Talk:Literary theory

message: Okay? The parenthetic remark doesn't make any sense to me. "...the terms 'literary theory' and 'Continental philosophy' are mistakenly used interchangeably..." I've never heard of this either and would like some substantial evidence of its existence before the continuity of the claim as is. Even the one promoting the statement writes that "Five minutes of Googling turns up some published remarks on the point from scholarly journals, appended below..." then three remarks are quoted which fail to provide any example of literary criticism and continental philosophy mistakenly used interchangeably.
Here are bits of the professed evidence:
1. "Literary theory has become increasingly and self-consciously philosophical. The philosophical content, however, has tended to be biased toward certain forms of Continental philosophy at the expense of analytic philosophy."
How does this come close to reinforcing the erroneous claim that literary theory and continental philosophy are ever used interchangeably? An erroneous claim is still just as erroneous even within parentheses!
2. "The continental mode of philosophical discourse is predominant in Europe and increasingly prevalent in literary studies in the Anglo-American sphere."
Certainly there's truth to this statement, but saying that this statement means "...the terms 'literary theory' and 'Continental philosophy' are mistakenly used interchangeably..." that is far from truthful.
3. "Could one say that a division in philosophy—akin if not precisely identical to the old one between 'Anglo-American' and 'Continental'—has been effected by the selective interdisciplinarity practiced in literary theory? A zone of contact exists, to be sure, between literary theory and a set of writers from Lévinas to Badiou. There is, however, seldom any contact between literary theorists and Rawls's critics, or with the work of Charles Taylor or Will Kymlicka."
This excerpt, due to the amazing powers of the Google search-engine, merely has the word Continental and literary theory in it. It doesn't have anything to do with furthering the parenthesized claim at all, seriously. Read it. It's discussing the origins of a rift in philosophy being caused by the interdisciplinary nature of literary theory.
None of these citations have provided adequate reason for the statement to continue as is!
There needs to be further explanation for the parenthetical statement. Its presence is a complete mystery to me. If a significant reason can't be provided, I recommend the deletion of this empty statement that reads more like an opinion gone faulty.
66.63.67.133 10:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On Confusion Over Parenthetical Statement

message: I'm not familiar with New_Weird as a literary theory.  Its page describes it as a literary movement, which in and of itself wouldn't warrant inclusion here.  It seems to be more of an aesthetic preference by authors of literature than a theory used for interpretation of literature by critics.  thither 04:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New weird? 

message: The article lists these separately, but they are synonymous. New Critics (the title is ironic now, but emerged as a response to Historical criticism) focus on the formal aspects of a text. I believe Formalism is more apt name to this approach, and should include some mention of New Criticism as a historical note. Pscisco 16:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Criticism & Formalism 

message: Does anyone notice how in this list all the schools are written about in a present tense, except for both structuralism and semiotics? They are each written about in a past tense, which implies they are a thing of the past. But there are still prominent semioticians, such as Umberto Eco, so I have changed “examined” to “examine” to remove this connotation. I think that this gives a more accurate portrayal of semiotics, at least, and structuralism, at best. --Le vin blanc (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense 

message: He passed away well before. And wouldn't occur to me as representative anyway. Monique Wittig, hmm?
Also, I'm missing Neo Marxism (Marcuse, Althusser; dominant ideology etc) as a distinct school from original/old/pre-Stalin/pre-high-modernism Marxism, and I'd prefer Adorno (Horkheimer, et al) under "Critical Theory" (or "Frankfurt School", at least!?), not Marxsim. So they were Marxists, so what, who wasn't? -- their writing deviates enough (completely?) to merit...
Anyone?
--
Zin (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foucault in QT? WTF? 

message: Anyone? 90.205.92.52 (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: to paraphrase the hitchhikers guide: mostly wank.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Theory is total wank? 

message: Text (literary theory) is a stub article with very poor information. maybe it needs to be merged?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: related stub article

message: I've posted a question on how to organize :Category:Literary critics over at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Literature#Question re: Category:Literary critics. Please chime in. Thanks! Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question re: Category:Literary critics 

message: Was looking at the Yale Course on Literary Theory that includes philosophers like Derrida, Lacan, etc. And was trying to figure out what the hell literary theory is in relation to philosophy. This article doesn't really do a good job at explaining it besides giving a list of the different schools of thought. If the article gave more central drive describing the history of the movement (instead of just as a 'fad'), instead of just listing groups that were critical of the movement (maybe dividing it up so that groups like Lacan, Derrida, Deconstructionism, Feminist Literary Criticism etc. were given more emphasis) to improve readability and more describing the movement of Literary Theory in the 20th and 21st century. I'll maybe give this article more focus later, but I see potential for the article, but if someone more knowledgeable in the topic could help, it'd be much appreciated. Shaded0 (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Literary Theory and Academic History of it 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Literary theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010903182420/http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/gutenberg/etext99/poetc10.txt to http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/gutenberg/etext99/poetc10.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516000249/http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/defence.html to http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/defence.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified