LITERARY CRITICISM & THEORY: MEG – 05
1. According to Aristotle, characters in tragedy were of secondary nature to the
plot--they support the plot but they do not, , determine how the plot progresses.
He explains that Plot is the first principle, the primary thing, the fundamental
thing. It is "the soul of tragedy", while character is only of a secondary
importance. He goes to the extent of saying that,
"A tragedy is impossible without plot, but there may be one without character."
Plot, according to Aristotle, is not a mere arrangement of events; it is the way in
which the action proceeds at each point. Plot is something fuller and subtler
than the story or myth on which it is based. It is the way in which the action
works itself out, the whole casual chain which leads to the final outcome.
Character is a causal element in the plot. Hence, it is of secondary importance
according to Aristotle. “Tragedy does not only reveal character; it offers to our
view a complex web made by actions and interactions of different characters.
Hamlet is not a series of soliloquies revealing character. It is a development of
action along a certain line ending in a catastrophe.”
Aristotle gives two more arguments to prove that plot in a tragedy is more
important than character. He says that there can be no tragedy without action,
but there can be one without character. Obviously, he is referring to the
‘modern’ tragedies with a mechanical plot in which characterization is poor.
The tragedies of most modern dramatists are devoid of character – a defect
common among poets of all kinds, and with its counterpart in painting in Zeuxis
compared with Polyanthus; for whereas Polyanthus excels in the representation
character, Zeuxis has no such gift. His other argument is that the most
powerfully attractive elements in tragedy, viz. Peripeties and Discoveries are
parts of the plot. “Plot, therefore, is the first essential”, says Aristotle, “the very
soul, as it were, of tragedy.” There is undoubtedly logic in what he says, though
later ages have attached increasing value to the delineation of character. With
Aristotle, however, most play-goers of today would probably agree a stirring of
commonplace characters will be found to succeed where a lifeless plot with
well-sketched characters fails.
In real life, quite apart from drama, character is subordinate to action because it
is a product of action, influenced by action, and reveals itself through action.
Aristotle makes character subordinate to action in tragedy as well. When
Aristotle says that plot is "the soul of tragedy", and character only secondary, he
uses the word character in the second sense, i.e., for the moral bent of a
dramatic personage. Plot is the systematic ordering organisation of action, and it
is only through such action that character, (the moral tendency of a particular
dramatic personage) is revealed.
“Character" in the ethical sense is realised or actualised only in action.”
Thus plot brings out character, hence it has primary importance. In life, and so
in drama, it is action or plot, which reveals character or the moral nature of a
dramatic personage. So, Character can be realised only through plot.
Aristotle, as I have explained above gives importance to plot over
characterization. Character is subsidiary to the plot of the action. It is the plot
which is central point of an action. Without a good plot the characterization can
be flop. People of today appreciate and enjoy good plot rather than good and
well expressed characters. In some way or other it is the quality of the plot
which enables the characters to become something extraordinary.
Characterization is secondary, since it only adds to the revelation of what is best
revealed in action. Hence to Aristotle ‘the plot is the first principle, the soul of
tragedy.’
2.
Yes Wordsworth’s Preface to the Lyrical Ballads can definitely be
considered to be the pronouncement on Romantic Literature .
Lyrical Ballads, with a Few Other Poems is a collection of poems by
William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, are considered to have
marked the beginning of the English Romantic movement in literature. The
immediate effect on critics was modest, but it became and remains a
landmark, changing the course of English literature and poetry.
Wordsworth had put forward a preface to this book. In this preface, he tells
us about the form and contents of this new type of poetry.
Wordsworth, in the beginning, states the need of bringing about a revolution
in the sphere of poetry as the Augustan poetry has become cliché. He
painfully notices that the Eighteenth century poets have separated poetry
from the grasp of common people. He decides to liberate this poetry from
the shackles of so- called classical doctrines. He, in collaboration with
Coleridge, begins to write poem for the people of all classes. Wordsworth
thinks that the language of the Augustan poetry is highly artificial and
complicated. That is why he suggests a new language for Romantic poetry.
This is why he suggests a new language for Romantic poetry. This is why he
suggests a new language for Romantic poetry. These attempt chiefly deals
with Wordsworth’s views of poetry.
Wordsworth thinks that poetry is the natural overflow of powerful feelings.
To him, the intensity of feelings is more important than the form.
To make poetry life like, he wants to use the language of common people as
the common people express their feeling genuinely.
Wordsworth also differs with the neo-classical writers in his belief about the
process of poetry. The neo-classical writers think that the poet’s mind is a
sensitive but passive recorder of a natural phenomenon. But Wordsworth
strongly opposes this view and thinks that the mind of the poet is never a
passive recorder. In his view, the poet’s mind half creates the external world
which he perceives. The external world is thus, in some degree, the very
creation of human mind. Wordsworth seems to establish the fact that the
poet’s mind and the external nature are both interlinked and interdependent.
