As an upper-level English major, you will more frequently encounter in unadulterated form the writings of literary critics, literary historians, and theorists. I assume that reading literary history will be fairly easy for you. Reading critics and theorists takes some practice. A given essay may be considered both theory and criticism, though usually criticism aims to explain something about specific literary works, while some important theories may hardly mention literary “texts.” Indeed, one of the great sources for “theory” are all the other disciplines: philosophy, religion, psychology, anthropology, history, linguistics, and even science.
Reading Criticism
•What does the critic argue?
•How does the argument touch on literary works?
•one text, examined in detail (close reading)
•multiple works by one author
•multiple works by multiple authors of the same
period
•multiple works by multiple authors of many periods
(and languages?)
•What new ideas, key concepts, or terms does the critics introduce?
•Where does the critic seem to be coming from (keywords, concepts,
famous names)?
•Does the critic explain an opposed view, to which she responds?
Or does the critic leave the opposition implicit (expecting learned readers
to know it already)?
•Can you see holes in the critic’s argument?
•counter-evidence within the work
•counter-evidence in other criticism or literary
history
•emphasis unjustified (what seems more important?)
•mistakes (do they discredit the whole argument?)
•alternative theoretical approach brings to light
the critic’s biases or blindspots
•To what use might you put the critic’s ideas or methodology?
•What pitfalls might lie before a student adopting the critic’s position?
Reading Theory
•What “kind” of theory does the work present?
•Does the essay explicitly identify itself as a
contribution to “gender studies,” “the New Historicism,” etc.?
•Does the essay propose to criticise a theoretical
approach or theorist?
•Does the essay “name names”: Foucault, Freud,
Lacan, Spivack, Said?
•Does the essay use keywords: “disciplinary,”
“unconscious,” “mirror-stage,” “the Subaltern,” “Orientalism”?
•What does the application of the theory reveal about a literary work?
•Has this been revealed before?
•What does the application of the theory obscure about the work?
•Does the theory seem to imply a political position or set of views
pertaining to extra-literary matters?
•If yes, does disagreement with the underlying
politics render the theory useless?
•If no, does the lack of connection to extra-literary
matters weaken the theory’s usefulness?
•Apply questions you would ask of a work of criticism (see above).