Over this last year, people have come up to me at events, having seen “The Geek’s Guide to Literary Theory” on the list of programming items, and they’ve asked something along the lines of, “Why should geeks care about literary theory?”
Two things: curiosity and communication.
In the post “Defining ‘Geek'” I talk about the insatiable curiosity of geeks as well as their love of talking about the things they are curious about. Having an understanding of the schools of literary theory will help focus both curiosity and conversations about the things geeks love. Understanding these terms will help smooth over disagreements, as we’ll be able to understand where those disagreements are coming from, especially in those moments when engaging with people outside geek culture.
For example,
I had several conversations with people I respect about our difference of opinions on the literary merit of The Road by Cormack McCarthy. Some of these have been rather heated. One such exchange jeopardized a professional relationship. In hindsight, playing the interaction back in my head, I realized that we were approaching our experiences of The Road through very different lenses of literary theory. My examination of The Road comes largely through a Metatextual lens, with more than a healthy dose of Reader Response Theory and a dash of Deconstruction. From what I gather from the exchange, the other party came to The Road with equal parts New Criticism and Religious Studies.
Understanding this gives me two positive outcomes on the exchange.
First, I don’t feel the need get defensive over my position. I can defend it, but I don’t need to get defensive. I don’t feel the need to prove I’m “right” and the other party is “wrong.” I can’t because we’re coming at the conversation from two extremely different places, and that’s completely okay. We don’t have to waste time or emotional energy on a largely fruitless conversation.
Second, this has piqued my curiosity. I’d never considered examining The Road through a lens of Religious Studies. Because I’m a huge lit theory geek, I’m considering diving into The Road again, this time through the lens of Religious Studies. I doubt doing will change my mind about this book from a Metatextual perspective, but I’m always excited to learn about new ways to examine a story. I may even gain further insight into why so many people find this book such a brilliant reading experience when my experience is just the opposite. In this way, I hope to gain a greater sense of empathy for my fellow man, which is one of the major benefits of being a reader of great literature, no matter what genre.
So, that’s why we as readers and writers want to study literary theory: curiosity and communication. The more schools of theory we acquaint ourselves with, the better we will be at exploring the art we love with critical curiosity. We’ll also be more prepared to engage in meaningful discussions with others, or we’ll be more prepared to understand when it’s better to agree that those involved in the conversation aren’t ever going to come to an agreement, and further discussion is a waste of time and emotional energy.
Largely, I’m undertaking this labor of love, working to inspire my fellow geeks to educate themselves in lit theory because I’m selfish. We geeks love to talk about things we love. We do this on a deeply personal level, but we lack the precision of terminology used by both the literary and academic communities. We’re a smart bunch, we could probably invent our own lexicon of terms, but why expend that energy when we already have a body of language or terms waiting for us. I also desperately want to read the books that expect will come out of a shared dialogue between the literary and genre communities. This is happening already, slowly, but it could be so much more.
So, my fellow geeks, are we ready to get to work?
I don’t know what New Criticism is. I have some clue about Religious Studies, having spent about half my life in that realm. I’d be interested to read how those approaches make something valuable out of Cormack McCarthy… as long as it wouldn’t require me to read more McCarthy than I’ve already read. Yuck.
Here’s my theory about McCarthy in a nutshell:
Nietzsche wrote in a now famous letter to his sister: “Do we after all seek rest, peace, and pleasure in our inquiries? No, only truth—even if it be the most abhorrent and ugly.”
Old Fritz gained a lot of currency in the mid-20th century–artist and critic alike felt that everybody who was anybody had to be a Nietzschean. But those artists and critics, rather than apply Nietzsche’s razor-sharp analytics, which were beyond them, (but which BTW never exceeded Kierkegaard’s or George Eliot’s), found a convenient shortcut in that letter and in similar sentiments in /Beyond Good and Evil/ et al. “If only we embrace all that is abhorrent and ugly, we can claim that that particular hideous slice of reality is truth, and thus claim that we have sought and embraced truth.” That is, they found a way to substitute a kind of intellectual machismo for actual discernment. “To be fearless in the face of filth and stench must mean we are fearless for truth.”
McCarthy’s writing is very much in this tradition. And thousands have been snookered into believing that since he goes before them into all that is vile and grotesque, he must be leading the way into truth.
Does the lit-crit tradition of Religious Studies somehow invalidate this?
We’ll be going into the various schools of literary theory in general, as well as how each can apply to the geek experience in specific.
The point of this post isn’t to get into a discussion on the validity of Cormack McCarthy’s work, least of all The Road. The point of this post is to illustrate that understanding different perspectives allow for greater understanding and communication. As I’ve studied more and more about the schools of literary theory, one of the important lessons I’ve learned is to let go of preconceptions, assumptions, and opinions I’ve made about a certain writer or a certain piece of writing. I’m leery of trying to summarize any writer or piece of writing, “In a nutshell.” In so far as an examination of McCarthy’s work through a lens of Religious Studies, I’ll have to let you know. I haven’t done this yet. I will say that McCarthy is worth studying, regardless of what you think of his subject matter. He has a masterful command of prose. His ability to structure sentences alone make him worthy of his place as a master of contemporary American Letters. Like a writer, or a book, is not a prerequisite for learning from that writer or book.