LITERARY THEORY GONE WRONG!!!

In this video, "When Literary Theory Goes Wrong," we explore how literary theories, while powerful tools for analyzing texts, can sometimes lead to misleading or problematic interpretations when misused. Whether you're studying structuralism, postmodernism, feminist theory, or deconstruction, understanding the potential pitfalls of these frameworks is essential. We dive into real-world examples of literary criticism gone wrong and discuss how misapplying critical approaches can distort the meaning of a text. This analysis will help students, scholars, and literature lovers better navigate the complexities of literary analysis and avoid common errors. Join us for a deep dive into the mistakes of literary theory and learn how to apply these tools more effectively.
Join my Patreon at:
patreon.com/us...

[@justonefyx]

I took a few New Testament courses in university from the same professor. The professor told me something that I have never forgotten and take with me to this day, and that is to truly understand the New Testament and the rest of the Bible, you have to read it from the point of view from the author writing it, the people he was writing for, and the time and place it was written. If you bring in your own modern baggage into the reading, you will never truly understand what the author was trying to say. I've taken this view into classical literature as well. It is so frustrating to so many literature professors injecting modern day identity politics into classical literature and how these Victorian writers we really writing about queer theory. Can you imagine one of these professors going back in time and meeting Emily Bronte and telling her the cane Heathcliff carries is a phallic symbol? She would probably spit on them.

[@jimlivengood3962]

Exactamundo.

[@allenatkins2263]

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

[@A4000]

But who is qualified to say with certainty what side of the -sometimes- the cigar is on?

[@tristanandtheclassics6538]

Quite right.

[@tristanandtheclassics6538]

😂😂😂

[@KarenSDR]

"The curtains were f-ing blue."

[@A4000]

A few cases of shaping the facts to fit the theory, instead shaping the theory to fit the facts.

[@tristanandtheclassics6538]

Beautifully put.

[@montanalilac]

Tristan, I wish so much you had been my high school English Lit teacher instead of the one who completely stifled any interest my shallow little adolescent mind might have had in literature in those days. So many years of reading time wasted to frippery and grocery store romance novels…. 😢😢 Now, in my 50s, I love reading classic literature and delving deeper and learning more. You are an inspiration and, as my husband jokingly grumbles, “an instigator into the danger of thinking.” 😂😂

[@yvonnehayton6753]

"... but not in Treasure Island." Tristan, you're so funny!

[@tristanandtheclassics6538]

🤭🤭🤭

[@joelharris4399]

Funny enough, Edward Said comes to my mind. Scholars have observed that his book "Orientalism" published in 1978 is a misrepresentation, even a distortion of the actual discipline of Oriental studies rooted in history, archaeology, and linguistics, among other things. They point to the short-sightedness of his geographic areas of discursive concerns, too confined to the Levant and not extending to actual, well-documented examples of cultural imperialism in countries like India. Or the fact that Said never bothered to point out, much less elaborate on the positive aspects of Orientalism in the academic literature. The word "Orientalist" in many respects has in fact become a crude term of dismissal, to de-legitimize alternative perspectives

[@caterinapipperi3543]

Very interesting indeed. You are completely right: sometimes our interpretation of books goes too far! This is of great help for us who aim to become better readers

[@tristanandtheclassics6538]

Glad you enjoyed it! It's true of all of us to take a novel Idea too far.

[@KarenSDR]

This was great! I'm reminded of what Tolkien said about the difference between allegory and applicability. Allegory is when an author deliberately means for you to undersrand a specific equivalence: CS Lewis meant for us to understand that Aslan was Jesus. Applicability is when the reader can apply something to their own experience, even if the author didn't intend it. Tolkien specifically said he didn't intend the Ring to represent the atom bomb. But thinking about the danger of misusing power is still a valuable insight, as long as you don't think LotR is an allegory for WWII. I think you highlight what turns so many intelligent kids off about literature classes. I'm also reminded of Monty Python's satire of art critics: "People like me, who talk loudly in restaurants...Where is the ambiguity? The ambiguity is in the box."

[@mtnshelby7059]

In small defense of all the literary lenses I experienced as an undergrad and graduate school, they have helped me in my career as an analyst, believe it or not! In my job I have to try to see through the lens of many different agencies.

[@bridgetsmith9352]

Thank you for explaining this. I have often read literary theory that I thought sounded very strange, but then immediately thought there was something wrong with me for not seeing the same thing. I'd like to see some good examples of literary theory, if you wouldn't mind doing a video about that.

