Post-Structuralism Destructs

According to Derrida as I understand him (which admittedly may be little) and our conclusions in class on Monday, fairy tales do not exist except as something that people (writers, readers, critics etc…) created. I asked Professor Chapman” what then do those critics and writers who study / write fairy tales do if their subject matter doesn’t exist? He answered, “I think Derrida would say they are doing the best they can with metaphysical concepts.” If I may take that previous question a little farther if fairy tales don’t exist because “the center is not the center”—who’s to say that “romance” exists? Or “drama?” Or any other genre / aspect of literature? Post-structuralism seems a little disconcerting in my view. How can deconstructionism hold itself up if it is arguing that everything unravels itself?

Emily F.

Decisions, decisions

A subject that keeps coming up, but we never really discuss is how sometimes literary theories come into conflict with each other. Individually, the theories all make sense, but when viewed together, some things just don't work. How do we reconcile these differences? Should we make some sort of hierarchy of theory? Should we view each theory in a vacuum?

History and literature

I'm not sure how many people came to the keynote speaker at the Muse conference this weekend, but I think I saw a few people from our class there. To briefly summarize the talk, the speaker read a paper on domesticity as it was related to the Merry Wives of Windsor. She studied this topic by researching recipe books of the era. Toward the end of her speech she began to talk about her work as New Historicism writing. She talked about the differences of opinion throughout history and said that there were just as many debates and differences of opinion as there are today. After events or eras pass by, people try to consolidate and make sense of what happened. They try to find answers and come to coherent ideas because they have the benefit of hindsight. In this way, can we understand history better than present day? Or since we are living today, in the now, do we understand better what is going on because we are living it? History, in these ways, seems related to literature. All literature is creating some sort of history of its own, a fictional history. To add to the complexity, many texts are influenced by actual history as related to the events of that time and the personal history of the author. Does that make literature more complex than just 'history'?