From Plato to Post-modernism: Understanding the Essence of Literature and the Role of the Author

by Louis A. Markos

The Great Courses, Literature & English Language "From Plato to Post-Modernism" presented by the Teaching Company.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Audiobook, Literature, Literary Criticism, Poetry, History

194 pages, Audio CD

First published January 1, 1999

About the author

Dr. Markos earned his B.A. in English and History from Colgate University and his M.A. and Ph.D. in English from the University of Michigan. At the University of Michigan, he specialized in British Romantic Poetry, Literary Theory, and the Classics.

He has taught at Houston Baptist University since 1991, where he is Professor in English and holds the Robert H. Ray Chair in Humanities.

Reviews

[Alyssa Macpherson]

The first half of the course is very interesting, but the latter half was increasingly slanted by the lecturers evangelical religious beliefs. I simply stopped listening when the course reached Modernism and he referred to evolution as a myth. The rest of it may have been good but I can no longer be certain as that comment calls his capacity as an academic into question.

[March]

I don't know on earth why The Teaching Company turned over its only course on literary theory to a proselytizing Christian fundamentalist whose evaluations of various methods of criticism avowedly proceed from his religious convictions. He obsessively returns to theology and lit crit struggles not to be upstaged. As others say, on postmodernism and poststructuralist theory he is incredibly weak. He is pretty good at explaining Saussure as well as logocentrism, but weak on Foucault and glib on De Man, and his presentation of feminist theory is egregiously biased and superficial. He continually mispronounces names and terms. "Meekel" Foucault?? Saussure's langue rhyming with "bang"? He also calls Jerome Kern's "Ol' Man River" an old Negro spiritual (!). Describing evolution as an unprovable myth, in Lecture 21, is definitely the course low point.

[Stefan Gugler]

Was a bit hard to rate. I think Markos was a great speaker and seems quite competent on most topics. But as others have mentioned, it was at times hard when he indulged too much in his evangelical ideas. I can just roll my eyes when he discredits rap music or heavy metal as bad or childish and that's that. But 1) for the examples throughout the course, I think it would have been a bit more instructive to use also different, non-biblical examples. In a way it's nice to get good (and in my view fairly objective) examples from the Bible who also were big inspirations for the authors we talked about but it was just really a lot. 2) towards the end he sort of undermined his own competence by being very shoddy on postmodern theory. For my taste and give how it's supposed to be a comprehensive study guide, it wasn't enough. But not only that, it really felt that he didn't have a great grasp on it. Or rather: he does have it but his biases shone through a lot. He spent like 5 min on feminist readings and only mentioned post-colonial studies or critical race theory. He was very dismissive and ridiculing Paul De Man and Stanley Fish, commenting all the time with his personal opinion. "How can Fish have a Chair in law, you know, it's crazy these days", or "let me make another anti-PC example, haha, like you know, they really hate that men are from mars, they are really nuts". And it's not just the condescension but also theory-wise, there is like no straightforward reconciliation of Marx's dialectical materialism (stuff is set in stone) and Derridean deconstruction (nothing is set in stone). But the likening of these two felt just an inch away from being reactionary.

But yeah, with this big caveat and the feeling that he's pretty sincere and competent about the rest (which aligns with his religion), I think it was very informative and worthwhile for me.

[Kris]

This was a very fun series to go through, especially as someone who had barely any understanding of the story of philosophy, as well as someone with an interest in art. Markos is an engaging and passionate lecturer , and while his admittedly Christian personal viewpoint occasionally seeps in and results in some eye-roll-inducing comments, for the most part he does a good job of acknowledging his bias the few times it does crop up, and almost all of those occasions he brings it up to illustrate a point that enhances understanding.

While the lectures are all intriguing themselves, getting to modernism and post-modernism after the thorough history of philosophical movements he presents was an eye-opening experience and definitely the highlight of this series, well worth the payoff.

[Tommy Kraemer]

Another insightful lecture series from Louis Markos. The breadth and clarity of his project was impressive. Anyone interested in the development literary theory should definitely check this resource out.

[Lori Tian Sailiata]

Exceeded my expectations in a big way. Very well done. That said, don't look for anything beyond the standard Euro-centric male. Very disappointed in the dismissal of Feminist Theory. Not even a nod to Post-Colonial. But incredibly excellent on the canonical thinkers.

[Yevgeniy Brikman]

The actual topic of defending poetry is not terribly exciting, but it is fascinating to hear the thoughts and ideas of philosophers from all centuries.

[Uxküll]

Expansive and well-articulated lectures.

[Sarah]

I don’t feel like I learned anything.

[Jim Razinha]

I usually learn quite a bit from Teaching Company Great Courses, sometimes outside the focus of the course. I wanted to know more about literary theory… literary criticism. I don’t understand/get “meaning” in poetry for sure, and prose nearly as much, so I try to expand my palette (and maybe date my palate). I should read the fine print better next time. I did not realize that this course was about literary criticism as applied to poetry. My bad. I don’t have much use for poetry; less for post modernism. Still, I sailored on (I paraphrase the idiom because I was in the Navy). What I didn’t expect even more was a plethora of biblical christian preaching as illustrative examples. One of the things I observed when learning about existentialists was as that almost to a tee they were/are western. And their philosophies, such as they are, were informed by and biased by their contemporary christian dogmas. The biases serve to undermine credibility, of course. Dr. Markos loses credibility increasingly as this lecture series progresses. Oh, I don’t doubt he knows his stuff - he rails on about modern and post modern jargon but has no shortage of it himself, so there’s that. No, when he casually refers to “old negro spirituals”, there’s a tell. Dismissing MTV’s heavy metal and rap (this was before the M stopped being about music) - of course when they listen to that stuff all day it’s no wonder their brains rot … to paraphrase. Condescending of feminism and “politically correct” … pretty sure I can guess who he voted for. And when he said that evolution is a myth???! At least he said his creation stairs was also a myth.

