by Marco Fiori

Created on: April 15, 2009

Whatever happened to aesthetics? If we trackback to the Romantics, we have a collection of writers who were focussed on one aim: the appreciation of the world. As soon as Literature became a teachable subject, (which incidentally was only of late, when compared to Mathematics or History), it meant that there was enough critical theory for it to be considered academic.

This leads us towards an unavoidable circle. Critics need something to analyse and literature needs to be produced. One cannot exist without the other. Literature is considered a form of high culture in today's society, but that wasn't always the case. Compared to art and music (classical), literature was the means of popular culture. As cinema and music (popular styles like Jazz, Swing, Rock) emerged, the focus changed. Therefore it became a form of cultural expression that could be legitimately analysed.

The problem with the above is the eventual over-analysing that has come about in the twentieth century. As Universities took up Literature as a subject, journals and publications questioning texts became prevalent in academic circles. Schools of thought subsequently develop and you get a pseudo-intellectual competition of who can propose as many theories as possible. This opened up a critical retracing of literature. It doesn't matter if Bronte didn't intend for Jane Eyre to be analysed via women's rights in that time period. Anything is fair game.

On the contrary, we are still not at the stage where popular fiction warrants genuine analysis. The Canon / Classics may be subject to over-analysis, but Harry Potter is yet to receive the same treatment, as say Ginsberg's Howl. Saying that, we have seen works like The Chronicles of Narnia placed under Christian teaching. It is a viable example of such over-analysis. Should we pry into a supposed intended meaning or simply accept that the author was writing a collection of children's fantasy novels.

The risk of searching for meaning / cultural significance that is not there is vast. We can easy overshoot the author's intended aim. Fair enough, Dante's Inferno isn't just the ravings of a terrified man. Or is it? The very basis of literature as a study is analysis. In a subjective medium, there is no clear outcome. You may find the analysis of Kafka as pretentious, while others find it instrumental in their understanding of the world.

The conclusive opinion? Animal Farm. It's simply about animals on a farm. If you fail to detect sarcasm, then you find yourself over-analysing this article. There can never be an over-analysis, because culture wouldn't allow it. Therein lays the problem. We as beings of thought will always search for sense whether it was planned for or not. The sooner we accept literary scrutiny, the sooner we can get on with our lives.

Learn more about this author, Marco Fiori.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.