deconstruction, New Criticism, New Historicism, Marxism, Structuralism....

I assume that anyone up to responding has an understanding of literary criticism.  My question: Does Ayn Rand or ARI explicitly address the subject of what “meaning” is in a work of literature and how to apprehend that meaning through reading? 

I'm a bit shakey on extrapolating anything of that nature from what I do know of Objectivist esthetics.

Thanks,

Tom

←

What's with all that fancy way of reading stuff. For myself the only thing that matters is that I understand it. Ayn Rand's writing (my first reading was VOS) was like someone turned on the light. I remember thinking, "So it's not me after all; there is writing that makes sense and is presented in a rational way."

AR is a writer who presents a jigsaw puzzle integrated. Many others not only hand you a box of pieces, they don't fit either. We are then told that it is simplistic thinking to have everything fit like that, and are presented with various ways of trying to make sense of it all. I think some of those are what you mention above.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

[...] Various criticisms being Psychoanalytic, Feminist, Deconstruction, New Criticism, New Historicism, Marxism, Structuralism....

I assume that anyone up to responding has an understanding of literary criticism.  My question: Does Ayn Rand or ARI explicitly address the subject of what “meaning” is in a work of literature and how to apprehend that meaning through reading? 

I'm a bit shakey on extrapolating anything of that nature from what I do know of Objectivist esthetics.

←

I may not meet your qualifications for responding, so I will only ask questions:

1. Is your post self-referential? That is, can your readers use it as an example of "literature," or does that term name an idea that refers to something else?

2. Why do you assume that "anyone up to responding has an understanding of literary criticism"? If the idea of "literary criticism" is used by Freudians and feminists, do you believe it is above suspicion -- as not being a valid idea?

3. To help set a context for your readers, could you outline your knowledge of Objectivist esthetics, in particular, and Objectivism in general? (Your Viewing Profile provides no information.) In other words, what works on Objectivist esthetics have you studied?

[Bill Bucko 0]

Literary criticism meaning the way in which literature is read to reveal meaning.  Interpretation, basically.  Various criticisms being Psychoanalytic, Feminist, Deconstruction, New Criticism, New Historicism, Marxism, Structuralism....

I assume that anyone up to responding has an understanding of literary criticism. 

←

In spite of all the mini-Kantian fads you mention, I (for one) read literature as I always have: with my reasoning mind.

Any person's time is limited. Why should anyone (except a professor of literary criticism) bother to learn the fine distinctions between the latest Kantian attacks on reason?

How did anyone in the past manage to read "The Scarlet Letter," "The Brothers Karamazov," or "Quo Vadis"--without the "benefit" of all those "-ism's"?

Answer: I think they managed just fine.

If this answer is "anti-intellectual"--make the most of it.

[piz 0]

If I'm misinterpreting, Tom, please correct me, but I think what he's asking is what, if any, is the Objectivist approach to or method of literary criticism? The other examples are there to show what field he's talking about (whatever their validity or lack thereof) vs., say, methods or styles of writing popular reviews in the press, or my personal, unmethodical ways of interpreting or critiquing what I read. Of course, if everyone else already sees that, then I'm just restating the obvious.

Having made that interpretation, I'll state that I'm in no way able to offer a meaningful answer. The methods listed are, to the best of my knowledge, uniformly irrational, so an objective approach to literary criticism will be interesting to learn.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Having made that interpretation, I'll state that I'm in no way able to offer a meaningful answer. The methods listed are, to the best of my knowledge, uniformly irrational, so an objective approach to literary criticism will be interesting to learn.

←

I think the best to be found is Ayn Rand's The Art of Fiction available through the Ayn Rand Bookstore.

[writeby 0]

Stephen wrote: I think the best to be found is Ayn Rand's The Art of Fiction available through the Ayn Rand Bookstore.

Another good place to start is AR's The Romantic Manifesto.

Since lit crit is one of my fields of study, I'd like to offer a kind of condensed approach that I've informally named: Inductivism. (Lecan, eat your heart out. )

(I'm sure everyone on this Forum proceeds this way, but it's probably more implicit than explicit in ya'll's minds. That's just a surmise. Don't quote me)

For serious works of literature, fully grasping the work means fully enjoying it. To do so, one must get at the theme -- what is the idea the author is dramatizing in the story?

To do that, you've got to find the plot theme, i.e., the main conflict.

And to do that, you need to examine what the main characters say and do -- mostly, as in real life, what they do. The actions (and dialogue) of a character reveal their values, i.e., their goals -- what they are seeking to gain and or keep as Miss Rand put it, I believe, in VOS.

