Mental Twinges

[Notes on History and Freedom by Theodor W. Adorno] The Dominant Theme in Historiography and the Humanities What was presented earlier as "the crisis in the idea of historical meaning" [i.e. our habit of assigning meaning where none exists] is the result of the foundations [postulates] of the study of historical writings [historiography] and the humanities.  The dominant theme, first formulated by [Leopold von] Ranke , is 'tell how it really happened' but this precludes any attempt at understanding "historical tendencies" or "large concepts such as...universal history itself". It also undermines history as the recording of events, which tends to regard particular events as more important than other events. (10-11)

In Prof. Fry's second lecture on Deconstruction he references Paul de Man's Semiology and Rhetoric (1975) in The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends. 3rd ed . Ed. David H. Richter. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's. 2007. 882-893. Print. and compares de Man's and Derrida 's views on deconstruction.

In this lecture , two essays in  The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends, Third Edition , David H. Richter, Bedford/St. Martin's, Boston, NY, 2007   by Jacques Derrida are discussed:  "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" (915-926) and "Différance"  (932-949).

The lecture begins with a review of  synchrony  and  diachrony and their importance to semiotics and structuralism as well as their relation to the Russian formalists. The idea of functions  and their relationships first appeared in Formalism which became the synchrony  and diachrony  of Structuralism and then, from semiotics, added  "the idea of negative knowledge". Levi-Strauss' analysis of the Oedipus  myth utilizes the idea of negative knowledge   by stating there is   no one positive version of a myth from which all other versions have been copied.

In this lecture we're introduced to Semiotics and Structuralism, not because they are part of literary theory, but because they strongly influenced the development of literary theory. Semiology is "the study of existing, conventional, communicative systems"  and semiotics  is any language (means of communication?) composed of a system of signs .  The concept was first developed by Ferdinand de Saussere , a Swiss linguist, although his work has had a stronger influence in the humanities and social sciences (if Wikipedia is to be believed) than linguistics.

Levi-Strauss, in "The Structural Study of Myth" The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends, Third Edition , David H. Richter, Bedford/St. Martin's, Boston, NY, 2007 p 860-8) says that "...myth is language..." (861) whose "mythical value" (the story told in the myth) cannot be destroyed by even the "worst translation" .

Roland Barthes 1972 essay on "The Structural Activity" The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends, Third Edition , David H. Richter, Bedford/St. Martin's, Boston, NY, 2007 p 871-74) claims there is "...no technical difference between structuralism as an intellectual activity on the one hand and literature ... on the other hand: both derive from a mimesis [imitation] based not on the analogy of substances...but the analogy of functions..." (872).

This lecture was a bit of a slog to get through, especially as I don't have the course text book and could not locate complete copies of the reading material. The key point, as far as I can tell, is to highlight the differences, and similarities, between Russian Formalism, New Critic Formalism and the established approach to literary history.

Cleanth Brooks, in "Irony as a Principle of Structure" ( The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends, Third Edition , David H. Richter, Bedford/St. Martin's, Boston, NY, 2007 p 799-806) asserts that context (structure) determines meaning: The memorable verses in poetry ... derive their poetic quality from their relation to a particular context....Even the meaning  of any particular item is modified by the context. (800) The simplest proof of this can be seen by making a study of  irony: ...the obvious  warping of a statement by the context we characterized as ironical . (800) And sarcasm is the simplest form of irony;  occuring when the context creates "a reversal of meaning" .

Formalism was the reaction to old-fashioned philology and the  "appreciative teaching" that was in vogue at the beginning of the 20th century. The first insisted on the strict  meaning  of words according to their time and place while the latter indulged in raptures; readings which said little or nothing about the work itself. The two main proponents of appreciative teaching were Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch ("Q") , at Cambridge, and William Lyon Phelps at Yale.

