Literary analysis (was Culture, speaking, choice)

[saintbacchus]

David writes:

<<
I believe not. I think this type of activity belongs
either to science types lost in the humanities world
and grasping at straws, or humanities types suffering
from science-envy and trying to make their field
'scientific'. Concepts like class warfare and
patriarchy can be very useful tools for understanding
things, but allowed to become the defining principle
of all analysis they are worse than nothing.
>>

Science envy, hee! Doesn't it seem like humanities and
science majors both think they got the raw deal? ^_^

Of ALL analysis, sure, but as I was taught, there are
six basic ways of analyzing a novel: Biographical
(based on the life of the author), Marxist
(economics-based), classical (canon only), feminist,
psychological (based on the thoughts of the characters)
and um.... Well, you'll have to forgive me the last
one, because it was three years ago and I don't have my
notes. -_-

Anyway, the point is to pick the approach that seems to
best fit the work. James Joyce is often best read with
a "Marxist" eye. A psychological approach to Hamlet
would be interesting. And so on.

My opinion is that Rowling is best analyzed classically.
It seems that every other consideration (class warfare,
references to tyrants, the bit of herself that's in
Hermione) is only there in service of the world she's
created, so that's all we should consider. Not to
discourage anyone from positing wildly, of course! A good
humanities major would *never* do that.

--Anna