What is Literature?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ม.ค. 2020
- What is literature?
It seems a rather odd question for a scholar of literature to ask after millennia of demonstration. But the anti-foundationalism of twentieth-century literary theory is consistent in its application of what C.S. Lewis describes as 'the abolition of man' to its subject of concern.
Terry Eagleton's widely-approved introduction is used on the course not as an endorsement so much as a demonstration of the flawed premises and application of contemporary approaches to literary theory.
It is Eagleton's belief that there is no such thing as literature, to which many of his contemporaries agree, and yet they continue to use the term 'for lack of a better alternative.' What Lewis called 'the abolition of man' is here applied to mount an 'abolition of the humanities,' destroying the narrative of freedom and dignity in the great books, and above all the Bible.
This is a question I've asked myself too many times. I think the million dollar question is though, why should we study literature? Prior to me exploring literature, I thought it was just meaningless, outdated, fictional rubbish. Literature at its core is the expression of life, and by being learned and acquainted with literature, we become that much more whole and complete as people. A person who disregards and discounts the spiritual sanctification within literature will live a deeply shallow one dimensional existence.
Truly grateful for all the wonderful lectures that you shared. Watching and english professor in this part of earth is never less than blessings. Thnks.
Literature is storytelling that brings to mind the storytelling grammar of our dreams
Thanks again Dr Masson, for a very interesting lecture
I started to learn Literature . Your lesson maybe helpful for my studies
Hope this helps me with my high-school student
25:30 reality is fundamentally triadic
Appeal to tradition is a weak defense against sophists like Eagleton. It is just a historical poll, an ad populum. Also, I find it surprising that in attempting to define literature no involvement of the concept of art was made. Recreation of reality is a crucial aspect of literature as art.
This is exactly right.
Dizem que a literatura é escrita...
Esquecem-se da literatura oral e tradicional.
Esquecem-se das origens da literatura.
Na atualidade, há escritores que apenas falam (têm assistentes para fazerem a transcrição).
A literatura voltou às suas origens.
Portanto, a literatura pode ser oral ou escrita. 🤗
My money is on Shakespeare. Not Eagleton. 👍
I am unable to find the book 'The War on Word' mentioned in the lecture. What is the name of the author?
At War with the Word, R.V. Young.
Elaboration of "the world is divided into solid...."what he means,,
Literature to me means the language of progress.
Maybe, but progress needs definition. Progress towards what?
@@LitProf Literature is the language of stories using the impersonal abstract that conveys to the reader, the individual, a personal knowledge to accept responsibility for their own life story, being accountable to the Author of all stories, whether one"s conscience accuses or excuses one's own sins.
It's God's beautiful mirror of our individual stories He has already ordained, reflecting back to His sovereign ultimate Story of all our stories in one, like lakes and rivers streaming all into one sea and sky, recycled until perfection, unto the new earth. This earth being made new through redemption reflects our stor{I}es into history and future ultimate perfection.
I'm waiting for your reply. I don't think you saw my full answer yet. @@LitProf
It’s an interesting answer and sounds to me on the right track.
Point of objection for 52:45
Good day, sir.
I don't think that Eagleton was pointing out that there are no 'norms' but rather what are
considered norms may differ from one individual/society to another.
Another, there is a problem with the "estrangement" being pointed out by the Formalist as it cannot be assumed to be true to everyone. One might find a language strange and another might not find it so. So, then, Eagleton proceeded to ask a question of cases when literature doesn't use estranging language, do they cease to be literature? When in fact we consider several texts as literature even if it doesn't necessarily use those kinds of languages.
I do not also see the point where you think that Eagleton left out characteristics of literature being delightful, beautiful. I think he's pointing out something different in that chapter.
He was simply trying to define literature, explore the definitions it was once given throughout history and attempts to give the anti-thesis for those and work out some of its synthesis. He's not challenging the characteristics of literature nor downplaying the possible emotions it can invoke.
I think that's the only Marxist thing he did in that chapter.