Once you have a clear idea of each of the main character's values, you can (fairly) easily ascertain certain conflicts among them -- among both the characters and the values of each character.

From that it's not to difficult to identify the main conflict, which is always a conflict of values (again, thanks to Miss Rand in TAF)

From there it's a hop, skip and a jump to identifying, at least in a general way, the theme of the work.

For example, let's take a book I loved as a child and still do - Pinocchio.

Pinocchio's desire (what he seeks) is to do what he feels like doing without considering the consequences -- as does any very young child. Observe, too, that, as with a young child, Pinocchio is all thumbs and big toes. He burns off his feet; as a puppet, he's awkward, uncoordinated; etc. And he of course gets into all kinds of trouble with strangers.

Only when Pinocchio begins to think about the consequences of his actions does his life begin to settle down and move forward. In the end, he ceases being a puppet -- with events and others pulling his strings -- and viola becomes a normal healthy little boy.

Theme? Something like your actions have consequences. If you really want to have control over your life, make your choices with that in mind.

AR offers other examples in RM one of which is Gone with the Wind.

I hope this helped.

[Tom 0]

Burgess Laughlin,

1. I’d say it is safe to say no: My post is not self-referential. You must define the what the literary theory at work is first.

2. I think that any person who can answer confidently on the subject would also have previous knowledge of literary criticism. It is like walking into a somewhat technical discussion of the Theory of Elementary Waves—answers to such technical questions would require a physicist. In this case, I’m hoping for a philologist. This is a legitimate field of inquiry, to my knowledgel the rather mystical examples I presented aside heh.

3. I’ve read all of Ayn Rand’s fiction, I’ve read both The Art of Fiction and The Art of Nonfiction. I’ve read the majority of Ayn Rand’s nonfiction (keystone works such as The Romantic Manifesto, The Virtue of Selfishness, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, among others.) As well as Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff.

Bill Bucko and Arnold,

I would not say that your posts are “anti-intellectual,” as Bill Bucko said, but rather a brand of American Pragmatism at work ("I’ll read in any way that 'works'".) (Bashing Kant while perhaps being neo-Kantian in your own way is a bit ironic.) I think, however, that your intention is merely that literary criticism does not matter and ought to be abandoned as intellectual pursuits. I disagree.

The best way I can show this is to ask you to answer this question, in any way you want (in your own words, by paraphrasing Ayn Rand's words, whatever): What is the meaning of Atlas Shrugged?

Stephen Speicher, The Art of Fiction deals exclusively with esthetic concerns, not critical ones. piz, I'm not sure what you are getting across there, so I won't comment.

[Tom 0]

(Lecan, eat your heart out. biggrin.gif)

Do you mean Lacan?

[writeby 0]

Do you mean Lacan?

Yup. Darn "e" key just jumped in front of the "a" key.

In lit crit terminology, start with Formalism in terms of focusing on the text, but place the form following (growing from) the content, i.e., the theme, the plot, etc. -- all of which in turn grow out of the author's philosophy.

As with film, it's not how it's about it; it's the what it's about -- from which the "how" grows.

Of course, the basic structure of the novel follows from an objective perspective, specifically the reasoned view of the Enlightenment, e.g., causes lead to effects; man is volitional; actions dramatize the pursuit of goals, etc. Which is why, IMO, the formal novel didn't come into being until Scott.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Stephen Speicher, The Art of Fiction deals exclusively with esthetic concerns, not critical ones.

←

Then I have no idea what you are after. You first said "Literary criticism meaning the way in which literature is read to reveal meaning." How else do you discern meaning if not by grasping the entire structure of a work, from its plot, theme, characterizations, etc.? That is the essence of the esthetics of literature, which Ayn Rand identifies and applies to a broad variety of circumstances in the book.

[writeby 0]

Tom -

It just occurred to me that there are (probably) two questions you're asking, one explicit and one implied.

Let me begin by pointing out that lit crit, as you know, can have two functions: 1) determining the meaning of a literary work; and 2) determining a standard for whether or not a literary work is good or bad.

I usually find myself pursuing the first because I've already done #2 and do my darnedest to avoid the bad works.

I've already commented on 1. As for two, that requires judging the work by aesthetic standards.

- First, is it representational (To Kill a Mockingbird) or just abstract dribble (Ulysses); and is it (unobstrusively) selective;

- Second, do events flow logically (Hugo, I think, said that a good writer ensures that the turn of events in his novel are both surprising and logical);

-Third, are the characters while selectively drawn, realistic;

-Fourth, is it integrated, with selective description creating charactization; characterization advancing the plot; plot developing the theme; etc.

And so on.

One can find novels that are good, indeed, very well written, but in which the characters are common place, the plot is a ghastly dramatization of suffering and the theme is pure evil - all written in a style that is both moralistic and dishonest.

Take Tolstoy, for instance. (Please. )

One can, of course, find the reverse -- a poorly written novel that seeks to portray the heroic and the noble.

Part of the problem with lit crit, IMO, is that it developed at a time when Trancendentalism was highly influencial, with critics like Thomas Carlyle, Mathew Arnold, etc. (Not that I'm suggesting Arnold was, like Carlyle, an out-and-out Trans.) James, of course, harkens back to Classicism - mechanistic, arbitrary rules. At least, that's how I take him; and why I judge his works as studies in sheer boredom.

Coleridge & later, Emerson, were perhaps the most influential in exporting Trancendentalism (though Coleridge called it, IIRC, Idealism) to, respectively, America and England. Of course, Idealism/Transcendentalism were just versions of German Idealism, i.e., of Kantianism.

Thus, Kant's philosophy laid the context for lit crit - and literary criticism hasn't recovered since. The 20th century just saw its culmination with continental rationalism - structuralism, post-structuralism, deconstructionism, New Crit, etc.

From there pragmatism took over and lit crit just balkinized into a kind of collectivist subjectivism, i.e., social constructivism, e.g., Marxism, feminism, queer theory, and so on.

Last I left it, the field as it is in academe was asserting that a novel could take any form; that it takes the form it does today -- theme, plot, etc., man as volitional (seemingly, they say), characters portrayed certain ways to dramatize sexuality, femininity, prowess and all the rest -- is because of the way Western linear thinking has constructed society (read: reality). Hence my Lacanian crack.

The same, too, is being done in film theory, e.g., match on action shots represent the linear thinking that "believes" cause must precede effect. A profile shot of, say, Rita Hayworth to dramatize her sexuality is just a representation, not of Miss Hayworth's sexuality, but of Western patriarchial perceptions of femininity.

And so on.

Sorry. I didn't think through your query. Like I've said elsewhere on this Forum: I'm slow on the uptake.

[writeby 0]

I wrote: Coleridge & later, Emerson, were perhaps the most influential in exporting Trancendentalism (though Coleridge called it, IIRC, Idealism) to, respectively, America and England.

Obviously, I meant the reverse - to, respectively, England and America.

>Yawn<

I'm outta here. This is too much fun. ;o) I'm getting nothing done. Stephen, you need to put up a disclaimer: Warning, this may become addictive.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Literary criticism meaning the way in which literature is read to reveal meaning.  Interpretation, basically.  Various criticisms being Psychoanalytic, Feminist, Deconstruction, New Criticism, New Historicism, Marxism, Structuralism....

I assume that anyone up to responding has an understanding of literary criticism.  My question: Does Ayn Rand or ARI explicitly address the subject of what “meaning” is in a work of literature and how to apprehend that meaning through reading? 

←

Objectivists take a characteristically objective approach to literary criticism, focusing on the work itself and comparing it to standards of what a good novel should be in terms of theme, plot, characterization, style, clarity, etc.

Ayn Rand laid out those standards, and the reasons for them, in books others have already mentioned. If you would like to see them in action, take a look at the way Andrew Bernstein analyzes Ayn Rand's novels in the CliffsNotes he wrote or give a listen to Shoshana Milgram's lectures on Victor Hugo's novels (available from AynRandBookstore.com).

[Arnold 0]

Burgess Laughlin,

3.  I’ve read all of Ayn Rand’s fiction, I’ve read both The Art of Fiction and The Art of Nonfiction.  I’ve read the majority of Ayn Rand’s nonfiction (keystone works such as The Romantic Manifesto, The Virtue of Selfishness, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, among others.)  As well as Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. 

Bill Bucko and Arnold,

I would not say that your posts are “anti-intellectual,” as Bill Bucko said, but rather a brand of American Pragmatism at work ("I’ll read in any way that 'works'".)  (Bashing Kant while perhaps being neo-Kantian in your own way is a bit ironic.)  I think, however, that your intention is merely that literary criticism does not matter and ought to be abandoned as intellectual pursuits.  I disagree.

The best way I can show this is to ask you to answer this question, in any way you want (in your own words, by paraphrasing Ayn Rand's words, whatever):  What is the meaning of Atlas Shrugged?

←

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "meaning." I have always believed in keeping concepts as simple as possible. It makes it much less likely to go astray. You ask what the meaning is of A.S. Ayn Rand wanted to write a story which reflected the rational side of man as what makes him heroic. To do this she needed to create him via the philosophical ideals she held. She did this by showing what a world without rational men would be like. That is what she meant, if that is what you meant by meaning

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

1.  I’d say it is safe to say no: My post is not self-referential.

The reason I asked, and I assumed you wouldn't reply unless you understood it, is that "literature" -- as used by some academics I have heard -- includes not only works of fiction, such as novels, but also works of history and philosophy. I once asked such an academic what he meant by "literature." He said, in effect, "Anything written by dilettantes for dilettantes." It was clear from our conversation that he was reducing history and philosophy to mere posturing that must have a hidden meaning.

You must define the what the literary theory at work is first.

I can't make any grammatical sense out of this statement, so I will pass it by.

Stephen Speicher, The Art of Fiction deals exclusively with esthetic concerns, not critical ones.

←

I listened to the original oral presentation, twice. I do not own the book, which, I understand, is an edited version of the original discussions. The main focus of the presentations was establishing the esthetics of romantic-realism fiction -- for aspiring fiction writers and for fiction readers. To say there was no concern for criticism of fiction writing is false. Her analysis of several passages from various writers contradicts your claim.

If what you are attempting to say is that Ayn Rand did not establish a full science of literary criticism, you are right. But, then, neither did she establish a full science of law, history, or biology. So what?

What she did provide are the basic principles -- not only in esthetics, but in epistemology -- for "criticizing" (understanding) anything in reality. With those principles, you and others can build a science of "literary criticism" -- if you have the cognitive skills to do so.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Literary criticism meaning the way in which literature is read to reveal meaning.  Interpretation, basically.  Various criticisms being Psychoanalytic, Feminist, Deconstruction, New Criticism, New Historicism, Marxism, Structuralism....

I assume that anyone up to responding has an understanding of literary criticism.  My question: Does Ayn Rand or ARI explicitly address the subject of what “meaning” is in a work of literature and how to apprehend that meaning through reading? 

←

Could you define what you mean by "meaning?"

As used by modern academics, it seems to be "a socio-political message one can claim is contained in a written work by focusing on non-essentials and ignoring anything in the written work that conflicts with that message."

Normal people (including the Objectivist intellectuals I know) use "meaning" to stand for what the written work actually says. They do that by reference to the entire work, pointing out what is essential in it and why, and analyzing and evaluating it using the same epistemological processes they bring to bear in trying to understand and evaluate any aspect of reality.

[Tom 0]

“Meaning" is basically synonymous with "the message of the work.”

Betsy Speicher,

In a novel, the meaning would be the theme (that can vary, though.) Some criticisms treat the work as a microcosm where the meaning exists within for all to see. English professors teach in such a style of criticism—focusing on the text in itself, without reference to “the outside.”

For an example of the questions posed by literary criticism, look at Arnold’s response. I left “meaning” undefined purposefully, luckily he answered anyway. Now, if you were to ask a few other people (some Objectivists, some non-Objectivists who barely know who the author is) the same question you’ll get even different answers. Even people educated in Objectivist epistemology will produce different answers when pressed—the reason is because you need a specifically defined critical method.

Burgess Laughlin,

When you get into things like Semiotic readings, there is no limit to what can be called “literature,” because then everything is. I said it was safe to say my post was not self-referential because it depends on the literary theory at work—criticism and commentary of criticism itself is not a Semiotic reading. A New Critical reading only includes works that have been accepted into the literary canon.

Also, you seemed to have perceived me as a sort of enemy--I am not saying there are weaknesses or shortcomings in Objectivist esthetics by not covering criticism.

You’ve clearly answered my question for this thread: Literary criticism is not a field Ayn Rand or the Ayn Rand Institute has covered.

writeby,

What you’ve presented as criticism I would not to call a true criticism—I say this with no disrespect to you. If you still want to discuss what you’ve presented, send me a private message. The purpose of this thread was merely to ask if literary criticism has been covered by Ayn Rand or the Ayn Rand Institute—from the responses and from my own research, the answer is no.

The only comment I have is that literary criticism as a field is different from its Kantian manifestations. Therefore I wouldn’t dismiss literary criticism outright.

[writeby 0]

Betsy wrote: "Could you define what you mean by 'meaning?' "

You're being old fashioned, Betsy. In postmodern lit crit, meaning has no meaning.

