Literature and place relationship questions

What is the relationship betweem literature and place? by kristen abbott on Prezi

literature and place relationship questions

As this list should indicate, the literature of place bears some relation to what once was . We can't answer these questions because we've read the signs, seen. other connection and that is the relationship between science and literature, Robin Gilmour points out that “the issues of science, the questions it asks, and . ment to the Darwinian worldview which took place in the nineteenth century. It. Thus, when this relationship takes place the gaps disappear” (, p. (), Dante Moreira Leite seeks to present some questions about literary works for which.

Literary men have the habit of rushing into the periphery of politics, and they contribute to political struggles--not knowledge, not practical experience, not theoretical analyses, but rhetoric. Rhetoric is the one commodity in politics of which there has never been a scarcity. My subject, however, is not the political conduct of literary men in politics. I do not criticize this per se.

I merely suggest that the requisites of all responsible action, in any endeavor, are that one be serious and that one accept the obligations and duties which that endeavor imposes on one. My concern here is with the efforts to politicalize literature. The end result of the politicalization of literature is an official or state literature. The extreme example of a state or official literature in our times is that of the totalitarian countries.

literature and place relationship questions

It need not be commented upon in this article. We know what it is and what it leads to and how it destroys literature in the most brutal and ruthless fashion. It is possible to silence writers by force; a state power can put writers in jail and treat them as common criminals; it can prevent their books from being published; it can execute them.

However, it cannot make them, either by open force or by prizes, praise, awards, and academic and institutional honors, write good books. Modern authoritarian rulers are not the first ones who have been taught this elementary lesson. Often literary men fail to learn it. During the period of the Second Empire, even the great critic Sainte-Beuve was ready to play along with the idea of an official literature. The attempt to create an official literature in that period failed.

The two greatest French writers of the times, Flaubert and Baudelaire both of them friends of Sainte-Beuvewere haled into court on censorship charges. The poetry of Baudelaire was suppressed. Today we read Flaubert and Baudelaire and not the official writers of Louis Bonaparte.

Napoleon Bonaparte still remains as the greatest of modern dictators. Himself a fine writer and a man who developed literary taste through the course of his lifetime, he tried to impose an official art and literature on France when he was its ruler.

In the year he wrote to Fouche: I read in a paper that a tragedy on Henry IV is to he played.

literature and place relationship questions

The epoch is recent enough to excite political passions. The theater must dip more into antiquity. Why not commission Raynouard to write a tragedy on the transition from primitive to less primitive man? A tyrant would he followed by the savior of his country. The oratorio "Saul" is on precisely that text--a great man succeeding a degenerate king. In the same year he wrote: A year after he said this he found that his official opera only degraded literature and the art, and he demanded that something be done to halt the degradation which was caused by his own official policies and his control of the opera.

The writer was told to behave, and generally he obeyed orders. The chief of police and the ministers of the cabinet gave him instructions on what to write, and they honored him for obeying instructions.

Psychology of Literature and Literature in Psychology

And Napoleon himself was forced--after all he was a man of taste--to show contempt for his own official litterateurs. In exile at Saint Helena, he did not read them. He did not speak of them. He remembered Racine, and he remembered Homer, but he remembered no literature that could distinguish his own period of rule.

And neither do we today. Is more eloquent demonstration of the failure of this attitude toward literature needed? What is Greatness in Literature? It is a truism to state that the test of a work of literature is not to be found in its formal ideology. The most cursory examination of a few great works of literature will prove the validity of this truism. Many of us recognize Tolstoy as a great writer, a genius, and a thinker of the first order. Do we do this because of the formal attitudes--the ideology--in his major works?

In Anna Karenina the character Levin develops, during the course of his novel, that conception of political non-resistance which became part of the gospel of Tolstoyism.

Levin found reasons for refusing to take an interest in public affairs, and these reasons were Tolstoys' own for formulating this doctrine. Because we disagree with Tolstoy's views, represented in his characterization of Levin, will we therefore deny the greatness of Anna Karenina? In War and Peace Tolstoy presents a view of history which succeeds in atomizing history to the degree that it is impossible to distinguish between influences that are essential and of weight in the influencing of events and those which are incidental or secondary.

According to this conception of history, every single human being in a period influences the history of that period: History is the result of all the actions and all the thoughts of every single human being.

