Anti-Humanism
Critic: Terry Eagleton
D. H. Lawrence and 'Difference': Post-Coloniality and the Poetry of the Present by Amit Chaudhuri
Oxford, 229 pp, June 2003
Due to limited access to the entire article there will only be a summary on the five paragraphs that were accessible. Basically, this article speaks about theorists VS poets and novelists. In other words, theory VS poetry. Terry Eagleton is a literary theorist who was one of Lawrence's critics. Whereas, D. H. Lawrence was a poet and novelist who wrote many volumes of poem and several novels which are all a part of his literary works of art. In reference to this article. Eagleton argues " one of the most tenacious of all academic myths is that literary theorists do not go in for close reading. Whereas, non-theoretical critics are faithful to the words on the page...". He goes on to say that in fact, almost all of the best known literary theorists engage in close reading. Eagleton gave examples of such theorists but was too much to mention.
Therefore, it was suggested that there is one serious flaw in the universally acclaimed doctrine of close reading. Meaning, the world/ universe has believed in a false concept of close reading. However, Eagleton does agree that many good literary theorists read as though their work was composed by a computer as well as on a computer (typed written). He quoted " just as some doctors are always sick, as some critics cannot write." So Terry Eagleton was saying some critics do not posses the ability to criticize or give constructive criticism on literary works of poets and novelists. However, it is too rarely pointed out of the most distinguished names in the field are remarkably fine stylists, more so than the majority of non-theoretical critics. These fine stylists include Barthes, Adorno, Foucault, Jameson and Geoffrey Hartman.
On the whole, according to Eagleton,writers to not take kindly to theorists, rather as shamans do not always favour anthropologists. Here is where Eagleton argument firmly stands out. Many poets and novelists, such as D. H. Lawrence, are natural-born romantics about their own arts, if sometimes about anything else. Even the grittiest realists can in turn be a closet transcendalist when it comes down to his/her own psyche; and writers like that are affronted by the claim that the means and modes in which they are inspired can be rationally and thoroughly analysed. The theorist gave reference to a well known bible story, 'Samson and Delilah". In that, they feel the same way the bible couple wild have felt about a Freudian account of their relationship. Nevertheless, Terry agrees that it is possible that love can definitely be rationally investigated ( it could be understood), even if you cannot find a reason why. But unless you can give some coherent accountability of what you love about someone, then it's difficult to see how you can describe what you are feeling as love. Sometimes the mind may deceive the heart or vice verse, in believing that you love someone or you are in love. In relation to the novel, " Sons and Lovers", we can clearly see romance as well as other types of love being portrayed and displayed throughout the book.
Additionally, theorists are sad, tight-arsed, Apolian. On the other hand, writers are red-blooded, touchy-feely, Dionysian. There is a definite contrast between the two. Terry Eagleton believes that writers are softer and more emotional than theorists. He gave a simple scenario; a male theorist in a roomful of male poets usually made to feel, spirally speaking, that he is decked out in tights and tutu ( like a dancer or ballerina). Furthermore, like a liberal among radical (types of feminists) or a moral philosopher in a brothel, he finds that his manhood will be questioned or perhaps hit sexuality as a whole. Differently, there are some feminists who regard theory itself as 'male'.
Overall, Terry Eagleton's main reason for criticism on D. H. Lawrence literary work, as a poet and bnovelist, is that he is too soft and emotional, more or less feminine, and that he should be more tough and masculine just like theorists. Unlike the theorists who are objective, the criticism is that poets and novelist are subjective in their work
No comments:
Post a Comment