In Eichenbaum’s essay, he quotes Sklovsky’s Theory of Prose saying “The work of art arises from a background of other works and through association with them. The form of a work of art is defined by its relation to other works of art?” (937). How is this similar to Harold’ Blooms claim in The Anxiety of Influence that all poems are derivative of previous poems?
Eichenbaum quotes Shklovsky again claiming that “in each literary epoch there is not one literary school, but several. They exist simultaneously, with one of them representing the high point of the current orthodoxy. The others exist uncanonized. (948). How does this relate to the Marxist ideas of dominant and emergent culture? How is this related to Deleuze and Guattari’s conepts of minor literatures?
How does the shifting narrative voices in Frankenstein moderate the relationship between the reader and the text? Is Victor’s narrative fundamentally a different relationship with the reader than the narrative of the monster? Why is it framed by a narrative of the captain?
If a reader “puts into execution a different set of interpretive strategies” leading to a “different succession of interpretive acts” (1989), how can any reader agree on the interpretation of a reading?
A weekly conversation between 12 graduate students using Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" and its model of monstrous hybridity to explore the equally monstrous, equally hybrid field of literary theory. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
No comments:
Post a Comment