In a sense, this is correct. The history of man is everything that happens to man. But can we seek to explain and to understand man if we apply this conception concretely? If we do, we have no means of truly evaluating what factors are essential and important in a given historic study and what ones are non-essential. Dismissing this theory, of history, which is imbedded into the very warp and woof of War and Peace and which is also presented in the novel in essay form, do we therefore destroy the value of this work?

Balzac was anti-democratic, and his formal attitudes were those of the restoration which followed the fall of Napoleon. The formal view of Theodore Dreiser concerning man in the universe is an undigested hodge-podge of crude materialism and misunderstood science.

Are his books, consequently, to be dismissed? Examples to demonstrate this point are endless. If we literally adopt such a view of literature, we thereby exclude ourselves from an appreciation of many of the greatest works of the past. We cannot then appreciate the literature and the art which precedes democracy, because it is not democratic. If we are socialists, we cannot appreciate the great literature of the modern age.

If we demand that literature in a direct, obvious and mechanical fashion reflect the major struggles of the period from which it springs or with which it deals, what are we to say of such a novel as Wuthering Heights? This novel--in my opinion one of the greatest of all English novels--describes characters who lived during the period when Bonaparte was at the height of his power.

Withal, it has nothing to say of the danger of old "Bony" invading England. Is it therefore invalidated as a novel? Literature is one of the arts which re-creates the consciousness and the conscience of a period.

It tells us what has happened to man, what could have happened to him, what man has imagined might happen to him. It presents to us the environments, the patterns of destiny, the joys and the sorrows, the tribulations, the dreams, the fantasies, the aspirations, the cruelties, the shames, the dreams of men and women.

Life is full of mysteries, and one of the major mysteries of life is man himself. Literature probes into that mystery. Just as science permits man to understand nature, literature permits man to understand himself.

Just as science makes the forces of nature human in the sense that it permits the construction of instruments which can control these forces, so does literature aid in making man human to himself.

Literature, by its very nature, cannot, in and of itself, solve social and political problems. Any solution to a social and or a political problem in a work of literature is a purely mental solution.

These problems are problems of action. Every problem delimits the kind of means which can, and those which cannot, be of use in its solution. This statement applies in logic, in mathematics, in the physical sciences, in the solution of social and political problems and in the problems which any artist must face in his own work. It is as absurd to assume that you an solve political and social problems with a poem as it is to call in a painter and ask him to save from death a man stricken with appendicitis by painting a picture.

This argument was taken up again by Descartespp. With the European romanticism, which attributed to imagination the status of a subjective alternative in order to achieve less pragmatic forms of knowledge, and with the questions raised by Kant, which admitted imagination as the synthesis of human perceptions to which the images that represent them are proposed, a new theory of imagination was established, whereby imagination was proposed as a privileged pathway towards subjective knowledge at the expense of pragmatic knowledge.

Within this context, Coleridge, one of the creators of romanticism in England, by admitting that the full vitality of the senses can be experienced only through imagination, elevated the latter to the creative power of God.

This opinion was shared by the German philosopher Schlegel, who understood imagination as the ability to associate images at the consciousness level, in contrast to fantasy, which appears to operate with images arising from the frontier with the unconscious. The 20th century, however, revealed a greater interest in the product originating from the creative imagination, highly approximated to personal experience, than in its theorization. According to the German psychologist Rudolf Arnheimit is the task of creative imagination to enable man to translate the physical appearance of objects into appropriate forms for given contexts, this being due to the psychological reason that, in the human perception and thinking, the similarity is not based on a meticulous identity, but rather on the correspondence of essential structural characteristics.

However, according to the author, something new is only valid up to the point it serves to interpret a universal topic of human experience. Using works of art as examples of what can be perceived by man through his vision, the behaviorist Arnheim conceived that, since it is dynamic and not static, an image does not represent arrangements but rather interactions of its own tensions, leading to the reasoning that it is not the eye that constructs the interaction of objects in a visual field, but rather that it is the dynamics of shapes that determines how this visual field is perceived.

On this basis, defining a work of art as an expressive form created for our perception through the senses or the imagination expressing human feeling, as done by Susan Langeris highly acceptable on the horizon of literary studies. Regarding the creative process in the literature, Wellek and Warren proposes that modern studies may be closer to the relative role played by the conscious and the unconscious, since a writer is a specialist in the association ingenuitydissociation judgment and recombination creating a new whole from elements experienced separately of words, which he considers to be valuable symbols of themselves or in terms of what they represent.

