/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11447329]

I'm looking into the history of literary criticism, and I keep coming across an animosity between 20th century critics, particularly about Shelley. What is it about romantic and modernist critics that puts their goals so at ends with each other?

If one is beholden to a particular theory of aesthetics, they should pursue it and make their own dent in the field if they are talented enough; what I don't understand is the sheer dismissal of the worth of "competing" theories. Why do they need to compete anyway? Must physics compete with chemistry over the "truth"? Aren't they just doing different things and equally valid?

Hopefully I'm not generalising too much. I'm planning to read the primary sources of the types of arguments I've been reading summaries of, and I'd like to know where you guys fall into this thing.