Literaturtheorie - Ein Sachcomic

Introducing Graphic Guides

by Owen Holland

Wie funktioniert Literatur?
Wie redet und schreibt man über das, was geschrieben wurde? Wie nah muss man beim Close Reading an den Text ran? Wie wichtig ist der Autor und der Kontext, in dem ein Buch geschrieben (und gelesen) wird? Was macht der Text mit dem Leser oder umgekehrt, was macht der Leser mit dem Text?
Dieser Band der Infocomic-Reihe ist eine Reise durch Philosophie, Linguistik und Sozialgeschichte, durch Moden und Methoden der Literaturtheorie und -kritik: Positivismus, Strukturalismus, Dekonstruktivismus, Diskursanalyse, Gender Studies.

Genres: Nonfiction, Literature, Philosophy, Literary Criticism, Graphic Novels, Criticism, History

169 pages, Paperback

First published February 9, 2016

Reviews

[zed · Rating 3 out of 5]

Readers block

Things change. I once read 95% fact. Several years back though I slowly swung to a 50/50 mix of fact and fiction. I read some very fine fiction and was enthralled by it. I wanted more.

But what happens when the last couple of fictions have not lived up to expectations? One heads back to tried and trusted fact. But what happens when you are really really enjoying that and (stupidly) begin a highly rated classic but find that half way through you regret stopping reading the book you were enjoying and starting this classic? You do something really unusual (and stupid) and read a cheap graphic guide about literary criticism in the hope you get your mojo back as to reading the classic.

Didn’t work and I am none the wiser as to literary criticism in general. “Sigh”

[Alan · Rating 2 out of 5]

A solid introduction to literary theory... well at least the first half. This book started off strong but faltered near the half-way mark with the introduction of more modern literary criticisms like Marxist and Freudian POV's. I definitely think this is a great way to get into the academic and historical world of literary criticism, but to expect anything more than a brief introduction will leave you unfulfilled. There is just too much content which takes place over too large a span of time to really get lost in the thoughts of history's greatest critics. The last section on post-colonialism and Feminism were quite horrible and ruined an otherwise great book.

[Olivera · Rating 2 out of 5]

Okej, piše ovde da je "uvod" i da je "grafički vodič", ali nit je bio neki uvod, nit me nešto proveo. Dat je tu pregled svih bitnih škola literarne kritike, ali sa minimalno pojašnjenja, a maksimalno nabrajanja imena ljudi koji su za te pokrete bili važni (bez dodatnog konteksta, smernica i razjašnjenja).

Tek je naizgled pisano za početnike, ali mislim da ovde malo toga može da se pohvata bez jače pozadine u filologiji i književnosti. Verovatno bih se potpuno pogubila da nisam bar iole iz te sfere.

Očekivala sam nešto korisnije :(

[Emily Kidd · Rating 1 out of 5]

I had to read this early for a lit theory class in college. On my own, I didn’t learn much. A timeline would have been helpful. It was too easy for my mind to wander while reading bc I thought the writing wasn’t clear; they tried to dumb things down but some of this you just have to say it and their fluctuating back and forth was confusing. Maybe once we go over it I’ll appreciate it more.

[Bernie Gourley · Rating 3 out of 5]

As the title and subtitle suggest, this book is an overview of the field of literary criticism that uses graphics (mostly cartoon drawings) to assist in conveying the information. This is one volume in a large series (Introducing Graphic Guides) that covers a range of subjects, mostly in the humanities (at least as far as the titles I’ve seen.) I picked up this book because it’s a topic I’ve developed a curiosity about, I knew almost nothing about, and it – like many titles in the series – was available to borrow via Amazon Prime.

As far as I can tell, the book covers all the major schools of criticism. Having looked around a little bit out of curiosity, I found the same headings are widespread. I do feel that the book would have benefited from being less personality-driven and more conceptually driven. By that I mean to say, it felt like the author thought his primary task was to list all of history’s most major literary critics. There’s a large number of individuals mentioned, but with little insight into how these critics engaged a piece of literature. I know that this is supposed to be a concise introduction, but I was dismayed by how little I felt I understood of the topic at the end compared to books that I’ve read of a similar nature (e.g. Oxford University Press’s “A Very Short Introduction” series.) In short, while I understand there’s limited space to cover a vast discipline, I don’t think the space available was used well.