Objection on 31:01
That point is so unnecessary. It is as if you are intentionally reading his arguments in distorted ways. He is not saying there is no such thing as literature but rather the definitions that it was constituted with throughout history has plenty of objections. Also, if you think that he is continuously debunking all sorts of 'objectivity' for literature, that's a mistake. Because in the last part of the chapter he was pointing out that value judgments we bring to what we consider as literature can be, to some extent, objectively examined through looking at social/cultural contexts and ideologies.
So far, as I'm viewing your lecture (which I'm not done watching yet) it seems to be that you have a romanticized look and definition of literature.
Observation on 30:19
Have you read this chapter before going to class or was it your first time reading it then gave a lecture as you read it? Again, he is not dismissing any objective constructs that may be used to define and observe literature in the last chapter.
"If it will not do to see literature as an 'objective', descriptive category,
neither will it do to say that literature is just what people whimsically choose to call literature. For there is nothing at all whimsical about such kinds of value-judgement: they have their roots in deeper structures of belief which are as apparently unshakeable as the Empire State Building..." Pp. 14
22:33
No one is actually forcing you. But that doesn't mean that Eagleton has a good point. There are several cases where works throughout the world ceased to be considered literature or have just been considered literature. It is a probability. It's a reality.
Sir, no doubt given the social conditions, Shakespeare is still regarded as a relevant author. I just can't understand your weird way fascination to these canons you have been mentioning to the extent of being totally defensive.
And please, read his whole point first before you react. He was actually trying to defend why this literature endured time. He was not going against its credibility. He was simply pointing out that we are active participants as to what we regard as canons. It's not all because this literature is just inherently great but because we perceive it to be great and still value it so much.
PLEASE READ IT ALL FIRST BEFORE COMMENTING.
20:35
Now I'm convinced you did not read this chapter before discussing it in class.
19:25
You see now? Now tell me where is he being subjective in that when he was pointing out that his value judgments are not merely personal but deeply rooted to formative childhood and society as well.
18:24
You are now asserting your own interpretation on his points without actually understanding the whole of it. He is not "dancing around" a s you blatantly put it. What he is doing is he is laying out all pre-existing definitions of literature then gave out its contradictions then work on some of the good points it has.
Russian Formalism: not entirely on the form but observing what literature does to us and how we can see it as non-pragmatic
Fine writing: looking not in its inherent qualities but what makes us consider it as good or bad.
Canon: why do we value it and what constitutes our value judgments.
If only you've understood and read the book ahead of time it wouldn't be as bad as this. I'm starting to feel bad for your students.
8:01
😬 So you didn't even finish the chapter.
1:03:59
So I was correct: a very romanticized definition of literature. Please explore more different types of literature. Not every literature is bubbly and cute. In a country like mine, you will be shocked by the type of literature that we have.
It is your role to get out of your comfort zone and to acknowledge how literature may take on different forms contrary to how you see it.
1:06:11
Not every reading experiences is delightful. What have you been reading all these years? Were you only reading romantic poems and prose? Oh my god. This lecture is sooooooo bad
1:06:15
As I watch this lecture, that's quite obvious
1:07:34
Not look at it with a critical lens? Hahahahaha I love to see you try reading a text devoid of any lens.
1:09:36
And yours is superior? Hahaha pleeeeeeeease re-read it and do a re-lecture. I pity your students. This is such a waste of good source material.
Anyways, keep safe and have a nice day.
Why don't you watch the entire lecture series, from Plato onwards, before commenting that I haven't read a book I have read many times over decades?
I'm distracted by that guy's enormous hands 😂
Pay attention
@@LitProf
Lol
54:14 or so- with respect, who or what gave you the idea that in India the value of a human is not given?
On what basis do you claim that it is?
@@LitProf on the basis that India has NEVER INITIATED a war, has never colonized other countries, unlike ALL WESTERN nations that have killed and exploited countless millions in colonial expansion and pointless warfare.
That certainly counts for something.
But how do you explain the caste system?
@@diguification How did Ashoka the Great build his empire? Without waging any brutal wars of conquest & subjugating anyone? Lol