If you want to learn more about postmodernism, check out Alan Sokal’s Intellectual Impostures. Be warned that Sokal pranked a postmodern journal with his “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”, a “paper” full of nonsense jargon … with references! … that the journal published without peer review.

And if I want to learn more about literary criticism/theory, I’ll keep working.

[Constantia Munda]

Probably my favorite GC course!!!! Main Points -

1 – Poetry imitates imitation – Plato. 2 – Plato dialectic questions formally.
2a – A poet is in rhapsody / insanely possesses.

3 - Aristotle hard to read, compared to Plato’s good metaphors.
3a – Aristole argues PLOT is most important, but post-modernists will say CHARACTERS are most important. 3b – A good man getting bad luck with a REVERSAL ending!.

4 – The sublime transports time and space.
4a – Sublimity is the sign of a great soul, and the combination of art and genius is necessary for subliminal work – Longinus.
4b - Longinus. - Stat away from rustic toil and Being “alone” is normal.

5 – Kant – Art is not universal.

6 – The Idea is symbolic/ architecture, then classical architecture, then Romantic poetry.

7 – Coleridge – willing suspension of disbelief.
7a – the poet / philosopher who dissolves, dissipates, diffuses, in order to recreate.

8 – William Blake. 9 – Keats's “Negative Capability.” It enables to write as others.

11 – Criticism is a positive and noble task. 12 – Nietzsche – Man creates his own truth.

13 – Barthes – The author is born with the text. 13a – Unity of text is with the READER, and not the author.

[Aaron Michael]

Does poetry draw us closer to or further away from the truth?

1. Thinking Theoretically
2. Plato—Kicking out the Poets
3. Aristotle's Poetics—Mimesis and Plot
4. Aristotle's Poetics—Character and Catharsis
5. Horace's Ars Poetica
6. Longinus on the Sublime
7. Sidney's "Apology for Poetry"
8. Dryden, Pope, and Decorum
9. Burke on the Sublime and Beautiful
10. Kant's Critique of Judgment
11. Schiller on Aesthetics
12. Hegel and the Journey of the Idea
13. Wordsworth, Coleridge, and British Romanticism
14. Mr. Wordsworth's "Preface"
15. Coleridge—Transcendental Philosopher
16. Shelley's Defense of Poetry
17. The Function of Criticism—Matthew Arnold and T.S. Eliot
18. The Status of Poetry—I.A. Richards and John Crowe Ransom
19. Heresies and Fallacies—W.K. Wimsatt and Cleanth Brooks
20. Archetypal Theory—Saint Paul to Northrop Frye
21. Origins of Modernism
22. Structuralism—Ferdinand de Saussure to Michel Foucault
23. Jacques Derrida on Deconstruction
24. Varieties of Post-modernism

[Saurabh]

Excellent content and delivery. It spans the entire history of literary theory in a very approachable fashion. Especially loved the lectures on Kant's Critique of Judgement and Derrida's Deconstruction. I do have some issues with the narrator's sensibilities, hence the 4 star.

[Michelle Halliwell]

Interesting. I learned a lot about the theories as to how writers enrich societies. This book can give you a good overview of the factors that influence classical studies as well as literary sensibilities.

[sch]

Lots of material here, suitable for English majors. Author sounds like a nice guy.

[Jesse Rhines]

Really good review but the narrator really downed rap and metal music as art that could not reveal the listener as having good taste. He does admit his conservatism as an evangelical Christian.

[Nick Dorogavtsev]

If you can filter out religious bias of the lecturer, this course is pretty good.

[Brad]

This would probably more aptly be titled something like 'Aesthetics, Poetics, and Philosophy of Art'.

Regardless....this was very fun, and I really enjoy Louis Markos.

[Antipoet]

At some point (around 1900) the lecturer becomes completely incapable of controlling his bias. A more accurate title would be "american Protestant view of litcrit."

[Peter Tind]

It begins so well, but as many other reviews have stated the author's personal views filters in the second half (religion, youth and MTV etc.), which took away much of the experience.

[Todd Decker]

I originally gave a 4 star rating but have since upgraded to a full 5 since I feel compelled to keep re-listening to get more out of it. The course is excellent and I only withheld the last star because I think there are too few lectures on structuralism, post-structuralism, and other schools of theory like neocolonialism, feminism, and queer theory. That being said, the lectures on classical theory from Plato up to the early Twentieth century with objective criticism and new criticism are excellent and replete with information. This makes re-listening very fruitful and stimulating.

[Hurinfan]

The other reviewers put it well. I learned a lot and this guy clearly knows what he's talking about but I could not disagree with him more when he gets preachy and on his soapbox, talking about feminism, modernism, post-modernism or even just 'kids these days' and their rap music etc. etc. etc.
I gave it 3 stars because I learned a lot if not for just exactly why I disagree with this guy.

Also he brings up nothing from eastern philosophy one bit.