[@acratone8300]

In college the instructor discussed a serious academic paper on the Freudian sexual motivations of characters revealed in a 1930's Disney cartoon. The professor was ridiculing the paper and the class all had a good laugh.

[@tristanandtheclassics6538]

It's funny how academics can be brilliant or totally without self awareness!😂

[@timothymontes2049]

Theory in the end has a tendency to be reductionist. Some critics even have the gumption to think that what they do is creative, not interpretation...

[@daviddandrea6491]

I'm so glad I'm at the point in my life where I can enjoy these great works as they were meant to be enjoyed, as great reads which enrich my time and life. I read them on my own schedule or leisure without pressure, no worries about discussion points, or writing essays or term papers and forcing them to be something they're really not as seen through some theoretical or philosophical framework. But if that floats your boat go for it!

[@joannemoore3976]

This was super and so clearly put - it's a lens not a crystal ball. I have read a Freudian analysis of Hamlet and spent most of the time rolling my eyes 😂. Tolkien, talking about his dislike of allegory drew the distinction with applicability, saying one lies in the intention of the author and the other in the freedom of the reader..i think the reverse is also true. If a piece of literature is good enough, we will be able to find applicability whether from our own experiences or through a particular critical lens. But that doesn't mean that's what the author intended. I know there is a modern tendency to discount authorial intention which is not a balanced approach: the magic happens in the space where the author and the reader meet.

[@noodleperson17]

The academic industry of PhDs etc thrives on people spending years analysing minutiae (angels on pinheads) to get plaudits from each other.

[@joannemoore3976]

As someone trying to do a part time PhD (in philosophy of all thing) I can vouch for this 😂

[@JumaYusuf-y2n]

I try to pit myself in the writer's time when I read classics. And I find it the only way to grasp the themes in them..

[@maryfilippou6667]

You really have explained it clearly. The theorists have sprung to light thanks your engaging, Honest video. You always delve into original facets and so awakening.

[@acratone8300]

I was surprised when I watched BBC Tenant of Wildfell Hall. I had never been taught that Anne Bronte was talented like her two sisters were. But I saw that she was and and would be worth reading. The number of all the Bronte sisters' novels is small and they are all very good.

[@tristanandtheclassics6538]

The brontes really are good.

[@yvonnehayton6753]

I remember reading an intro to "Wuthering Heights" where the writer described the symbolism of fires in the novel relating to sexual desire and it made me laugh!

[@A4000]

Fire and sex/passion/desire have a long history in literature, and the English language. Burning with desire, flames of passion, love burns long or burns quick and then burns out, at first there are sparks, rekindling is needed sometimes, sometimes there’s fire in their eyes, or in the loins. There are tons of references to fire, in all its states, for sex and love. I have not read the intro, and I do not doubt your conclusion ( mine would be similar, I think) but it’s not unheard of for authors to use fire for symbolism or as an analogy for sexual desire.

[@justonefyx]

In the Wordsworth edition, the intro talks about Heathcliff's cane being a phallic symbol and all the doors and windows he breaks through as being vaginas. I really wish there was a time machine so I could send these people back in time to Emily Bronte, and they can tell her about their interpretations, and then watch Emily spit on them.

[@debraparker971]

This is so timely for me. I guide a Shakespeare reading group and our next play is Titus Andronicus. I have several women in the class who want to explore the theme of sexual abuse as raised in Titus through the lens of current politics. After watching this video, I feel better suited to help guide the group from wandering too far afield (just in case that happens). BTW: I would love for you to do a video on Titus. If you did, I would plan to stream it in our class.

[@TimeTravelReads]

Sometimes I wish I could time travel historical figures here and talk to them. With Jane Austen, don't you wish you could send her anonymously to coffee shops, bookstores, university cafeterias, etc., and have her people watch? I'd also give her a book budget and have her watch BookTube. I wonder what she'd make of those experiences?

[@rgnotdead]

When Beckett was asked if Godot was God, he replied ''I prefer to let the text speak for itself.'' So take from that what you will.

[@prashantbhawalkar9267]

In my postgraduate years, during the 90s, I used to keep running into students who had read a great deal of literary theory concerning Shakespeare, but almost no actual works written by Shakespeare. This appeared to have been a trend then. They were more interested in Shakespeare as a product of Logocentrism or coloniality or something like that than his actual work.

