Dr. Craig Can Be My New Peter Barry

I just finished reading Dr. Craig's post (it's on Critical Theory and the Academy, go read it if you have not already) on Marxism. It made me feel a lot better about myself. I feel as though I really am starting to understand the Marxist theory, whether or not I can communicate that very well on my blog. Instead of reading his guest lecture and constantly thinking to myself, "What is God's name is he talking about?" I was thinking, "Wow, that seems really familiar, oh wait, that's what Dr. M has been trying to explain for the past 3 days. And I am just really slow."

I would like to take a quote for Dr. Craig's lecture, that made my confused thoughts slyly slip into place, which is, "One might say that from a Marxist viewpoint this is the quintessence of ideology, the representation of one particular group’s, or more specifically, one class’s outlook, values, and interests, as if they are “universal” to all, what Antonio Gramsci calls society’s “common sense” view of the world." That makes sense. Don't we all live by the standards of middle class, or at least don't we believe we all do? Our beliefs are universal. I may be wrong in saying this, because I mean lets face it, I feel like I have a good grasp on Marxism but I probably don't, but isn't that why we (meaning America) don't trust any other cultures? Because we believe we are right, so they must be wrong? That is kind of a tangent, so I will go back to Dr. Craig's post.

I'm glad both Dr. M and Dr. Craig are using Shakespeare as an example, it helps to keep my thoughts organized, and it explains the importance of the author. As I have been saying in the past, which I am now quite sure of, the author's intent really does not matter. It is instead the fact that the text itself "advances some of the priorities of the ruling class." This is not the same as liberal-humanism, where the actual text (meaning the words) holds the power and dictates meaning, but rather the text-in-the-big-picture that matters and tells us of the class inequalities that exist.

Thank you Dr. Craig for your interest in helping us to understand Marxism, and for your articulate writing skills (maybe I should be thanking your Alma Mater for that.)

Marx-a-what?

It seems that Peter Barry is not the genius I thought he was, instead maybe just a man that can simplify theory to the point where it makes sense to me, but no longer holds the meaning it should. He is an over-simplifier. Its very hard to find a happy medium between Barry's book and Rice and Waugh. I feel like I am constantly getting the true meaning of Marxist Literary Theory within inches of my grasp and then it kind of just floats away in a mocking tone. I think, or at least I hope, that I finally understand the text is not important at all, it is how the text is produced or presented to us that matters. And that is what perpetuates our culture's beliefs/economy/lifestyles (whether that be a bourgeois society or not, because I'm not sure I really know what a bourgeois society is) -- its how the text is produced that "ensures reproduction." Does that make sense? It does in my head.

Hopefully Dr. Craig's blog on Marxism will shed a little more light on the how idea, so that I don't have to go one like a blundering idiot in my next post.

I've Got the Power

I want to begin this blog by saying, "Thank God, Peter Barry is a genius." He makes reading about literary theories very simple. Comparing Liberal Humanism and the Marxist theory is exactly what I want to be doing on this early fall day, (seriously).

One of the most significant differences between Liberal Humanism and Marxist Criticism is where each theory places the power. I know that doesn't make very much sense, but the way I think about theories, is to look at where the power is, whether it be in the text, the author or the audience. I can probably thank Dr. Lisa Falvey for that way of thinking. Liberal Humanism places in the power in the text. This is defined in Barry's "Ten tenets of liberal humanism" over and over, but can be specifically found in the second tenet and third tenet. On the other hand, I feel like Marxist Criticism places the power with the audience. I suppose the author also has some power. But I am placing the power with the audience because of one thing Barry says Marxist critics do in particular, which is to "relate the context of a work to the social-class of the author." He goes on the explain that "the author is unaware... of what he may be revealing in the text." This places the power in the reader, as it is the reader who decides what the author really means, and what the form of the text means.

Out of the two theories, I am definitely an Marxist critic. I wonder, what will I be next week?

Introduction

Hi Everyone. I'm Nick Adams. And I believe that while literary theories can be incredibly hard to grasp, once understood and applied, they can help a general reader become an intelligent reader. By intelligent reader, I mean someone that doesn't just read to read but rather reads to learn, to understand, and to constantly ask the question, "Why?". So, as you can see, I have high standards for this class.

This blog will hopefully be a place that I can discuss the readings for my English class with my peers, but also get grossly in depth on theories with anyone that feels the need. Because I like to talk, especially about the deeper meaning of things. Maybe I should change my major?