Nevertheless, psychology can also study the various methods of composition, correction and rewriting practiced by writers.

The usefulness of this? To discover gaps that will permit the writer to probe what occurs in his laboratory of artistic production and to inhibit inconsistencies and distortions in the work of art he intends to create, although always being aware of the fact that, even though these are practices of creation, they do not belong to a work of art, but rather to its elaboration.

It is definitely possible to state that fictional characters appear to be psychologically true, especially in cases in which the author has sought in psychology the figures and interpersonal relations he has used in his work of art. But these characteristics overlap so constantly that the complex situations in which they are involved and on which they act deserve more acute observations than the possibility of fitting them into a specific social type.

An example of this is represented by works constructed using the stream of consciousness technique.

In these works, a faithful reproduction of the mental processes presented is less relevant han the possibility of dramatization offered by the technique used.

In other words, it is not the psychological truth, regardless of the emphasis on the notion of the reality of creation, that will give artistic value to a work of art, but rather the way this truth was manipulated to underscore coherence and complexity so that something really new is obtained. In literary studies, the type is investigated as one of the possibilities of a character to be created. A common practice in historical novels, the presence of the type, according to Kaufmanis justified by the necessity of the extistence of representatives of a given milieu or social class in whose fictional destinies are reflected important trends and historical changes.

Reading: Literature — How-to Part 1 - Reading & Writing - SAT - Khan Academy

By representing society or a specific social group, their literary construction becomes possible, among other aspects, thanks to the attention placed by the author on the meaning of his words and to the practice of orality established by this attention between locutors and interlocutors in the plot of the text, which guarantees the important linguistic and imaging representation for the insertion of the characters in the universe of a determined epoch.

As plane characters, their role is tied to a specific situation or to a generalized conduct, a characteristic that also distances them from caricature, which involves a unique quality or idea taken to the extreme, so that such distortion purposefully evokes a satire.

Thus, identified by their profession, behavior and social class i. The Study of Laws. It is certainly possible to use psychology to clarify the interpretation and valuation of literary works, and it is also possible to proceed in the same manner regarding sociology, philosophy, history and other disciplines which, supported by their theoretical constructs, can help the reader to understand the fundamental concepts that may have been used to elaborate a literary plot.

It is by attracting a language that is appropriate for the production of meaning that a literary work, as it exercises the principle of synthesis, provides a communicable language and becomes able to be mimetic. However, Wellek and Warren alerts to the danger of directing one's investigative interests at drafts, rejected versions, exclusions and other original cuts made by the authors: Specifically used to deal with what one or more criteria cause something to be considered literature, the term literality, defined as a fictitious discourse or the imitation of daily language acts and in relation to certain properties of language Culler,has theoretically and methodologically relevant aspects of the literary object.

By representing reality or by self-representation, a literary work may show realistic intentions, with a character being dentified as a social individual; conventional semantic intentions with the text acting as a mediator of the instances that occur in the narrative; simulation intentions, in which what can be said or not said is always indirect; and social symbolization intentions, with the narrative involving a consideration of the manner how society symbolizes itself. This presentation of fundaments for a theory of artistic production, however, deserves a specific discussion, such as that performed by Bordieuwhich is beyond the purposes of the present study.

The Study of the Effects of Literature on the Readers. Since the traditional interpretation intended to elucidate hidden meanings, Iser wanted to see the meaning as the result of an interaction between text and reader, as an effect that is felt by the reader and not as a message that must be found in the text.

This active complementation by the reader causes him to wonder at any instant whether the formulation of the meaning he is performing is adequate for the reading he is carrying out.

And it is by means of this condition that the interaction of the text with the reader occurs, something quite different from reading the text looking for a hidden message or based on a unique interpretation. Roman Ingarden provided a useful explanation for this investigation, stating that the aesthetic object is constructed only through the act of cognition by the reader.

By adopting this precept of Ingarden, Iser exchanges the focus of the text as an object with the text in potential, born from the results of the act of reading. In order to examine the interaction between the text and the reader, Iser looks for those qualities of the text that render it legible, deserving to be read, or that influence our reading, as well as the charactistics of the reading process that are essential for the comprehension of the text.