Wordsworth unlike the classicists can not separate the mind which suffers
from the mind which composes.
Wordsworth points out the common characteristics of both poetry and
science. But he places poetry over science for the fact that the large part of
poetry is based on imagination. He beautifully discovers that science only
appeal to intellect while poetry appeals to heart. For this, the pleasures of
science are shared by few while the pleasures of poetry are open to all.
Again the truth of science is subject to change while poetry does not suffer
from such threat.
Wordsworth breaks with the classical theory of poetry when he advocates
for the intensity of emotion. To him, reason is not at all important. This is a
subjective view.
Wordsworth’s views were very innovative and creative.
His rejection of classical doctrines leads to the creation of a new type of
poetry which prefers him emotions to reason. As a result a group of talented
poet’s has emerged in the province of English poetry. At the same time, he
has contributed to the field of literary criticism. If Blake is considered to be
the precursor of romantic poetry, Wordsworth and Coleridge are the two
early exponents of romantic poetry. And it was the Preface to the Lyrical
Ballads which formed a ground for this new poetry.
3. The Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes is a landmark for 20-th century
literature, literary theory, post-structuralism, and postmodernism. The essay
opposes the established trends “in ordinary culture […] tyrannically centered on
the author, his person, his life,” and abolish the classical literary criticism that
analyses a literary work within the biographical and personal context of the
author of the work.
Good writing is, in Barthes’ opinion, the “destruction of every voice, of every
point of origin” (Pg. 142). He uses the example of a storyteller or narrator who,
unlike the author, does not assume the “responsibility of the narrator,” and
instead is admired for his ability to relay stories, but is not admired for his
personal “genius.” While it may be true that good writing must often be
separated from intense human emotion if it is to be timeless and somewhat
universally effective, in contrast to Barthes’ argument, I believe that much of
the world’s greatest art does come from personal struggle and emotion that only
the author can publish.
Even though Barthes thinks that knowing the Authors background would be
harmful to the readers interpretation of the text I wonder if the public would
really wish to know nothing about the writer whose book they are reading. Is it
possible that reading the book without the name or basic information of the
author could be like watching a movie without knowing what the rating or the
plot summary of the movie is? To what extent is it right to broaden the readers
horizons? Some people choose to live highly sheltered lives, only reading
certain things or watching specific t.v. shows. Anything that doesn’t fall under
their approved categories is to be completely ignored. Not knowing the author
means not knowing if there may be any hidden surprises in the book. So aside
from the Author’s objections to not getting credit for their work, would the
readers object? In this way the Author isn’t dead, for their reputation still
affects the readers choice and open mindedness to the book.
It seems that when Barthes says “the birth of the reader must come at the cost
of the death of the Author,” he is thinking idealistically, not realistically. It
would help the interpretations and understanding of the reader for there to be no
connection between the Author and the text, in that Barthes is correct. If the
only focus was the individual interpretations of the reader then the complete
separation of the Author with the text would be a beneficial thing. However, I
don’t believe that the Author will ever be completely dead. Barthes said that the
Author should get neither praise for a good book not blamed for a bad one and
yet this is exactly why the Author will never be fully dead. Readers want heroes
and villains, people to look up to and people to hate. A good writer earns praise
from the readers and social status, but a controversial writer can draw just as
much negative attention as an inspiring writer can draw positive attention. In
this way people seek to categorize their lives, and to categorize books the
readers need labels. Their favorite labels are the Authors who wrote the books. I
think that the readers are partially responsible for the continued presence of the
Author, as well as the Author’s own interests in being involved. So I think the
author can not be fully dead.
4. Structuralism, in a broader sense, is a way of perceiving the world in terms of
structures. First seen in the work of the anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss and
the literary critic Roland Barthes, the essence of Structuralism is the belief that
“things cannot be understood in isolation, they have to be seen in the context of
larger structures they are part of”, The contexts of larger structures do not exist
by themselves, but are formed by our way of perceiving the world. In
structuralist criticism, consequently, there is a constant movement away from
the interpretation of the individual literary work towards understanding the
larger structures which contain them. For example, the structuralist analysis
of Donne‘s poem Good Morrow demands more focus on the relevant genre
(alba or dawn song), the concept of courtly love, etc., rather than on the close
reading of the formal elements of the text.
The fundamental belief of Structuralism, that all human activities are
constructed and not natural or essential, pervades all seminal works of
Structuralism.
The complexity and heterogeneity of structuralism, which is reflected even in
the architecture of this period (eg., structuralist artefacts like Berlin Holocaust
Memorial, Bank of China Tower, etc) paved the way to poststructuralism which
attacked the essentialist premises of structuralism. Poststructuralismargues that
in the very examination of underlying structures, a series of biases are involved.
Also, structuralism has often been criticized for being ahistorical and for
favoring deterministic structural being forces over.the ability of individual
people to act. As the political turbulence of the 1960s and 1970s (especially the
student uprising of May 1968) began affecting the academy, issues of power
and political struggle moved to the centre of people’s attention. In the 1980s
deconstruction and its emphasis on the fundamental ambiguity of language—
rather than its crystalline logical structure—became popular, which proved fatal
to structuralism.
The idea of Decentering in poststructuralism is a result of Derrida’s critique of
binary oppositions, especially of speech/writing, where he accused Saussure of
privileging speech over writing, owing to the presence, and authority of the
speaker. Terming it as phonocentrism, which is a manifestation of logocentricm
(centrality of the Word), Derrida argued that the whole of Western
philosophical thought is implicitly governed and dominated by the idea of
logocentrism. Alternately, Dernda called logocentrism, the “metaphysics of
presence” and he problematised the very notion of presence, which entails
authority, permanence and control, by establishing that presence itself contains
traces of absence and hence the centre is always under erasure.
The Center is a significant linchpin to philosophy for not only does it maintain
the shape of the frame it also contains (secrets) the (hidden) assumption of
presence or logos. Logos is vitally important to philosophy because it guards
the “truth” that the structure is now capable of generating. As a figure or
metaphor, the structure is given a center, or a point of presence, a fixed origin.
Naturally Derrida find issues with the notion of the “figure” that is kept hidden
within the texts. The function of the center, philosophy’s most present figure, is
to orient, to balance, and to organize the structure, making it stable. The
organizing principle of the structure is to limit the play inside the form and to
close off play so that the substitution of contents, elements, or terms is no
longer possible. But, as Derrida pointed out the center is no the center, for the
idea of the centered structure is just that an idea and a metaphysical one at that.
The function of the imaginary center is to express a desire, a longing and a
reassuring certitude that even the greatest philosophers fall victim to. The
structure becomes an object itself, literally a thing itself that guarantees a unity
of form and meaning, is conceived on the basis of a (imaginary) full presence,
which is beyond play, guaranteeing unity within the structure.
5. Yes,
postcolonialism, is historically very important for the third world.
After Britain’s loss of empire at the outset of World War II Britain lost most of
its formal colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, the Pacific,
South-East Asia and the far East including Persian Gulf etc., In the 17th
century, Britain had gained control over many parts of North America, Canada
and Caribbean Islands along with slaves from Africa and market development
in India. Nevertheless, Britain viewed its imperialistic expansion as a moral
responsibility and exerting greater control over the countries like India, Africa
and China. A famous British writer Kipling referred this responsibility, ‘the
white man’s burden’ of civilizing the people who were obviously incapable of
self-governing. Many colonised countries such as India, Pakistan, Ireland,
Kenya, Nigeria and so on started writing a type of literature reflecting and
representing their own experiences while and after colonization.After
decolonization Postcolonial theorists like, Homi K. Bhabha, John McLeod,
Ania Loomba and Elleke Boemer highlighted the necessity of contesting
through resistance the Eurocentric dominance and cultural imperialism in
favour of the people living in the margin. Postcolonial theory establishes
intellectual spaces for these marginalized people who raise their voices for
themselves and produce cultural discourses by resisting colonial authority and
cultural imperialism. Said interrogates Eurocentric discourse in Culture and
Imperialism ,by addressing the question of resistance by the natives. He argues
that as it is one of the unhappiest characteristics of the age to have produced
more refugees, migrants, displaced persons and exiles than ever before in
history and most of them as an addition to great post-colonial and imperial
conflicts. Here, Said articulated the movements and migration of the people
from their homelands as a central historical fact of colonization which
introduced dramatic changes in the formation of ‘Third World’. The question of
identity constitutes another subject of Third World nation that pinpoints the way
the colonized people identify themselves and also how the postcolonial authors
claim to represent that identity. The decolonized people develop a post-colonial
identity which has been articulated and celebrated by the postcolonial writers by
maintaining the independent nation’s connection with the Mother Country. In
establishment of postcolonial identity, the writers explain and analyze the
personal and social experiences of imperial suppression of having endured the
imposed identity of “a colonial subject”. For instance, Chinua Achebe’s Things
Fall Apart (1958) describes the Nigerian experience of being part of the British
Empire. Through the varieties of colonial languages, the anti-conquest narrative
addresses the Mother Country’s cultural hegemony and by writing to the center,
the natives create their own national histories to form and establish a national
identity of decolonization. In postcolonial literature, identity politics becomes
an important issue in that the anti-conquest storyline analyses its social and
cultural perspectives of the marginalized people. These social and cultural
perspectives of the marginalised deal with the creative resistance to the culture
of the coloniser and difficulties of establishment of the colonial society because
of cultural resistance; how the colonizers developed their postcolonial identity;
and how neo-colonialism employs the social relation to view the non-western
world as inhabited by others. The neo-colonial explaination of geographical
similarity is accepted by the decolonized people, their cultures and their
countries into a place called “The Third World”.