I.A. Richards and Monroe Beardsley, in Principles of Literary Criticism The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends, Third Edition , David H. Richter, Bedford/St. Martin's, Boston, NY, 2007 p 764-74), identify two distinct uses of language ( scientific and emotive ) which we confuse; and, they assert there are two causes that produce mental processes associated with both usages: "...the effect of past stimuli associated with them" (764) "...the organism, its needs, its readiness to respond to this or that stimulus." (764) There are  external and internal  stimuli that can trigger a mental event and the character  and course  of the mental impulse is the result of the interaction of these two sources of stimuli. They use the analogy of a hungry man to explain the difference between (1) and (2). A hungry man's reaction to food is determined by his inner state; his hunger (cause #2). A well-fed man may or may not eat what is given him de...

This lecture focuses on the idea that a poem (or literary work) is best judged on its own terms, without reference to external opinions, notes, or the readers emotional response to the work. This premise is a component of  The New Criticism , a movement associated with Yale but not formulated solely within their walls. They introduced the practice of close reading;  which Prof Fry describes as ...the idea that you could take a text and do things with it--that the interpretation of a text wasn't just a matter of saying, "Oh, yes, it's about this and isn't it beautiful?"--reciting the text, emoting over it, enthusing about it, and then looking around for something else to say--it was no longer a question of doing that. It was a question of constructing an elaborate formal edifice to which everybody could contribute.

William Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley, in The Intentional Fallacy , ( The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends, Third Edition , David H. Richter, Bedford/St. Martin's, Boston, NY, 2007 p 811-18), describe seeking for the author's intention as akin to "consulting the oracle" . For them, the "...true and objective way of [literary] criticism..." (818) is to ask "...whether it [your interpretation] makes sense" given the text itself.

In this lecture Prof Fry compares Gadamer, Isler and Hirsch. Gadamer believes the reader must find common ground  in the text if it is to be understood and that the reader must be pulled-up-short  by the text in some manner if he is to recognize that the text is presenting him with something new or different. The main problem with Gadamer is the that he believes the gap between the reader and the text must be small; the reader's world must incorporate understood elements of the text's world or common ground is not possible and the gap cannot be leapt. Isler takes a similar approach but he relishes much larger gaps; he is not concerned with the reader finding common ground with the text, he compares reading to an adventure and the wider the gap, the more the text violates the readers expectations,  the more enjoyable the adventure.

Wolfgang Iser, in "The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach."  The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends, Third Edition , David H. Richter, Bedford/St. Martin's, Boston, NY, 2007 p 1002-14), is, like Gadamer, concerned with what happens when we read; Phenomenological Theory considers "the actual text"  and "actions involved in responding to that text"  (1002). For him, the act of reading  creates a virtual object The virtual dimension is not the text itself, nor is it the imagination of the reader: it is the coming together of text and imagination. (1005)

Prof. Fry, in Lecture 3 , defines hermeneutics  as "the art or principles of interpretation" whose history, in Western culture, can be traced back to Aristotle but whose development stems primarily from Protestant theologians and their interest in interpreting and explaining scripture whose meanings are considered to be both important and difficult to grasp .

Lecture 3 Assignment: "The Elevation of the Historicality of Understanding to the Status of Hermeneutical Principle" ( The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends, Third Edition , David H. Richter, Bedford/St. Martin's, Boston, NY, 2007 p721-737) 

This is a summary of the first two lectures and readings ( Michel Foucault 's What is an Author? and Roland Barthes The Death of The Author ) from the open Yale course Introduction to Literary Theory taught by Prof. Paul Fry.

I've just started reading History and Freedom by Theodor W. Adorno . The text is based on transcriptions of a 1964-65 lecture series given by Adorno at Frankfurt's Institute of Social Research .  The wisdom of the net deems them the easiest entry into his thoughts on his main work, Negative Dialectics ; I hope the net is right, I keep running into references to his work and am curious as to why.  Fair warning, I have absolutely no training in philosophy so read what follows at your own risk.