what the fuck is "dark academia" isnt real academia dark enough do you know what some of these fuckers woudl do for funding
the darkness in dark academia is the apartments that phd students live in because they cant afford to turn on the fucking lights
Anonymous asked:
hello, i kno close reading aint the only way to analyse a text but im trying to find other ways of doin it but google is just givin me how to do close readings in your classroom things. idk im not a booksguy really tho id like to learn how to books better. do u have any like basic resources for ways to read a text an figure out whats goin on in it that isnt doing a close reading? thanks
gothhabiba answered:
Close readings are mostly associated with new criticism. This school of criticism, like every other, arose in a particular time and place and can be analysed as having arisen for a particular reason. Also like every school of criticism, it has its adherents and its detractors. But considering the “work” as its own whole, self-contained aesthetic object in the way that NC does is not the only way to read.
Some other approaches, off the top of my head, & the schools of criticism they’re roughly associated with:
- How does the work make you feel? What are your reactions to it? What emotions and associations does it conjure up? What is your spatial or temporal experience like reading the work (like, how does the work appear to you as something that unfolds over time, as you read it? When and how are you reading it)? How do your expectations about a certain work affect how you read?[Reader-response]
- What is the economic and ideological history of the genre, form, and aesthetics of the work in question? What ideological function does the work seem to serve? Does it serve to convince its readers of anything, and if so, what political implications does its viewpoint have? What ideas of oppression, history, and the forms that resistance can take does the work present or seem to advocate for? What does it make visible or invisible, what does it make seem possible or impossible? [Marxist literary criticism / Marxist aesthetics]
- When, where, and by whom was the work published? What else do we know about the author’s opinions on aesthetics, politics, &c., and how do we know it? How are those opinions reflected by, or in tension with, what you see in the work? Were there any problems getting the work published, and, if so, do they have to do with the author’s class or gender or politics, &c.? Where and how was the author living (richly or poorly, working as a maid in another household or employing servants or a wife to free up time for intellectual pursuits) while writing?
- And, doubling down on when the work was published—what were the popular or dominant discourses about science, biology, human cognition, political economy, race, gender, war, &c. &c. when and where the author wrote and published? How does the work seem to mobilise, use, subvert, echo, further, or contest those discourses? How would the work’s first readers have read it in light of the popular discourses they were familiar with? [contextualism; new historicism]
- What materials was the book originally published in? Where did those materials come from? Was it cheaply or expensively made? How much was it sold for? Who would have been able to afford it? What does the form of the book (any illustrations? what’s the typeface and size? margin size? hardcover or paperback?) imply about who is meant to read the work, and how they’re meant to read it? What effect did the state of print technology at the time of the book’s publishing have on its final form (e.g., it used to be impossible to have text and an image on the same page in a mass-produced book)? Where do the objects described in the book presumably come from, and by whose labour would they have been produced and transported? What does this say about the material lives of the characters? [Material culture studies]
- What are the early notices and reviews of the book like, and where do they appear? Who wrote them and where did they publish them? Is the book mentioned in diaries and letters from around the time of its publication? How did the responses to the book change over time? How did audiences in different places, or of different demographics in other ways, respond to the book? What went into making the book accessible to new audiences over time? [Reception history; translation studies; maybe fandom studies]
- Who edited the work? How much control did the publishing house, and the publishing house’s readers, have over the final format of the text? Who decided what the punctuation would be like, and where the chapter breaks would go? Who decided on the spelling (was it published at a time when spelling was standardized? Did the author’s manuscript contain any idiosyncratic spellings? Did the publishing house have a house style)? Are there any ideological connotations to “correcting” this author’s spelling? Was the author’s manuscript typed or handwritten? Were there any problems reading their handwriting? How many versions of the manuscript were there, and how did the publishing house chuse which to work from? [Editorial theory]
These associations between methods of reading and schools of criticism is mostly just to give you terms to look up to read more. Scholars don’t all necessarily belong firmly to a given school, and people often mix and match various modes of reading to be able to argue what they want to argue.
So apparently we found Spiders Georg and he lives in a 19th century London asylum huh.