EMAIL<\/a> | SYLLABUS<\/a> | POLICIES<\/a> | QUESTIONS<\/a> | PRESENTATIONS<\/a> | JOURNALS<\/a> | PAPER<\/a> | FINAL<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Assigned: Samuel Johnson. The Rambler,<\/em> #4 (367-71). Rasselas<\/em> (371-72). \u201cPreface to Shakespeare<\/em>\u201c (Okay to read only 379-86, starting with \u201cShakespeare with his excellencies has likewise faults…\u201d). Optional: \u201cOn Metaphysical Wit\u201d (386-88 in Leitch, Vincent B. and William E. Cain, eds. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism.<\/em> 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 2010. ISBN 978-0-393-93292-8).<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. On 368-69, how does Johnson sum up the \u201ctask of our present writers\u201d (368 middle) as opposed to yesteryear\u2019s purveyors of romance epic and other such genres? In what sense has the gap between author and readership narrowed, and with what results to the status of the new texts? In addition, what sort of people does Johnson suggest are the main readers of the new kinds of fiction?<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. On 369, why, according to Johnson, do \u201cfamiliar histories\u201d (realistic fiction, popular novels) prove more useful than \u201cthe solemnities of professed morality\u201d? In what sense are they useful? What moral responsibility does Johnson suggest ought to be kept in mind by authors of realistic fiction, and why?<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3. On 369-70, what \u201cchief advantage\u201d (369 middle) does modern fiction have in comparison with the real-life objects it imitates or represents (ordinary people, events, and things)? How does Johnson turn this advantage into a moral imperative, and how does he refute those who insist that it\u2019s acceptable to represent morally ambivalent or composite characters?<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4. General question: Johnson is obviously concerned about the moral welfare of the C18 novel-reading audience, and some politicians, social critics, and religious folk show a similar concern today, even to the point of urging legal censorship (which Johnson isn\u2019t advocating). Plato, of course, is the father of all such moral arguments about the pragmatic effects of art. To what extent, if at all, do you think such arguments or concerns are valid? Discuss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 5. On 371-72, what most surprises Imlac about people\u2019s judgment of ancient poets? What comparison does Imlac make between the earliest authors and those who come after them? We have examined Johnson\u2019s insistence on a writer\u2019s duty to choose subjects judiciously. What new thoughts about the conjunction between morality and representation (\u201cimitation\u201d) does Imlac offer on these pages?<\/p>\n\n\n\n 6. On 372, Imlac claims that poets who know their trade do not \u201cnumber the streaks of the tulip.\u201d Most readers today, as inheritors of the romantics\u2019 love for individuality and particularity, will disagree. But what is the basis of Imlac\u2019s argument — in what vital way do \u201ctulip-streakers,\u201d in his view, fail as artists and with respect to the potential of their audience? Furthermore, in what sense might Imlac actually embrace<\/em> the notion that artists should observe human nature and the environment closely?<\/p>\n\n\n\n 7. On 372, what does Imlac apparently mean when he says that the poet must write \u201cas a being superior to time and place\u201d? What is he suggesting about human nature and about the function of art? Can you recall echoes of this statement in later works of literary criticism? If so, which works and authors?<\/p>\n\n\n\n 8. On 373-74, what test does Johnson suggest should be applied to literary works \u201cof which the excellence is not absolute and definite\u201d? How does Johnson reason in support of this test \u2013 what alone can please the majority of people over long periods of time? How does Shakespeare\u2019s drama exemplify the kind of art that passes this test of excellence?<\/p>\n\n\n\n 9. On 373-79, what praise does Johnson bestow on Shakespeare\u2019s handling of human nature, and how does he defend the playwright from charges leveled against him over his handling of traditional heroic characters, historical periods, and generic expectations about tragedy and comedy? Why, in particular, is Shakespeare right to include comic elements in his tragedies, and tragic potential in his comedies?<\/p>\n\n\n\n 10. On 379-82, beginning with the paragraph, \u201cShakespeare with his excellencies has likewise faults \u2026\u201d (379 middle), Johnson meets the censurers of Shakespeare half-way: what criticisms of his own does he level against the Bard? Which is the worst and least excusable fault, and why? Which faults seem less important to Johnson, and partly or entirely understandable?