Literary theory and literary criticism - Essay Example

PART ONE Literary theory and literary criticism are interpretive tools that help us think more deeply and insightfully about the literature that we read. The most common way of thinking about literary theory is that these ideas are representative of different lenses used by critics to view and talk about art, literature and to some extent culture (Makaryk, 11). These different lenses allow critics to consider works of art based on some assumptions within that school of theory. In addition, these lenses enable critics on particular aspects of work they consider vital. For instance, a critic working on Marxist theory might focus on how the characters in a story interact based on their economic situation; while a critic working on post-colonial theory might consider the same story but look at how characters from colonial powers treat those from the colonies (Makaryk, 77). Over time, different literature schools of literary criticism have developed, each with its own approaches to the act of reading (Davis, 66). New criticism assumes that the literary work is autonomous. This autonomy is a concept that can be explicated so as to discover its organic unity and the relationship between medium and message. Although critics, philosophers, authors and educators have been writing since ancient times, contemporary schools of literary theory have cohered from these discussions and now influence how scholars look at and write about literature. This section focuses on the focuses on the major schools of literary criticism (Davis, 98). 1) Formalist approach Formalist approach was developed as a response to the 19th century confusion that marked the work of literature and biography, morality or philosophy (Culler, 109). It entails an explicit look at the components of a work which helps an individual to enter a text even if the he does not agree with the method’s aesthetic, apolitical, disinterested, reserved judgment concerning the content. This is a literacy criticism method that not only applies to texts but also to movies (Culler, 19). The following is the basic structure of analyzing a literary content using formalist approach, specifically through answering these basic questions: a) Plot, narrative line and plain sense Is there any action? How important is the action and why? What is the nature and significance of the action? Is the overall structure of the movie appropriate to the content? And is the action compressed, large and diffuse or episodic? What is the basic plot structure? Is it melodramatic, dramatic, impasse, linear or a variation or a combination or assault on these forms? And why? How is the conflict created? What is the nature of the conflict? Why? What is the meaning of the story line? Is the plot probable or plausible? b) Character (s) What is the motivation structure of the character? What roles are played by the minor characters, if any? Are the characters individuals or types? Why? Is there existence of character contrasts or parallels? c) Special effects Who tells the story? Is there a characteristic use of language? What is the language of the author? General, plain, metaphorical, precise, effusive, repetitious, economical, realistic and naturalistic? What role is played by the setting, physical description or dramatic scene play? Is there an existence of deep structure such as mythic or archetypal modes that underlies the surface of the work? d) Emotional effects What emotional effects occur? To what extend? What is the relationship of the emotional response to the plot or situation and characters 2) Reader-Response Criticism The literary criticism theory was developed in the early 1960s and has been applicable up to the present. The most known proponents of this theory include; Peter Rabinowitz, Stanley Fish, Elizabeth Freund, David Bleich, Normal Holland, Louise Rosenblatt, Wolfgang Iser and Hans Rober Jauss (Davis, 22). Basically, reader-response criticism considers readers/viewers reaction to literature as vital to interpreting the meaning of the text/movie. However, reader-response criticism can be characterized by several approaches. In this sense those who apply reader-response to analyze a work of literature can use a psychoanalytic lens, a structuralist lens or even a feminist’s lens (Davis, 175). It is worth noting that these lenses are commonly known to maintain the role of the reader in understanding the literature. In addition, these lenses enable the reader not to passively consume the meaning presented to them by an objective literary text hence making the readers make sense of the literature meaning. In this regard, the reader-response theory shares a common ground with some of the deconstructionists discussed in the post-structural area (Davis, 71). This theory is similar to new historicism in that it values the reader/viewer. However, as opposed to new historicist critics, reader-response critics are not interested exploring the writer’s intentions (Makaryk, 56). It is therefore a fact to argue that it is an opposite of formalism and new criticism text oriented theories in which don’t take the reader’s role interpreting literature works into consideration. The typical questions asked when applying reader-response criticism are: How might we interpret a literary text/movie to show that the reader’s/viewer’s response is or is analogous to the topic of the story? How is the meaning created by the interaction of the text and the reader/viewer? Do the sounds/shapes of the words change the meaning of the work? What does a phrase-by-phrase analysis of the text/movie tells us about the reading/viewing experience prestructured by the text/movie? Marxist criticism This school of thought concerns itself with class differences, economic and otherwise together with the complications and implications of the capitalists system. It is based on then theories of Karl Marx. Marxist school of thought attempts to reveal the ways in which our socioeconomic system is the ultimate source of our experience (Eagleton, 123). Hence, theorists linked with the Marxist tradition are interested in answering the all-important question, whom does it benefit? The elite? the middle class? In addition, Marxists critics are interested in how the lower or working class is oppressed in everyday life and in literature (Eagleton, 61). Therefore, Marxist criticism is a type of criticism in which literary works are analyzed as tainted products of exploited labor. Marxist critics focus on the role of class, ideology, and the revolutionary thought as reflected in the text (Eagleton, 155). As a result, their main concern is very much historical rather than hidden meaning. Typical questions asked when using the Marxist criticism are: What is the social class of the author? What values does it subvert? Whom does it benefit if the work or effort is accepted/successful/believed, etc.? How do characters from different classes interact or conflict? What values does it reinforce? Which class does the work claim to represent? What conflict can be seen between the values the work champions and those it portrays? What social classes do the characters represent? PART TWO Movie analysis ` V for Vendetta is a 2006 British action thriller