[@karayates6029]

I love this video! I love deep thoughts and discussions, but most of the time I read for enjoyment.

[@ohrein]

As Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." 😂

[@margaretinsydney3856]

I once asked an academic friend of mine -- a university english teacher -- about what was going on with all these crazy throries. Her take was that straightforward interpretations of classics had been done to death, so queer theory, Marxist, and feminist takes gained some traction in the quest for advanced degrees. When you have to have something new to say, it can get silly.😊

[@Actaeon-l6d]

Yea it's the jumping the shark problem. In order to justify their position as a researcher on a topic that has already been squeezed dry a hundred times over they have to keep inventing ever increasingly bizarre interpretations. It's a conflict of interest between professional self preservation and earnest engagement with the material.

[@TheNutmegStitcher]

Love this! I was an English major in college and loved reading great books and then deconstruction and feminism asserted themselves. Everything became a symbol of oppression or sex. The worst was children's literature. I cringe thinking about what those professors did to some of those fairy tales. Thankfully I did have some wonderful professors who were like you -- articulate lovers of the beautiful who had a passion for inspiring others to read, write, and reflect, and most of all to enjoy great books in their own right.

[@rahulasthana4607]

The purpose of applying any literary theory is to provide a framework that helps identify a unifying thread of thought throughout a novel. Engaging with these theories does not require adhering to a specific ideology, such as feminism or Marxism. As you become a more seasoned reader of works like The Brothers Karamazov, you'll realize that there is no central thread. Instead, you'll learn to appreciate these complex texts one page at a time, gradually uncovering their richness and depth.

[@astridpedneault6654]

Fantastic! Great common sense, thank you!

[@DefaultName-nt7tk]

I loved your hilarious interpretations of the same book 😊😊😊

[@tristanandtheclassics6538]

Tee hee. I'm pleased you enjoyed it ☺️

[@southernbiscuits1275]

Very good, Tristan. Also, this concept of placing an interpretation upon a text, whether it be intellectual or from personal bias, can be seen in the viewpoints presented by many, many BookTubers. Thank goodness, not you. BookTubers clutch onto the idea of being able to influence others through their videos, hence the term "social influencer". However, like the literary theorists who overstep the mark, anyone who attempts to influence readers through their channel is guilty of this same indiscretion. Some people are more controlled by their ego than their common sense. So while literary theorists can erroneously overlay an interpretation of a text by allowing their personal ego to color their ideas, so can this be seen with many BookTube providers. I long for the days when Adam of mementomori spoke of books he had read in inelegant language, filled with personal opinion and clothed in honesty rather than with a desire to exert power through influence. BookTube died for me the day one still current BookTuber stated that all white male writers in the United States should be placed on an iceberg and pushed out to sea.

[@arvindsagar1218]

Sir, I believe you should also make videos about the tonality of voice or musicality of the language. That will help people who are on the path of acquiring the language skills. Because music of the language should gravitate the interested learners.

[@thistle3]

I agree with most of your points, but barely with any of the conclusions. First of all, I don't think authorial intent is the end all and be all of art. The author can very much add details that point to one thing while thinking nothing of it or lying about what they're doing in letters to the editor to get it passed censorship, etc. While I do think it's important to take into account, I don't think it's a sort of rulebook for determining the "correct" or "objective" big picture idea of the artwork. Secondly, this might be postmodernist of me (I get the impression you don't like that), but I don't think there really *is* an objective reading of a book. There's always going to be some difference in how you understand the word "bird" and how I do (eg., you might imagine a songbird while I picture a hawk), and when you expand that from one word to 80,000 or so, there's going to be some disagreement. Of course, if someone's picturing a butterfly instead, then we can say that they have much worse evidence for their claim, and I would say it's very likely wrong. Thirdly, about your comments on A Tenant of Wildfell Hall, I disagree with almost everything. No, I don't think this is an objectively feminist text (see point two), but I think it's wrong to disregard it entirely and say Anne Brontë's main concern was with the raising of boys. I think it's quite clear that she's contrasting Helen's sheltered life with Arthur's exposed one and trying to find a good middle ground. In chapter three, Helen is very clear about thinking boys and girls should, on the whole, be exposed to similar amounts of vices and given the same support to turn away from them. On top of that, the discussion of battered women and the dissolution of marriage is very much a feminist issue, as well as the troubles Helen go through trying to support herself post-flight. Fourthly, I think there's something to say about how often theorists use a lens as a tool simply to discuss a subject as a whole, not to definitively declare that the work in question is feminist or post-structuralist or whatever. I know I have had some moments when I read the foreword of a book, kept their reading in the back of my mind while reading it, and realised that I think it's a (among many) correct lens, but the wrong conclusion. Overall I guess I agree with you that some readings say more about the analyst than the art itself, but I also think you yourself are applying some lenses without really noticing. That's fine, because people can get different things out of the same book. I suppose I just thought this video would be about some of the more out-there readings, more in line with the Freudian readings of Hamlet. I will share one I came across a while ago. It was in the preface of a translated Frankenstein I came across in a local library, after having alreadly read several other versions. This analyst argued that the moral of the story was that fathers are useless and terrible because both Victor and Alphonse failed their offspring. Additionally, they argued that Mary Shelley's intention was to warn the patriarchy of how the world will end if anyone tries to shut women out of reproduction. Finally, they drew the conclusion that the best childhood is one with one or two mothers and no father, and that gay couples and single dads shouldn't be allowed. I think the analyst in question was a man, too, so it was all very confusing. Actually, I will post this now (halfway through the video) because I dont want to accidentally delete it. I might write more when I've watched the rest.

