Marxism and Helena Echlin (9-19-07)

For the last week or so I've been trying to iron out all the details about literary theories and how they work. Going over Marxist theory first is like a good start, as Marxist theory seems easier to wrap one’s head around. I do think of the historic and social contexts in which texts are written, but financial and/or economic factors that effect texts have always seemed to bear more weight than other factors. Through a Marxist lens, as I understand it, all texts can be thought of as either reinforcing or deviating from the capitalist system that texts are created in. All forms of literature and art are compromised by economics in some way, and no work of art is truly and completely separated from the bounds of money. I’m fascinated by the idea that all texts and other works of art are directly affected in both form and content by the economic situation of the society they are created in on a large scale. While I never agreed with the Marxist idea that all history is the history of class struggle, I think it’s a very interesting way of looking at the world.

Also, I'm still not sure what to make of the article written by Helena Echlin. While I agree with her opposition to literary critics who are so wrapped up in what they do that they may have lost the meaning of their work, specifically those who claim "I don't read literature for pleasure anymore, " there's still a lot in the article I disagree with. Her anti-intellectual attitude did in fact, after talking about the article in class, seem very out of place for a woman who's supposed to be getting her masters degree in English from Yale. Even though the article was published in a magazine, it reads more like an angry livejournal entry, picking at specific people and using petty examples instead of staying focused and proving a point in a well organized professional way. I don’t know if she was intending the work to feel informal and sub-professional, more accessible to non-academics, but if it was then I think she did a good job. No that there’s anything wrong with writing in the vernacular, especially when the nature of your argument goes against doing as such, but the article is definitely below the level of a professional scholar. The kind that goes to Yale.

The article by tenured radical, which arguably could be thought of as being on the same level as an angry livejournal, was a better read because it was more entertaining and more insightful. Also, as a philosophy minor, reading that philosophy professors and students can get away with using theories in an academic setting in which other fields of study can’t was nice.