On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, david.bircumshaw wrote...
>Now what I'd like to hear, as I believe you have a background in the
>sciences, are your views on the status of what is peddled as 'theory' in
>literature.
David,
I don't know enough literary theory, and don't know enough *about*
literary theory to be able to say much that's very helpful. I don't
think literary theory has very much in common with scientific theory. A
big part of the point of the latter is its ability to predict what will
happen in the future, but I'm not sure that literary theory is very
strong on prediction, is it? I tend to be suspicious of L.T. because
it's so often inexorably linked with some political agenda. Not that
S.T. is dissociated from politics (as Galileo will probably point out
over coffee at my next dinner party) but it tends not to have an overt
political intent.
I'm also unconvinced that L.T. is likely to be very helpful in either
increasing my enjoyment of poetry, or enabling me to write better poems,
which are the things that really interest me.
But I'm speaking from a position of ignorance, so if anyone wants to
correct me, I'd welcome it. I always get irritated when people say
they're not interested in understanding the technical language of
poetry, and stop their ears when the a word like "dactyl" is mentioned,
so I may be pontificating in a similarly urticarious manner.
Best,
--
Peter
http://www.hphoward.demon.co.uk/poetry/
|