you've got to back up to go forward

Having a few problems getting things started. But I'm ready to post.

The Marxist critic holds strong to the belief that the social class that a writer belongs to is the greatest influence on their work. From my understanding, the Marxist critic believes that no work of literature is free from the writer's social and political situation (struggle?); that there is no way a writer can see beyond the boundaries of where they were born, the values they were raised by, their political affiliation (and affliction, i suppose, for that matter).

the second tenet of liberal humanism (as listed by barry) points out that a text "...contains its own meaning within itself. It doesn't require any elaborate process of placing it within a context, whether this be: socio-political...literary-historical... autobiographical..." barry then goes on to state that the importance of these contexts are not to be undermined, rather, they are to be studied. a liberal humanist does not necessarily believe that looking at a text within these contexts is all out wrong, rather they believe that "the trained mind" should be able to look at a text without seeing it through such contexts. The third tenet refers to this: "To understand the text well it must be detached from these contexts and studied in isolation. What is needed is the close verbal analysis of the text without prior ideological assumptions, or political pre-conditions, or, indeed, specific expectations of any kind, since all these are likely in interfere fatally and with what the nineteenth-century critic Matthew Arnold said was the true business of criticism, 'to see the objects as in itself it really is'."

you can't make apple juice from oranges. the liberal humanist belief in an "ultimate" autonomous text does not come close to the marxist belief that all texts are rooted in the conditioning of the writer. to a liberal humanist, to be unable to see a text free from such contexts is to read with an untrained mind.

not to interfere (fatally?) with the ideas of the professionals , but contrasting both schools has gotten me in over my head. as a mere literature student, i read. when i read, i take into account many things that have to do with the product. i have a bad habit of researching writers; where they came from and who they were. as a result, as i continue reading the work of said writers and my "untrained mind" can't help but think about the work i'm reading through such contexts. even if the work has nothing to do with the author's conditioning. on the other hand however, i think that assuming that a writer can't create beyond the constrictions of their social conditioning is (for the momentary lack of a better term) crap. to assume that the human mind is incapable of creating with no intention other than to express is incredibly close-minded. going back to liberal humanism, i also have a hard time grappling with the idea of this ultimate, autonomous text. where do they keep it? is it locked up somewhere? do you have to be invited to some sort of secret pizza party to see it? my real question is, who's really to say what has the potential for ultimate greatness and what doesn't? especially taking into consideration the age that we live in; where it is assumed that expression and creativity have no boundaries. sure, there are "masters" that we have all come to know and recognize as masters in art, literature, music and the like. but is that it? are we never going to be graced by another "master"? to say that there is an ultimate of something sounds to me like it is being assumed that there is no more room for another great period of artistic expression and there is nothing to look forward to.