A Response to Christopher Craig

I especially enjoyed Craig's comments on the American trend to wear Che Guevara logos, and how those products are made in America - a capitialist country, selling clothing and other merchandise, which honors a radical socialist. He is an image of what America fears and despises most: a radical activist and revolutionary fighting for socialist values. America wants to execute or dispose of anyone who acts out against capitialism or any threat against corporate America. And then people wear his face on t-shirts that were made by American corporations.

His blog also somewhat confused me at the end when he was talking about Shakespeare. Or, it wasn't so much what he wrote that confused me, it just sounded somewhat contradictory to what we learned in class. I am still struggling with understanding Marxist criticism. I understand what Marxism is, but when it discussed from a critical theory perspective - I get lost.

In class I thought we were told that it isn't about analyzing social class through one individual text, that it was more about the production of texts as a whole. But, I most likely didn't grasp what was being said because now that I am reading what I'm writing, it really doesn't make any sense not to analyze an individual text from a Marxist perspective.

"Through this critical process, they can show how the values and interests of the dominant class are not universal but repressive, intended to keep the power relations between the ruling and working classes one-sided." I love this comment for many reasons. First, I just excited when literature emphasizes how authoritative and repressive the dominant class is. Also, it really helped me understand the point of Marxist criticism because I've read Shakespeare, so I can take the text, then take what he wrote about it (especially this quote), and see what exactly a Marxist analysis looks like.

On a different note, I'm excited we are moving away from Marxism and into Structuralism. What I have read so far in the Barry book, it seems much easier to understand and I think I already have a strong grasp on analyzing literature from a structuralist perspective.

But then this all seems so trivial at some points, when I really think about it - because, why can't critics and readers simply critique and analyze texts from all different perspectives, or a variety of perspectives, then all compile what has been learned for a more broad and interesting perspective? At times I feel as though literary criticism is a race, or a contest, and becomes more about analyzing the text "correctly" then it is about actually appreciating the text. But then again maybe they don't want the text to be appreciated! I don't know. The semester is young. I hope I get a better grasp on these concepts, because, like I have said before - they are very interesting, but sometimes just take on a life of their own.