Over the past two years, which coincidentally have been my high school years, my teachers have progressively enforced the fact that knowing how to critique literary works is essential for college when you must do this all the time, and so have made me and the rest of my rag-tag classmates toil through the agony. What I don't understand is why colleges do this in the first place. I mean honestly, why analyze things that are not meant to be analyzed? Literature is made for enjoyment and enlightenment, among other things. When authors compose works, they have no intention of making people scrutinize their works. They may entertain thoughts about what this symbol means, how this conclusion could be bettered, etc., but it seems as if those mastered in the art of literary criticism have begun a tradition of futile babbling and quite frankly, tried to show off their prowess a little too much.
WHERE WOULD THIS WORLD BE IF NOT FOR LITERARY CRITICISM!? It's impossible to tell, but I'd guess there'd be less jobs - mainly the meaningless professions that involve wholly this fruitlessness.
Dakota
P.S. If anyone is following this blog, please comment. I'd like to hear your opinions.
Rag-tag, huh? I think there is a difference between critiquing a work and analyzing it.
ReplyDeleteYou couldn't have put this any better.
ReplyDeleteActually the great writers do consider that their work will be analyzed and in fact, write so that just a superficial reading will never get the whole story. Writers also write use what is relevant to them, but we the readers may have to search for that relevance. The whole idea is not to make a piece less enjoyable to read, but more enjoyable as you uncover the layers of meaning left by a writer who really knows what he/she is doing.
ReplyDelete