“Robotics and Their Language Arts Cousin — Theory”

I’ve idled my way through a couple of theory classes in my day, it seems like a good way to force someone to study literature who doesn’t want to. It’s as if to say, look, this stuff’s good, it has theory to it, how could it not be.
It’s closely related, writing on literary theory that is, which would have to do with “signifiers” and “signifieds,” to philosophical writing, and some philosophical writing is cathartic, such as Descartes and De Tocqueville (I might as well buy myself a beret already), but it has to come from the heart, and in theory philosophical writing is boring. And theory, in theory, is robotic. So that the first pitfall of the whole situation would probably be acknowledging that theory indeed has a theory of itself. And that theory has a theory of its own too. I have too many mirrors in my bathroom, and yesterday I was doing something and looked back, and saw like eight reflections of myself in an ostensible row in my mirror. Literary theory isn’t this bad, but it’s pretty close. Why does Harper Lee choose to go into such detail with seemingly superfluous elements of Scout’s narratives? Let’s talk about that. And yes, I think we all have brains, no assembly required.

Leave a Reply