http://www.assumption.edu/users/ady/HHGateway/Gateway/Marxistlitcrit.html
Provides a pretty good outline as to what marxism is all about in terms of literary theory/criticism.
The idea that I find most troubling is that Marxists try to see what is not there. I'm starting to understand what Laz was telling us in class though. If you try to look from the outside in, you'll just get confused. :P
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
THANK YOU! I tried reading about Marxism in a book on literary theory and I could not make heads or tails of what the author was saying. Now at least I get the gist of it.
I can't really see Marxist criticism applying to Lear because it deals mostly with the oppression of the lower class by the upper class. In this play, there isn't really a struggle across different economic levels. And since according to Marxists, political power flows from economic power, this theory doesn't really work. The upheaval of political power does not stem from any group wresting economic power from another.
Albert, I must agree. If textual support is so crucial to making one's criticism of a work of literature valid, how can Marxism be a valid form of literary criticism since Marxists are trying to see what is not there?
I may be going on a limb here, but I'm going to try to apply Marxism to King Lear?
The website Albert gave us (thanks!) said that the base all structure was economic power. From economic power comes politics, law, etc. King Lear is a struggle for power. I think Marxists would have beleived that the root of that struggle was economic gain.
I think a valid argument could be made about the economic gains in King Lear. Regan and Gonreil both gain 1/3 of a kingdom from their father. 1/3 of a kingdom which may provide them with immense wealth. 1/3 which would be under their control, meaning that the wealth moves more directly towards them.
One interesting point about this play is that we never find out how Gonreil and Regan plan to run the country once they take over. We only see the father and war-related aspects of their rule. Marxists would argue that Gonreil and Regan would use the land to make themselves wealthy. Economic gain.
I agree that it isn't necessarily a struggle across different economic levels in the broader sense. However, control of wealth, and who has it, can somewhat create divided economic levels as well.
That's just my take. Comments?
Post a Comment