Before reading the poem “My Last Duchess”, I ranked the categories a little bit differently than I did the second time around but not much. Initially my top three were: 1) An understanding of traditional literary elements, 2) a clear understanding of vocabulary and etymology of words, and 3) my personal beliefs/values/experience. Obviously you need to understand literary elements and vocabulary to interpret the text but, after I read the poem, I decided my rankings needed to be rearranged.
To effectively interpret any text, the reader must understand the writing literally before s/he can understand it figuratively. There were some words and phrases in “My Last Duchess” that meant something completely different in that time than they do now, making understanding etymology crucial. You simply can’t recognize the literary elements without first understanding what the words mean. It’s plain and simple. None of the other categories served any purpose in my interpretation of this poem in particular. I believe with each piece of literature the importance of these categories change. For example, if the text was a religious work, a person’s beliefs, values and experiences would definitely have a huge impact on how they interpret it. With this said, I believe no reader can fully engage in any piece of literature without first, understanding the vocabulary and etymology of words used and second, having an understanding of traditional literary elements.
I see myself as a reader-response critic. Intrinsic criticism is more valuable to the interpretation of the text but if you include external factors, such as the author’s life experiences and beliefs, other interesting and important meanings can be discovered. I don’t think the readers should be limited to only one interpretation of the text. Reader-response criticism is probably the most enriching form of literary criticism in my opinion.
Marxism criticism appeals to me most out of these theoretical schools. It has always been very interesting to me how much power and control the upper-class has on culture and the educational system, especially what is emphasized as important and what the middle- and working-classes are and aren’t allowed to read. I believe it is a way for the "1%" to mentally enslave and ultimately brainwash the general population.
I feel the same way you do about interpreting the text. And I think that studying Marxist criticism should turn out to be pretty rewarding. It is pretty interesting to look back in history and see the effect that the upper class has in shaping the world.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your interpretation of Marxism. You said that Marxism is a tool that the "!%" uses to mentally enslave and brainwash the general population; however, Marxism is Karl Marx's brand of socialism, and in this system, the wealth would be theoretically taken away from the 1% and redistributed equally among the 99%. Therefore, theoretically, this is not a means to enslave people, but it is a way to level the playing fields to create a classless utopia.
ReplyDeletei read the post containing the original assignment - from what i understand, marxist criticism is merely the type of criticism concerned with social class, and perhaps involves the thoughts marx had about the capitalist structure of living, especially around the industrial revolution, i.e. "how the upper class creates and influences most ideas and practices that circulate through culture," so i think she's pretty on target about that.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI appreciate your input Brandon but I wasn't saying that Marxism was a means for the 1% to brainwash/control the lower-class citizens. I simply said I was interested in Marxism criticism because it's obvious how much persuasive power the big wigs have over media, culture and education. The most recent comment sums it up pretty accurately. Thanks!
DeleteNot sure what else this thread contained, but I began following it with interest. Lauren, I recognize where you were originally going in terms of class domination. Looks like "in the end they died" understood exactly what you're conveying. Brandon, you're also correct -- socialism as a political and economic system IS about redistributing wealth.
ReplyDelete