This resides in the structure of the act and in the textual structure. Later, with a more in-depth dependence on the terminology of Ingarden, he differentiates text, concretization of the text and work of art.

The first differentiator beween the text and a work of art is the artistic aspect, which is located here by the author for us to read, and which must be better conceived as a potential expected achievement. The concretization of the text, in contrast, refers to the product of our own productive activity; it is the realization of the text in the thinking of the reader, achieved by filling out the blanks or openings in order to eliminate what is indeterminate.

Finally, a work of art is not a text or a concretization, but is something between them. It occurs at the point of convergence between the text and the reader, a point that is never fully defined. A work of art is characterized by its virtual nature and consists of various overlapping procedures. One of them involves the dialectic of protention and retention, two terms borrowed from the phenomenologic theory of Husserl Protention is understood as the state of expectation that prepares the reproduction of a memory i.

It is through ptotention and retention that the texts duplicate, moving from the original texts to new works in the presente.

Iser applies them to our activity of reading successive sentences. When facing a text, we constantly project expectations that can be satisfied or disappointed; at the same time our reading is conditioned by the renunciation of sentences and concretizations.

Because our reading is determined by this dialectic, the basic activity of the reader, according to Iser, resides in the constitution of the meaning stimulated by the text, with this meaning taking shape through the connection of the constitutive elements of the text and of its articulation and combinations responsible for its coherence and cohesion. According to Iser, it is by filling out the gaps and the blanks of a text that the reader will reach its meaning. The gaps and blanks should be understood as everything that was not said explicitly in the text but was only tacitly suggested.

This involvement with the text is seen as a type of tangle in which what is strange will be understood and assimilated. Iser's viewpoint is that the reader's activity is similar to an ongoing experience. The gaps also interrupt a good continuation i.

The reader must recur to his imaginative activity in order to establishe the meaningful coherence of the text. Constructed in this manner, the horizon of expectations of the reader undergoes additions of new reading expectations through the reader's interpretation of the text he is reading. However, if the reader refuses these interpretations of the text on the basis of the ideological positions he may hold, he will have difficulty in identifying what it has been agreed to call, in the Aesthetic of Reception, the implicit reader i.

The fictional repertory, the textual strategies, the variants of reading, the implcit reader and the gaps of the text are processes that complete the perspective of the text in itself and its reception by the reader, whose space is guaranteed in the studies of his critical successors.

There is no necessary relationship between literature and religion.

Literature and Ideology

Richard Neibuhr Neibuhr was a 20th Century Protestant theologian. Among his books was one titled Christ and Culture, in which he examined the common stances that Christians have taken on the relationship of their religion to culture and the product of culture, including art and literature. Though I leave Neibuhr's presentation in his own Christian religious metaphor, his presentation is generally true of the ways religious people everywhere have understood the relationship of religion and culture.

Rather, the Christ is most fully characterized by its relationship to us as mediator between us and God. The Christ is not the median, but the mediator. This is pretty standard Christian theology, here. We have no choice but the understand human culture from a human perspective, and from such a perspective, it has five primary characteristics: Culture is fundamentally social, a group heritage 2. Culture is a human achievement or construction, and thus not "natural.

Culture is designed for an end or ends; that is, we live in a world of values 4. We ourselves are the chief end and value of human culture; most people are pragmatic 5.

literature and place relationship questions

Human culture is always and inevitably pluralistic The historical relationship of Christ and Culture falls into these five patterns: This is the sometimes seen sectarian rejection of a mainstream culture as too spiritually polluted to be redeemable. An early impulse in Christian monasticism, seen also in ministers who some years ago made a splash burning rock and roll records.

Tolstoy tends to this position read What is Art? Here the Christ becomes the great hero of culture, the constant uncritical support of OUR group, whatever group that happens to be. I think here of Bible Bob, who visits my campus in the Spring with a sign that still reads in part "Reagan '84, Jesus Forevermore. In this position, the Christ is discontinuous with social and cultural life as well as continuous with it. Christ rises above and relativizes culture and the demands culture places upon us, but He It supports and sustains culture, as well.

This is the position of Thomas Aquinas. Christ and Culture in Paradox: In this fourth option, the authority of both Christ and culture are held to be legitimate, and also inevitably in opposition.