RICHARD L. W. CLARKE


 

 

 

LITS2306 HISTORY OF CRITICISM

EXAM ADVICE, 2009-2010

  1. Because the term paper examined your knowledge of Module One (the Ancient period), the final exam is based on Modules Two (Early Modern / Romantic) and Three (the early Twentieth Century).  Of course, some information discussed in the first module may inform or be relevant to what we studied in subsequent modules, so it might be important to recall some of that as well.  However, your focus should be on Modules 2 and 3.

  2. There are SIX questions in all to choose from.  The exam paper is divided into TWO sections, the first devoted to the Early Modern / Romantic period and the second to the early Twentieth Century.  Each section consists of THREE questions.  You are required to answer TWO questions, each from a different section, in TWO hours.

  3. Though we studied many philosophers (such as Descartes or Hegel) and their views on issues like the nature of reality, the self, knowledge, language, and so on, the focus of the exam will be on literary theory.  Hence, there will be no questions specifically on philosophers such as those mentioned above.  Rather, the questions will all address the views of literary theorists such as Pope, Johnson, Taine, and so on.  Of course, the philosophy of a Locke or a Herder and so on often shape the views on literature of a Johnson or a Taine, so it might be useful to have some basic understanding of the views of the former, but the exam will focus on the views of the literary theorists, not the philosophers.

  4. Each question asks you to compare the views of at least TWO theorists studied on one topic addressed in the module in question.  Here is a reminder of the topics which we addressed in each module:

    Module 2:

    1. We began by studying the Early Modern philosophers Descartes, Locke and Kant with a view to getting a handle on the differences between rationalism and empiricism and grasping how these thinkers laid the foundation for the scientific approach to understanding things which is the predominant feature of modern life (since at least the Enlightenment (this will not be examined, though some aspects thereof shape the work of the theorists discussed in the next point for which reason a basic grasp of their claims may be useful).

    2. We then sought to see how these philosophers influenced, directly or indirectly, the views of the so-called Neo-Classical literary theorists Pope, Johnson and Young, all of whom view 'nature' (reality) as the ultimate standard by which literature should be judged:

      1. for Pope, writers should seek to hold a mirror up to nature while critics should judge literature according to whether nature has been accurately depicted;

      2. for Johnson, a writer's job is to depict the world by holding a mirror up to nature;

      3. for Young, the direct imitation of nature is far more valuable than merely imitating other writers -- originality in literature, rather than emulation, is accordingly extremely important.

    3. We then turned out attention to the Romantics whose worldview is almost always diametrically opposed to that of their Early Modern / Neoclassical precursors.  We began this section of the module by looking in particular at thinkers such Hegel, Herder and Humboldt who are sometimes classified as philosophers, though many philosophers hesitate to classify them as such, or at least not in the sense that Descartes and Locke are accepted without question to be philosophers.  Again, though no question specifically asks you about these thinkers, it might be very useful to acquaint yourself with their views given that literary theory is never produced in a vacuum and that Herder's views, for example, were quite influential on Taine (discussed in the next point).

    4. We then turned out attention to a close examination of Taine's views on literature as a paradigmatic example of the 'expressive turn' (i.e. the turn toward the author) which is the hallmark of the Romantic view of literature and which renders their views on literature so very different from those of the Neoclassicists (discussed in the second point above).  For the Romantics, all roads in literature ultimately lead to the author of the work for which reason an understanding of how the place and time in which the author lived and wrote sheds light on his/her work is deemed indispensable.

    Module 3:

    1. In this module, we passed over the mid- to late nineteenth century and zeroed in on early twentieth century theorists of literature.  We learned that both the Neoclassicists and the Romantics have their heirs and that these two camps (which I have labelled respectively the philosophical approach (descended from the Neoclassicists and before them the key philosophers [Plato and Aristotle] of ancient Greece) and the rhetorical approach (descended from the Romantics and before them the rhetoricians [not least the Sophists] of ancient Greece) offer competing perspectives on each sub-topic discussed.

    2. We first addressed the issue of authorship and literary history by comparing the 'philosophical' perspective of T. S. Eliot (and, in the tutorial, the Caribbean thinker Derek Walcott) with the 'rhetorical' point of view of Leo Spitzer (and the Caribbean theorist Kamau Brathwaite's "History of the Voice").

    3. We next addressed the issue of the reader / critic by comparing the view of I. A. Richards (and Ken Ramchand's "Concern for Criticism") with those of Louise Rosenblatt (and Kamau Brathwaite's "Caribbean Critics").

    4. We then addressed the issue of Representation and Form I: Poetry by comparing the views of the New Critics John Crowe Ransom and Cleanth Brooks with those of Walter Ong (and the Caribbean theorist Gordon Rohlehr).  (I should mention that for this sub-topic you could compare Rohlehr's views on poetry with those of Walcott in "The Muse of History.")

    5. Last but not least, we addressed the issue of Representation and Form II: Prose Fiction by comparing the views of Ian Watt (and selections from Ken Ramchand's The West Indian Novel and its Background) with those of Wayne Booth (and Kamau Brathwaite's "Jazz and the West Indian Novel").

  5. I would advise that, for each Section of the exam, you revise at least TWO of the sub-topics listed above.  In each case, familiarise yourself with the sub-topic in question by:

    1. carefully reading the primary sources in question in conjunction with my own summaries / notes (where these are provided);

    2. carefully studying and trying to remember the argument advanced in each essay (one of the best ways to do so is by paraphrasing it);

    3. consulting relevant secondary sources for any light that these may shed on the views of the theorist in question (for suggested readings, consult the relevant PhilWeb pages devoted to the theorists in question);

    4. last but not least, comparing and contrasting the point of view of each theorist; and

    5. Remembering that the goal is not merely to paraphrase the argument of a particular theorist but to marshall that information in order to answer the particular question asked. 

  6. Finally, some useful general advice:

    1. One way to get a handle on a particular theory is to consider the implications of the argument in question for your own work as a theorist and critic: how has it changed how you think about the nature of human identity, or the nature of knowledge, or literary criticism, etc.?  How has it also accordingly changed what you do as a literary critic? 

    2. Another way to grasp a theory is to study a practical application of it.  For example, if you are trying to come to grips with the meaning of the term 'realism,' it might be useful, for example, to compare what Ian Watt has to say in "Realism and the Novel Form," the theoretical preface to his The Rise of the Novel, with any of his other chapters devoted to studies of particular novels written in the eighteenth century and which, as such, exemplify the particular approach to literary criticism which he is advocating.

    3. Last but not least, remember that the secret in doing well in any exam in any course is to anticipate the kind of questions which may be asked.  To this end, prepare thoroughly: study the Past Exam Papers in this course and try, in the case of each topic and each theorist, to recall my emphases (and even hints), to put your finger on the main issues at stake and, thus, to figure out the kind of question which may be asked of you.

Please access the past exam papers from this course here.

 

This site was last updated: February 03, 2011

Please direct all queries
HERE

 

Philosophy's Other: Theory on the Web

↑ Grab this Headline Animator