I must admit that part of my confusion stems from the fact that literary criticism seems to be very different from what I thought it to be – and has been becoming increasingly so. So, I assumed that literary criticism had something to do with questions of how effectively elements such as language, narrative arc, metaphor, metrical form (or formlessness), character development, etc. are used in creating a resonance between writer and reader. [When I do reviews, these are the types of questions that inform my commentary. i.e. Is the story intriguing? Are the characters believable? Is the language skillful / beautiful? Is meaning conveyed in as approachable a manner as the subject allows (or if it’s more complicated, does that complication serve a reasonable end? etc.] To the degree these questions were ever of interest to literary critics, they seem have been replaced by another question: “Does this writing make ____________-ists feel warm and fuzzy, or mean and prickly?” [Where the “-ist” in question might be a feminist, a Marxist, or an environmentalist – just to name a few.] I may be misinterpreting what modern literary criticism is and does, but the fact that I’m doing so after having read this introductory guide supports my argument that maybe there was better use of space than having such a great number of critics cursorily mentioned – not to mention the cartoons (which seemed to serve little purpose.) The one thing the personality-driven approach does is give one plenty of examples of works to read to learn how various schools of literary criticism take on their appointed task, but I’d have rather had a clue about that from just reading the book.

I suspect that there are titles in this series that are able to use graphics to greater benefit – given their subject matter. In this work, the graphics are mostly cartoons that restate key points from the text in speech bubbles – so the art essentially fulfills the role that text-boxes do in some magazines and books, but in a more space-intensive way. If there were no graphics in this text, I don’t think I would have felt that I missed out on anything.

This book will show you how the field of literary criticism progressed and who the major players were, but doesn’t offer much insight into how critics engage with works of literature. Early in the book, this doesn’t make much difference, but -- given the direction the field went in -- it raises a lot of questions. There is discussion of whether art should be judged on its artistic merits or whether it rises and falls by its morality and social merit. I guess the answer the field collectively came to is the latter. [i.e. What matters is how happy or unhappy a work makes the segment of society the critic represents – I guess?] However, this makes it much more difficult to conclude how critics evaluate works. Do feminist critics dismiss all of Shakespeare as garbage because it disregards the agency of female characters in the way of that time? Do ecocritics toss “Moby Dick” in the trash because its about whaling? Or do these critics not engage with such texts because they are irrelevant to them? It would have been nice to have some insight into these questions, because it matters as to whether the field has anything worthwhile to say if you are a reader as opposed to an ideologue.

If you want a who’s who of literary criticism combined with some vocabulary building, this book has you covered. However, to see how critics engages with texts to produce criticism, you’ll probably need to go elsewhere.

[Nakedfartbarfer · Rating 5 out of 5]

A good primer on lit-crit. Trying to keep all the -isms straight took me a lot of re-reading, but it’s nice to know all the shorthand designations for wide bodies of work.

[Castles · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting one, but dives a little too much to areas that have barely anything to do with literature. The illustrations are great though.

[Adnan Soysal · Rating 4 out of 5]

This a great little book for anyone who wants to have a jump start on the Literary criticism.
It summaries historical evolution of definition of literary, and literal criticism starting from Plato.
For each school of literary criticism it gives great book reference that one can further follow up.
It is obvious author has vast portfolio of reading done on different disciplines like psychology, history.
One unfortunate thing is that language style which is a common modern problem.
It could have been more simple, and clearer. I think author is also not free from modern day's intellectual, academic, scrambled sentence construction and buzzword usage.
But that still does not devalue the book.

[Jane · Rating 4 out of 5]

Re-capping the usual Feminist, Marxist, Psychoanalytical, Formalist, Structuralist, Post-Structuralist approaches for Plath/Hughes next year and as well as newer stuff on Post-Colonial criticism there is now Ecocriticism (Rueckert) which traces writing and its relationship with the environment back to Shelley, Wordsworth, Clare and through to Whitman, Thoreau et al. Am now going to look at Plath's gender politicisation of nature through image t see if there is anything else there and Hughes's 'ecopoetics' - sounds good, let's see what Y12 make of it in Sept!!!

[Steph De Mel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a pithy, well-organised overview of the major schools of thought in literary criticism. It is easy to digest but feels neither trivialised nor patronising. My only complaint is that the artwork often takes up an unnecessarily large amount of space on the page without really adding any new information. I feel, consequently, that the interplay between text and graphics could be managed slightly more effectively. I will, however, definitely purchase and read more Graphic Guides in the near future; I have a long wish-list of books in this series already!

[Ramanqu · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's an easy and simple introduction. It does nothing greatly, just well done. The focus is shifted towards persons and names more than breaking the theories down for the beginner (the only ones who ought to read this book) which is more important. The language is simple, but not a masterpiece. The facts are basic and can be gathered from wikipedia. The drawings are a lovely touch in case children will start reading about literary criticism, but sometimes they're confusing and who said what. All in all, It's a simple introduction with no greater merits then any other book of the kind.