[@thistle3]

Ok, I hav finished the video, and I have to say that your closing remarks resonated better with me. I also abhor the hoity-toityism of literature, and I want to invite more people to share in it. I just think that this concept of yours of "just sitting there and letting the author tell you" doesn't really lend itself to that. I think we are all just naturally going to absorb slightly different things from a book, even if we approach it withour any preconceptions, based on who we are as people and what we're currently going through. Additionally, I think that teory has the possiblilty (even though it's rarely actually put in use) to bridging those gaps. You (general you) can use a marxist lens to understand your friend who was invested in the class relationships in P&P even when you yourself didn't pick up on that at all. Exploring several different lenses should be a more structured way for people of many walks of life to explore why something resonated with them and to share that with others who might not understand. It's not that I think a marxist analysis of Jane Austen (to use your example) would be very useful to understand Austen herself, it's that I think it's a curious way to explore the relationships between the characters. I very much agree that Jane Austen was not thinking of Marx, but she's very clearly thinking of money and class, and there's several threads to explore there. Although I must agree that there's many other lenses I'd choose before that one for most works, and especially such old ones. We can at least agree that there is some use to theory. Honestly, some of our disagreements might be that you have seen more bad takes within academia, and I have seen more outside of it? I do also think I should aknowledge that you did touch on my fourth point from the first comment when you spoke of feminist analysis of Treasure Island, so I've got to give you that, too. That's another thing we somewhat agree on.

[@TheNutmegStitcher]

And so on and so forth and...

[@thistle3]

​@TheNutmegStitcher Oh, I'm sorry I used too many words to engage with the points in a 33-minute video. Nobody could be expected to read on a channel about books, could they?

[@theplatinumpoo4447]

Tristan, I love the new look🙌

[@ss-gr8lt]

excellent points made in this vid!!!

[@alisonlilley3039]

Thank you for your wonderful vlogs. I enjoyed this exploration and critique of literary theory. My academic background is in the domain of science ( in Aus), so may i ask whether UK Universities teach such an open and cautious approach to the application of different lenses, or is one 'doomed' to having to produce Marxist or Feminist or Postconstructionist interpretations of everything, simply because one attended a particular Uni or College within a University? What does this mean then, for the validity of academic literary theory discourse? Is it all 'a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury ( and closeminded bias), signifying nothing'? ( humble apologies to Mr W Shakespeare)

[@stunik156]

Great video Tristan

[@davidgagen9856]

Thanks....brilliant.

[@guyriddihough]

Isn’t this a very complicated way of saying you look at a book in the context of its own time? Isn’t that, like, common sense?

[@kristiclark6932]

Excellent!

[@Barklord]

Would Hemingway present Joe Dimaggio as an authentic American hero or, as an example of American media icons misleading other cultures?

[@robertgerrity878]

Read Death in the Afternoon, but 1st, The Sun Also Rises re Lady Brett & the young bullfighter. Hemingway has no heroes. People endure with some changes if they are not stuck in their selfness.

[@noodleperson17]

Tristan - I think you labour the point a bit. A theory is only an idea. 😢