With my apologies:

University of Texas, Arlington

English 5340: Literary Criticism

http://www.uta.edu/english/rcct/5340luannecrit.html

"But the matter of textual interpretation being a function of a present articulated upon a past via intervening structures of understanding is worth still further scrutiny. For importantly, where and what the interpreter is historically, and thus part of the meaning of the text under examination, is not simply a question of textual interventions between the interpreter and target text, of veils of form and meaning hanging, as it were, between a subject and an object, between an interpreter and an interpretee. For, as is especially obvious if the text is a traditional one, what the interpreter him/herself is, historically, will also have been determined in some part, will have been constituted . . . by the text in question - by the very text, that is, that stands under examination - so that the interpreter is, him/herself, already in some part intellectually made of the interpretee. The text in question, in short, will have been already stitched into the fabric, or ground into the lenses, of the intellect examining it. It will - before the interpreter ever arrives at it (or can arrive at it) as object - have already become a part of the body of ideas - and of the language - of the interpreter, thus determining the nature and the particular conceptual capacities, of his/her thought. That is, before the interpreter ever arrives at the object as object, it will already have become part of him/her as subject."

~~~~~~~

The meaning of the text influences the reader's interpretation even before he has read it, because the text is part of the socially constructed fabric (reality) into which the reader is "sewn."

A pure and unadulterated rejection of objectivity; of truth; of reality; of the Universe.

If you've never sat thru a semester of this kind of pretentious and studied inarticulateness, you just don't know what is real suffering.

Now I'm going to go wash this off with a scotch & soda.

[piz 0]

The purpose of this thread was merely to ask if literary criticism has been covered by Ayn Rand or the Ayn Rand Institute

←

That's what I was trying to say in the post you didn't understand. I see now why you didn't understand it - it wasn't all that understandable.

[Tom 0]

piz, your post was not understandable because of your post-Marxist, textual interpretation of, and composition within the centrism, you've come to accept as a subcultural maxim in your post-secondary American education, elevated to its current state since 1953.

(writ in jest)

[piz 0]

University of Texas, Arlington

English 5340: Literary Criticism

http://www.uta.edu/english/rcct/5340luannecrit.html

"But the matter of textual interpretation being a function...already have become part of him/her as subject."

←

Holy crap! Education has been in bad shape for a long time, but mine (the non-self-taught part, up through a B.S. in '83 and some grad school a few years later) was a model of rationality by comparison.

[piz 0]

piz, your post was not understandable because of your post-Marxist, textual interpretation of, and composition within the centrism, you've come to accept as a subcultural maxim in your post-secondary American education, elevated to its current state since 1953. 

(writ in jest)

←

You betcha! Harpo, textified centri-what, subcortical - all that jazz!

(Geez I'm in a silly mood tonight!)

[writeby 0]

Tom wrote: "The only comment I have is that literary criticism as a field is different from its Kantian manifestations. Therefore I wouldn’t dismiss literary criticism outright."

I wasn't dismissing it. Merely noting its historical development.

You stated at the outset:

"Literary criticism meaning the way in which literature is read to reveal meaning. Interpretation, basically."

I've previously stated that the way to read a novel is to first focus on the characters, their actions and words. That is the start of finding the meaning of a lit work, e.g., a short story or a novel. You've chosen to say that that isn't literary criticism. Perhaps you might elaborate, since if you know that that isn't, you have an idea of what you think is.

My interpretation of lit crit is that one seeks to grasp the meaning of the work by focusing on the work. Nothing outside of it. The philosophy of the writer is there dramatized along with the theme. One needn't know Michelangelo's philosphy explicitly to grasp the meaning of the David. All one need do is look at the sculpture.

Tom also wrote: "Now, if you were to ask a few other people (some Objectivists, some non-Objectivists who barely know who the author is) the same question you’ll get even different answers."

Not different in any essential way, if they have grasped the meaning of AS: The mind is the root of all value and here is a dramatization of a world that does not recognize that & a philosophy that does.

Which in essentials is the same as what Arnold wrote:

"Ayn Rand wanted to write a story which reflected the rational side of man as what makes him heroic. To do this she needed to create him via the philosophical ideals she held. She did this by showing what a world without rational men would be like."

If interpretation of a text, e.g., a novel, is your goal, then your means to that goal is the text, the whole text and nothing but the text, beginning with the actions of the characters.

"Kira Argounova entered Petrograd on the threshold of a box car. She stood straight and motionless..."

"It is a sin to write this."

"Howard Roark laughed."

"Don't bother me. Don't bother me. Don't bother me."

[Bill Bucko 0]

I've changed my mind. I think I'll take up Marxist literary criticism.

The only problem is: which Marx? I'm trying to choose between Groucho, Chico, and Harpo.