This post is a summary of three articles. The first with the partial title above and the complete title of, "Reading literature makes us smarter and nicer." Published at http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/03/why-we-should-read-literature/. The second with the title of, "The relevence of literary analysis to teaching literature in the EFL classroom." Published at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ923454.pdf. The third with the title of, "Literary Theory and Schools of Criticism." Published at owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/722/
Gregory Currie, a professor of philosophy at the University of Nottingham, recently arqued in the NY Times that we ought not to claim that literature improves us as people, because there is no "compelling evidence that suggests that people are morally or socially better for reading." Actually, there is such evidence. Raymond Mar, a psychologist at York University in Canada, and Keith Oatley, a professor of cognitive psychology at the University of Toronto, reported in studies published in 2006 and 2009 that individuals who often read fiction appear to be better able to understand other people, empathize with them and view the world from their perspective. A 2010 study by Raymond Mar found a similar result in young children: the more stories they had read to them, the keener their "theory of mind", or mental model of other people`s intentions. "Deep reading" - as opposed to the often superficial reading we do on the web - is an endangered practice, one we ought to take steps to preserve as we would a historical building. Its disappearance would imperil the intellectual and emotional development of generations growing up online, as well as the perpetuation of a critical part of our culture: the novels, poems and other kinds of literature that can be appreciated only by readers whose brains have been trained to apprehend them. Recent research in cognitive science, psychology has demonstrated that deep reading, slow, immersive, rich in sensory detail and emotional and moral complexity, is a distinctive experience, different from the mere decoding of words. That immersion is supported by the way the brain handles language rich in detail, allusion and metaphor: by creating a mental representation that draws on the same brain region that would be active if the scene were unfolding in real life. The emotional situations and moral dilemmas that are the stuff of literature are also exercise for the brain, propelling us inside the heads of fictional characters. The deep reading of books and the information-driven reading we do on the web are very different, both in the experience they produce and in satisfying. Unlike the ability to understand and produce spoken language, which under normal circumstances will unfold according to a program dictated by our genes, the ability to read must be acquired by each individual. The combination of fast, fluent decoding of words and slow, unhurried progress on the page gives deep readers time to enrich their reading with reflection, analysis, and theirown memories and opinions. it gives them time to establish an intimate relationship with the author. This is not reading as many young people are coming to know it. Their reading is pragmatic and instrumental: the difference between what literary critic Frank Kermode calls "carnal reading" and "spiritual reading." If we allow our offspring to believe carnal reading is all there is, if we do not open the door to spiritual reading, through an early insistence on discipline and practice, we will have cheated them of an enjoyable experience. And we will have deprived them of an elevating and enlightening experience that will enlarge them as people.
For many teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL), the study of literature is indispensable because it exposes students to meaningful contexts that are replete with descriptive language. Teaching literature also appeals to their imagination, develops cultural awareness and encourages critical thinking about plots, themes, and characters. Many theories exist on how to evaluate literature. One criticism of using literature in the EFL classroom deals with the overuse of those classical, literary works that often contain language that is difficult for a learner of English. The teachers should consider literature that students can access and relate to. A positive change in students attitudes towards literature happens when there is a connection between their lives and their reading, thoughtful reflection in their answers and interest and curiosity. Critical literacy is valid for students to be conscious of how texts relate to issues of identity, culture, political power, gender, ethnicity, class and religion.
A very basic way of thinking about literary theory is that these ideas act as differents lenses critics use to view and talk about literature. These differents lenses allow critics to consider works of literature based on certain assumptions within that school of theory. For example, if a critic is working with Marxist Criticism, he might focus on how the characters in a story interact based on their economic situation. Many critics use tools from two schools in their works. Our explanations are meant only as starting places for your own investigation into literary theory. Though the timeline below roughly follows a chronological order, we have placed some schools closer because they are so closely aligned. 1)Dramatic Construction. 2) Formalism, New Criticism. 3) Psychoanalytic Criticism. 4) Marxist Criticism. 5) Reader-Response Criticism. 6) Structuralism. 7) Post-Structuralism, Deconstruction. 8) New Historicism, Cultural Studies. 9) Post-Colonial Criticism. 10) Feminist Criticism. 11) Gender, Queer Studies.
.
