[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 29 KB, 657x637, How-to-Write-a-Literary-Criticism-2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18052194 No.18052194 [Reply] [Original]

Which theories do you use to analyze a text?

>> No.18052204

>Forgot to include psychoanalysis

>> No.18052214
File: 48 KB, 381x350, Northrop Frye.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18052214

frygian structuralism

>> No.18052230

>>18052204
>speculative fanfiction is theory

>> No.18052234

>>18052194
I don't analyze using any specific theories, just let the text sit in my head and get spit back out.

>> No.18052243

>>18052230
kek
but un ironically it makes me depressed that people take this shit seriously

>> No.18052622

>>18052194
Liberal humanist theory a.k.a. FUCK THEORY.

These are just ways to write propaganda material. A marxist reading of any text contributes to marxist literature than to literary studies. Same goes for any other (((theory)))

And in the strict sense of the word, they are NOT theories.

>> No.18052659

>>18052194
Historical context+close reading is all you need.

>> No.18052774
File: 684 KB, 1600x2534, 1599070799721.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18052774

>>18052214
isn't frye all about hermenutics?

>> No.18052789

I don't 'analyze' because that's gay but I instinctively view everything in a Marxist lens because my brain cannot unsee

>> No.18052882

>>18052194
New criticism and structuralism are the only ones worth a damn. I only ever analyze and write my own fiction with those methodologies in mind.

>> No.18052890

Narcotics induced dream interpretation

>> No.18052898

Where's queer psychobabble?

>> No.18052923

>>18052882

I agree with you, but Reader Response is also strong (probably the strongest of the three, although that's debatable). Reading Jauss and Iser, one gets the sense that they're correcting the excesses of these previous movements. And of course Gadamer is head-and-shoulders above anyone else in hermeneutics.