<\/p>\n\n\n\n 11. On 382-86, how does Johnson refute critics who say dramatic illusion requires strict adherence to the \u201cunities of time and place\u201d? What is the exact nature of dramatic illusion, according to Johnson — if we aren\u2019t \u201ctaken in\u201d by what we see on stage, why, then, do we respond to it, and in what manner do we respond? Another way to ask this question is, \u201cin what sense is the audience\u2019s experience at a drama genuine<\/em> or authentic<\/em> {my terms} in its own right, even though we don\u2019t believe we are witnessing a real-life event?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n 12. In Ch. 14 of Biographia Literaria,<\/em> Samuel Taylor Coleridge observes that his contribution to the Lyrical Ballads<\/em> involved concentrating on supernatural or eccentric characters, \u201cyet so as to transfer from our inward nature a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith\u201d (Leitch, 2nd ed. 586). Compare Coleridge\u2019s notion of \u201cpoetic faith\u201d with Johnson\u2019s ideas about dramatic illusion and the manner in which an audience grants a drama with \u201call the credit due to a drama\u201d (384).<\/p>\n\n\n\n 13. General question: on 378 and 380, Johnson shows a decided preference for Shakespeare\u2019s comedies over his tragedies. What are his reasons for preferring the comedies? Which kind of Shakespeare do you prefer, and why? Does your response have to do mainly with your own personality (i.e. \u201cbrooders\u201d usually go in for tragedy, while those with a sunny disposition may prefer comedy and romance), or with what you can point to as \u201cobjective\u201d features of Shakespeare\u2019s language, plots, and stagecraft? Explain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 14. General question: Johnson writes on 384, \u201cif we thought murders and treasons real, they would please no more.\u201d He\u2019s probably right at least in the sense that direct viewing of such things in real life would horrify most people, at least in modern times. (Many Romans, after all, considered it \u201cstrength and honor\u201d to enjoy watching gladiators die.) But what about cinema? To what extent might it be argued that we come very close to taking the powerful images on a movie screen as real, at least during the time we are watching the film? And do we necessarily find the sight of them unpleasant? Does your response affect your view of Johnson\u2019s argument against extreme proponents of \u201cdramatic illusion\u201d? If so, how?<\/p>\n\n\n\n 15. General question: how many of Sir Philip Sidney\u2019s ideas can you find in Johnson\u2019s \u201cOn Fiction\u201d? In what ways do you think Johnson differs from Sidney\u2019s expressly religious moral framework, or has transformed some of his ideas? Alternately, how much of Plato or Aristotle do you find in Johnson? For example, how close does Johnson come to Plato\u2019s brand of moralism? How might Johnson\u2019s explanation of how we can take pleasure in watching a tragic play be compared with Aristotle\u2019s remarks on our response to representations of painful or otherwise troubling things?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" SAMUEL JOHNSON QUESTIONS FOR E256 LITERARY THEORY AND CRITICISMCHAPMAN UNIVERSITY, FALL 2012 Assigned: Samuel Johnson. The Rambler, #4 (367-71). Rasselas (371-72). \u201cPreface to Shakespeare\u201c (Okay to read only 379-86, starting with \u201cShakespeare with his excellencies has likewise faults…\u201d). Optional: \u201cOn Metaphysical Wit\u201d (386-88 in Leitch, Vincent B. and William E. Cain, eds. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_eb_attr":"","footnotes":""},"wf_page_folders":[18],"class_list":["post-1158","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/academic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1158","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/academic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/academic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/academic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/academic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1158"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/academic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1158\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4819,"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/academic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1158\/revisions\/4819"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/academic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"wf_page_folders","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/academic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/wf_page_folders?post=1158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\u201cOn Fiction\u201d (Rambler,<\/em> #4)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
From Rasselas<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
From \u201cPreface to Shakespeare<\/em>\u201c<\/h3>\n\n\n\n