In a new article, "The New Modesty in Literary Criticism," posted today at The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jeffrey J. Williams presents his take on how the fascination with literary theory by a previous generation of English scholars has evolved into new forms of literary criticism in the 21st century. While offering a cursory overview of trends in literary analysis, particularly in the last 50 years, there is plenty of depth here to give those newer to such scholarship an adequate grasp on where we as a profession have been and where we seem to be going.
Williams describes this shift as "a new modesty." He writes, "Literary critics have become more subdued, adopting methods with less grand speculation, more empirical study, and more use of statistics or other data. They aim to read, describe, and mine data rather than make interventions of world-historical importance." With my own interests in economic readings and other interdisciplinary methods, this portends, I hope, a continued pursuit of a more well-rounded form of literary study. This leads to a much more open-minded approach in which readers can investigate seemingly contradictory interpretations with equal interest, seeking truth wherever it may lead, regardless of personal ideologies.
Williams writes, "In the theory years, you were what your reading was—Marxist, feminist, deconstructionist, queer. It was an era of manifestoes more than mere commentary." As someone who abhors most forms of literary theory and has battled most of his professional career with activism advocates, those who place priorities on vague social constructions and perceived power dynamics over seeking inherent truths about humanity in literature, I'm glad to see this stylistic shift. My particular views on literary criticism have often made me unpopular, which is a position I whole-heartedly embrace. To my surprise, Williams's analysis seems to indicate emerging critics are challenging those status quo theorists that have long dominated college English departments. What I've always contended, and what a new generation appears to be now recognizing, is if you are seeking a platform simply to politicize texts and voice cultural grievances, you are missing out on a variety of interesting levels of literary critique and opportunities for true understanding of the larger picture of humanity's complexity. In addition to the older method being narrow and often achingly redundant, current generations are just not that into it. As Williams notes, "if your aim is activism, literary criticism may not be the best way to do it."
Take a look at his article for yourself, and let me know what you think.
Williams describes this shift as "a new modesty." He writes, "Literary critics have become more subdued, adopting methods with less grand speculation, more empirical study, and more use of statistics or other data. They aim to read, describe, and mine data rather than make interventions of world-historical importance." With my own interests in economic readings and other interdisciplinary methods, this portends, I hope, a continued pursuit of a more well-rounded form of literary study. This leads to a much more open-minded approach in which readers can investigate seemingly contradictory interpretations with equal interest, seeking truth wherever it may lead, regardless of personal ideologies.
Williams writes, "In the theory years, you were what your reading was—Marxist, feminist, deconstructionist, queer. It was an era of manifestoes more than mere commentary." As someone who abhors most forms of literary theory and has battled most of his professional career with activism advocates, those who place priorities on vague social constructions and perceived power dynamics over seeking inherent truths about humanity in literature, I'm glad to see this stylistic shift. My particular views on literary criticism have often made me unpopular, which is a position I whole-heartedly embrace. To my surprise, Williams's analysis seems to indicate emerging critics are challenging those status quo theorists that have long dominated college English departments. What I've always contended, and what a new generation appears to be now recognizing, is if you are seeking a platform simply to politicize texts and voice cultural grievances, you are missing out on a variety of interesting levels of literary critique and opportunities for true understanding of the larger picture of humanity's complexity. In addition to the older method being narrow and often achingly redundant, current generations are just not that into it. As Williams notes, "if your aim is activism, literary criticism may not be the best way to do it."
Take a look at his article for yourself, and let me know what you think.