[Faisal Bashir · Rating 3 out of 5]

As the title of the book shows, it purports to be nothing more than an introduction. Perhaps I was bound to be disappointed because I expected a somewhat semi-serious dive into the literary history and brief analysis of some important works which has ended up defining how we view literary criticism. After finishing the book, it seems less of an introduction and more of a superficial and brief history of literary theories posited by the writers from the Greek period to the Post-Modernists.

[Riska Purnama · Rating 2 out of 5]

I expect with picture inside, as this is a graphic book, I will gain the understanding about literary criticism and it theories easily, but for me, the explanation about literary theories like feminism, marxism, and structuralism are not clear, especially for me who has very basic knowledge about literary criticism. And if you, as readers want clear and broad understanding about literary criticism, I think Charles E Bressler's Literary Criticism is better.

[Aseel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Since the title clearly says"introduction", one would think that such a book might offer various insights that would be effortlessly comprehended by anyone with no background information on literary criticism. Instead, this book complexly delves into the topic. Reading this 'introduction' requires lots of prior knowledge, which makes the process of learning something new demanding & almost illusory.

[Owen M. McKinney · Rating 3 out of 5]

Too Little and Too Much

There is too little from each author to grasp a real picture of what they are saying, especially if they got into several different categories. On the other hand there are way too many authors to get a real grasp of how they compare or differentiate. Unfortunately, this criticism can be said of this genre of books.

[Sir Ehssan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This a the kind of book which demands a reread.

Too much side information is present, which only causes distraction rather than being helpful.

Despite the fact that I have zero information about this subject, I learnt less than I thought.

The only positive side I can tell: this book follows a person or ism approach.

[Frau Zerstreuung · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book gave me really rich overview about literary criticism with new insights - e.g., about postcolonial studies and orientalismin - and inspiration for further reading. It's a good starting point if you interested in this topic or you just started studying it.

[Ryan O'Laughlin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good illusrtations, but not educational.

This book is a well-illustrated overview of the subject, but it only covers the surface definitions. Worth checking out, but only a starting point in the subject. Great art, though!

[Sophia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Useful overview of literary criticism. Simple and to-the-point.

[Dan Kamenov · Rating 3 out of 5]

'Twas OK.

[Maral · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5.I am planning on reading loads of literary criticism in October,so this was very helpful towards that

[Andrew Noselli · Rating 3 out of 5]

The reading of this e-book coincided eerily with my purchase of "The Meaning of Meaning" by I.A. Richards.

[PRJ Greenwell · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent little guide that introduces this knotty subject - a subject where few can agree on anything. Consider it a primer to more in-depth works that are out there.

[Ember · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good for my LIT class

[G · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good survey of literary criticism for a novice. Easy to grasp & covers a lot of categories.

[Poetic Diva504 · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book because it broke down the different types of literary criticism and the whole idea of subjectivity vs objectivity. As a person who criticizes literature and writes books that get harshly criticized, I wanted to understand from both sides. Nothing anyone says is personal, nor does the author have to accept pushback. But writers stay stagnant if they don’t allow others to pick their works apart and analyze every element come their own perspective.

[Moez Lamti · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although it succeeds in doing what it claims to do, i.e. introduce students of literature to literary criticism through some broad generalizations about writing and literariness, this little book fails in the approach it takes to do so. First, there is the "graphic" aspect of the guide, which I personally found terrible. The caricatures were awful, out of context and usually carried little significance towards the task of explaining key concepts or figures. There is also the clear bias near the end of the book towards the politics of gender and sexuality -metanarratives (at least for me) which take up valuable space although they are not unanimously accepted as relevant today. Take Feminism for example: unless you really believe there is an essential difference between male and female (or feminine) writing, there seems to be no appeal left for feminist criticism other than the faintly glowing revolutionary zeal associated with the events of 1968. What's good about the book, though, is the anxiety it expresses towards the need to establish respectability for literary criticism in a world that values utility more than meaning/pleasure. These are necessarily relevant concerns if you want to major in literature given that specialization in literary criticism as an academic discipline does not look particularly promising in a context where empirical and scientific objectivity are definitely prioritized. So we are back to square zero; what is literature and what good it may bring to humanity? It's an old fight and a major locus of contention about a field of study that has been trying to refashion itself away from vague thought and naive impressionistic interpretation. Because the book brings in questions like these (disciplinarity, specialization, social value, claim to scientific objectivity) that it becomes interesting. This functions a bit like the political unconscious of the text, manifesting itself in the most unlikely of contexts: a "short introduction to literary criticism".