Hello there, glad that you are doing your PHD in English. I am also planning to join PhD program after 3 months from now. Can you please some how help me out in reaching a topic as you have a good experience in that. Btw , I am visually impaired..

How did u get urself to write a phd thesis about something u could not understand...the power it takes 😅

SAME!!!!!

You're welcome. Education is a challenge during this pandemic. Glad to be of service.

Thanks very much!

Thanks for the encouragement!

Hang in there, buddy. I know it’s challenging when instruction is minimal and you don’t even know enough to know what questions to ask (believe me, I know - I took a graduate level Lit Theory class for my masters degree, boldly chose Deconstructionism, and by the time I’d completed my 10-page essay, felt like I’d melted my brain). I did it. So can you. Peter Barry’s Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory is the most helpful book I discovered in my mad dash to get a grip on Lit Theory. It’s easily accessible and infinitely helpful. The Yale Introduction course you can find here on KZfaq is helpful, as well, but time consuming. The biggest challenge you’ll find with theory and philosophy classes is that the concepts and application of them requires a tremendous amount of time and effort. There is a reason academics refer to them as ‘disciplines.’

I do hope to create more literary theory videos. Thanks!

@@thenatureofwriting9222 Thanks from Istanbul.

You're welcome, Meriem. Not everyone loves literary theory, and you can certainly love poems, novels, and plays without getting into the theory. At the same time, it can add something to the appreciation of literature as well!

Great to hear. Best of luck with finishing high-school. You're ahead of the game if you're already tackling literary theory.

Glad you think so!

You're welcome!

Great to hear!

Glad it was helpful!

Thanks. All the best with your reading!

It depends on what university program you take and where. Some include more literary theory then others. Either way, it's good to learn some theory even if you end up disagreeing with much of it. That's how you discover your own path.

Great suggestion. I will do more literary theory videos. Covering a large topic like that is always tricky, as it takes a fair bit of research to cover the main points. It's easier to tackle one author or book at a time. But I'll add it to the list. :)

Structuralists are stupid they strip all the art and magic out of the text and just serve their own biases. Structural analysis of anything is basically just trying to feel smart hy claiming some kind of insight that doesn't actually exist. It's a narrative you bring to the text and it serves nothing good but to deconstruct society.

Good question. This video is just a quick intro, so it's hard to touch on everything in detail. However, the answer is that structuralists are very much interested in linguistics. In particular, it was the linguist Ferdinand de Saussure who argued that it's the structure of language (the system) that determines the meaning of a word or a sign. Since texts are made up of words and signs, one can analyze the structure of a text much like one might analyze the grammar of a sentence. So the answer is yes!

You are welcome!

Glad you liked it!

Thanks for the encouragement!

Thanks!

That's a good observation, though it would take more than a YT comment to do justice to it. There's no doubt that a great deal of literary criticism is leftist. Much of it comes from North America, though I would say French critics have also played a leading part. But if you dig deeper you will find other perspectives too. Not everyone's a Marxist. :)

Great to hear! Best wishes with your studies.

Thanks!

Thanks!

@Merrill Matzen looks fun but pls stop watching ur girlfriends account. Respect her privacy

Good question. The two perspectives are definitely related. If you accept that the author is "dead" (inaccessible, unreliable, etc.), then you may be more drawn to reader response criticism. However, that's not an automatic conclusion. You might just as well focus on the text itself and argue that it's language (not the reader) who makes the meaning. In fact, some of the first to proclaim the "death of the author," were particularly drawn to structuralist approaches.

You're welcome!

Also, what does one mean when they say "critical theory"?

Thanks for the question, Jacqueline. I focused less on those theories because they can apply any of the interpretive lenses discussed in the video. At some point I'd love to make some follow-up videos about specific theoretical approaches.

@@thenatureofwriting9222 we will be waiting for it❤

You're welcome!

Sorry for the belated response. Yes, in the future I hope to do more literary theory. When I have time of course ... :)

Sorry you had an issue. Not sure what happened as this is the first time I've heard of this. Perhaps try a different browser or check your sound settings? The volume on these videos is perhaps a bit softer, but it should be audible!

You can use any theory you like when comparing two novels. Each theory will provide a different emphasis and focus for your research. Intertextuality is a big topic by itself and might be helpful. Sorry to be kind of vague, but I'm afraid the best person to help you with these questions is your instructor.

Thanks!

A combination of Camtasia and Sketchbook. If you go to my channel's community page and scroll down you'll see a longer description.

The Nature of Writing Thank you 🙏🏻. Formalism , New criticism and Liberal Humanism are quite similar. Couldn’t reach a clear cut between them . Hope you can make videos in the soon future about such negotiable issues.

@@beacon3697 Thanks for the suggestion. I do hope to make more videos again, but right now I'm too busy teaching my courses online...

I use Camtasia to record videos. You can apply some "noise reduction" to an audio clip, but the most important thing is to reduce ambient noises while recording. For more details, check the community page of my channel, where I've left a comment a while back on my recording process. I continually hope to get better at this myself!

Feminism is a huge field, so that's a tricky question. I would start by reading selections from an anthology (either of literary theory or of feminism generally).

Sorry for the belated response. I use Camtasia. See the community section of the channel for a more detailed explanation.

That would be another literary theory, which you can categorize as an approach that focuses primarily on the author. I don't mention every last theory in the video, but I hope you can use the video's framework to make sense of other perspectives.

@@thenatureofwriting9222 thank you for replying! Your video was pretty comprehensive with the plethora out there 👌 I am doing a thesis on 'identity' in the Romantics (roughly speaking) and was wondering whether to look at it from a expressive (MH Abram's classification) or phenomenological POV. I do want to arrive at sth. and not leave it totally open-ended a.k.a the Post Structuralists-Deconstr. methods.

@@Lakshyam9 Best wishes with your thesis. Sounds interesting!

@@thenatureofwriting9222 thank you so much !! Adding Vedanta philosophy too into the mix 😁

Haven't read that one yet, but I imagine your thesis supervisor can help you. :)

Thanks. So is your music!

good explanation

Good question. Aristotle's literary criticism does contain elements of structuralism. As an example, Aristotle talks about common plot moments (e.g., recognition and reversal) and he classifies narratives based on the four causes (formal, efficient, material, and final). However, the latter classification also demonstrates that Aristotle is interested in other things than structure. In addition, Aristotle's famous definition of tragedy as a form of catharsis could be considered a form of reader response theory. Thus, Aristotle is often a structuralist, though not exclusively so.

The Nature of Writing Can every piece of literature be analysed by every approach? Or some approaches suit better certain literary texts?

Nearly every approach will have something to say about any given text. Still, each text is unique and I think the best strategy is to suit the methodology to the text (kind of like a mechanic picks the right tool for the job).

I'm not sure what additional explanation you are looking for. Can you be more specific?

I'm not sure there is a difference. I haven't heard of the distinction, but maybe someone has come up with it.

Well, that's certainly a strong statement, though I agree that postmodern skepticism often goes too far. :)

Yeah, it got a bit busy on the screen. Sorry about that.