directed by James McTeigue and written by the Wachowski Brothers. The movie is based on the 1982 graphic novel of the same name. based on the same named comic series written in 1982 by Alan Moore and David Lloyd, this film tells the tale of a near future England characterized by oppressive government and a man who sets to destroy it (Moore et al., 5). Application of Formalist approach in V for Vendetta Plot summary V for Vendetta tells the story of Evey Hammond and her unlikely but instrumental part in bringing down the fascist government. This government is oppressive and has taken full control of a futuristic Great Britain (Moore et al., 8). V bursts onto the scene clad in dark clothes, hidden behind a Guy Fawkes mask and spouting dialogue so complex and full of high-dollar words that it’s nearly another language. Evey is saved from a life and death situation by a man in a Guy Fawkes who only calls himself V. she later learned the meaning of the word V and decides to help him fight and bring down the oppressive government. As she discovers the truth about V’s mysterious background, she also discovers the truth about herself (Moore et al., 33). As a result these two individuals-from different background- and form a coalition to bring freedom and justice back to a society fraught with cruelty and corruption. Literary devices The movie is a rich, dark and resonant film. There is use of both monologue and prologue. The author uses style to convey substance under the guise of pure entertainment. The script is a faithful utilization of source material, tweaked just enough to update it properly translate it to the screen. The director ensures that the pitch is perfect so as to bring-out the emotional attachment to the audience. The film is characterized by a sense of urgency, even when characters are just hanging around philosophizing. The movie is political but not in a way that is specific to anything going on in the world today; but rather the same political paradoxes that has engulfed our society for century. There is also the use of humor especially when V and Evey meet. The use of the mask and the persona functions as both practical and symbolic elements of the story. V wears the mask to hide his physical scars, and in obscuring his identity, he becomes the idea itself. Themes The main theme of the film is struggle between freedom and state. There is state’s use of mass surveillance on its citizens to watch every move of its citizens. In addition, Adam Sutler appears on large video screens and on portraits in people homes, both common features among modern totalitarian. On the other side, V is depicted as a person who is interested in delivering freedom to its people and empowering them. There is also the theme of romance as portrayed by V and Evey. Characters Hugo Weaving as V He is a charismatic and skilled freedom fighter who was the unwilling subject of experimentation. As revealed in the movie, V is a terrorist who is not terrorizing the people but the oppressive government. In fact his main goal is to free the people and empower them while striking fear in the heart of England’s totalitarian government. He clear demonstrates that people should not be afraid of the government but on the contrary the government should be afraid of their people (Moore et al., 11). Natalie Portman as Evey Hammond Natalia becomes the real heart of the movie. V is an unstoppable force and Evey is a real person who is caught up in his deadly rebellion. Evey plays an important role in ensuring the progress of the script through her conversations with V and her action bits (Moore et al., 28). Stephen Rea as Eric Finch He is the secret investigator who was sent to pin down V. however; it is interesting to see how he uncovers an unspeakable government crime during his investigation (Moore et al., 16). John Hurt as High Chancellor Adam Sutler: He represents the government. Application of Reader-Response Criticism in the movie V for Vendetta The reactions from those who have watching the movie have been splendid. The movie has seen fewer critics are compared to those who like it. Its critics mostly dwell on the use of literary devices. They claim that there is limited use of literary devices on the movie (Moore et al., 21). In addition, some critics have noted the film’s numerous references to events surrounding the George W. Bush administration in the United States. These comprise of the sacks and the hoods worn by the prisoners in Larkhill that have been seen as a reference to Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (Moore et al., 67). On the other hand, proponents of the film claim that it is very good movie that address issues that affects the common man in terms of governance. They claim that the movie is adding dialogue to a set of issues much broader than any other administration (Moore et al., 51). Application of Marxist criticism in v for Vendetta Tracing its origin in London in a near-future dystopian society, Hugo Weaving presents V as a bold, charismatic freedom fighter who attempts to ignite a revolution against the fascist regime led by Adam Sultler (John Hurt) (Moore et al., 88). This part alone bring about the basic concept of Marxist criticism that focuses on the role of class, ideology, and the revolutionary thought as reflected in the text. This movie is a revelation of revolution and a fight against oppression. The regime led Adam Sultler has subjugated the United Kingdom thereby leading to oppression of its people hence deteriorating economic conditions of the poor. The book reveals that the road of economic freedom is rough as portrayed by the challenges V underwent when fighting against the oppressing government. Natalie Portman plays a working class girl caught up in V’s mission and Stephen Rea is the detective who tries to counter the V’s operation (Moore et al., 123). Clearly, the element of social class is revealed in this movie. The characters are of different social class but it seems that the upper class always had their say. Much of oppression is experienced by the lower class and this is what V tries to fight against. The importance of this movie is inevitable. In addition, it has been seen by many political groups as an allegory of oppression by government; anarchist and libertarians who have use it to promote their beliefs. The film is characterized by Guy Fawkes mask which is mostly used by activists belonging to the group Anonymous to appear in public events to emulate one of the movie’s scenes (Moore et al., 134). Work cited Culler, Jonathan. Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, UK, 1997. Internet resource. Davis, Garrick. Praising It New: The Best of the New Criticism. Athens, Ohio: Swallow Press/Ohio University Press, 2008. Print. Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction : Anniversary Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2008. Internet resource. Makaryk, Irena R. Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory: Approaches, Scholars, Terms. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1993. Print. Moore, Alan, David Lloyd, Steve Whitaker, Siobhan Dodds, Jeannie O'Connor, Steve Craddock, Elitta Fell, and Tony Weare. V for Vendetta. London: Titan Books, 2005. Print. Read More