LITS3304 EXAM ADVICE
2005-2006

  1. The exam is two hours in length: you must answer (in the form of essays) any two questions chosen from a total of 5.
  2. The exam is based solely on Module 2 which is devoted to:
    1. Dialogical, Structuralist Marxist and Foucauldian literary theory; and
    2. Non-Western / Post-colonial theory and literary theory that have engaged with these three schools of thought.
  3. The questions are:
    1. topic based (i.e. they ask you to explore views on the nature, for example, of the self, or authorship, or criticism) and
    2. comparative in nature (in that they ask you to compare the views of at least two theorists of your choice on the topic in question).
  4. For the topics covered and theorists read in Module Two include, see the chart which I distributed in class and a completed version of which may be found here (NB the conversion turned some of the asterisks into zeros)
  5. For definitions of key problems and concepts (e.g. the  nature of the self or criticism) addressed this semester, click on the following links which will take you to the relevant PhilWeb pages:
    1. Self / Subjectivity: What is a human being?  Does his / her consciousness (the mind) distinguish him / her from other animals?  If so, how does one explain consciousness?  What comprises consciousness?  Is it synonymous with rational thought?  Is it synonymous with the emotions?  With both?  Are our ideas separable from the vehicle, language, by which we express them?  What is the cause or source of consciousness?  Is consciousness a given, transcendental (perhaps synonymous with an immortal soul or spirit) and thus prior to and perhaps the cause of such influences?  Is consciousness an effect of our bodies and / or the social and historical environment?  Are our actions freely chosen or are we subjected to forces larger than ourselves?
    2. Knowledge / Intellectual History: Can the absolute truth be known?  Is objectivity possible?  Is reason (epitomised by the use of logic) a reliable guide to accurate knowledge?  Can we trust our senses?  Are the methods of science (deduction, induction) the ideal basis of knowledge?  Is a literary dimension (especially the use of figurative language and plot structures) to knowledge inescapeable?  What is the cause or source of our ideas about things?  Are our ideas original, unique to us?  If so, do they originate within (innatism) or from without (externalism)?  If not, are our ideas inherited, i.e. a function of a particular intellectual history of some kind?  If so, what is the nature of the relationship which links ideas to each other?  Do we merely absorb and regurgitate the ideas which precede us or do we resist and / or modify them in some way?
    3. Signification (Language): Why do philosophers study language?  What is the purpose of language?  How does language relate to the mind, both of the speaker and the interpreter?  How does language relate to the world?  What is the nature of meaning?  What is the relation between meaning and reference?  How are sentences composed into a meaningful whole, and what are the meanings of the parts of sentences?  Why do expressions have the meanings they have?  How do words and sentences acquire meanings?  How do signs (e.g. words) produce meaning?  Do signs mean by reflecting, mirroring, labelling or referring to particular referents (are signs akin to mirrors)?  Do signs mean by expressing the inmost ideas, emotions, personality, self, etc. of the user (are signs vehicles or instruments for self-expression)?  Do signs mean by virtue of the relationship which signs share with other signs?  Are sign-systems (e.g. language) necessarily socially and historically inscribed?
    4. Social and Political Structure: How are societies structured?  What are their components and how are these related to each other to form a whole or totality?  How are societies governed?  What is the source of power?  How is political power distributed in a given society?  Is there a link between politics and ethics (a sense of right and wrong)?  Which social and political structure is most conducive to harmonious co-existence?
    5. Literary Theory:
      1. Audience: What is the nature of the relationship which binds a literary work to its audience?  Do texts affect or have an impact upon the audience?  Can the audience resist the formative impact which texts have?  Does the audience affect or shape the text?  Can interpretation be objective (i.e. neutral as opposed to subjective) and, thus, a kind of science?  Is criticism always socially and historically informed (i.e. secular, worldly)?  Does a focus on who wrote it or what it is about lead one away from the text at hand?  Should criticism be formalist in orientation?  What are the dangers of formalism?
      2. Authorship: What is the nature of the relationship which links a text to its author?  Is the author the source or cause or origin of the text (i.e. do texts merely express his / her inmost ideas, emotions, personality, self?)?  Or is our understanding of the author an effect or product of the text?  Why has so little emphasis been placed on the author (the so-called 'death of the author') in recent times?
      3. Literary Form: What form or structure does a literary text have?  What are its components and how are these related to each other?  What is a literary kind?  What is a literary genre?  Is the kind and genre of a text a function of its form? 
      4. Literary History / Intertextuality / Canonicity: What is the nature of the relationship that links literary texts to other texts?  Is this relationship historical in nature (i.e. one of mere chronological succession, e.g. Milton precedes Wordsworth who precedes Brathwaite)?  Is this relationship one of influence (does Milton necessarily influence Wordsworth because he comes first)?  Do texts merely absorb such influences or can these be resisted?  What other possible relationships between texts exist?  Why are some texts granted significant status and thus studied?  How are canons formed?  Are some texts worth studying because of their intrinsic value?  Or are there more sinister political forces at work in the formation of canons (e.g. factors such as class, gender and / or race)?
      5. Representation: What is the nature of the relationship which exists between a literary text and that aspect of reality which it seeks to depict?  Do texts hold a mirror up to or represent reality in some straightforward way (realism)?  Do texts 'construct' or offer an interpretation of reality?  Is 'reality,' or our sense of reality, the effect or product of the text?  What is the link between representation and form, i.e. what is represented and how this is represented?  Is it better to think of the relationship between the text and reality from another angle: are texts realistic because they less reflect than are informed by their socio-historical context (historicism)?