[Glenn Wright]

Hi, Nemo—

We have rather different views of literature, I think. Before words there were experiences, emotions, internal struggles, but not literature. Literature for you seems to be in the mystical relationship between reader and author. I am more often inclined to see literature as a dialogue between the work under consideration and all the voices that went before it. I am very aware of the fact that, at the end of the day, Hamlet was right. Literature is “words, words, words.”

Just as poets have different personal styles, so critics. My earliest training was in New Criticism, which, I have come to realize, can be limiting. I continue to try to grow and try new ways to encounter literature—not only as words, but as historical documents, manifestos of the author’s beliefs, things of beauty to be appreciated, and in every way that a work of literature may be regarded, including intertextually. In simplest terms, I would describe my favorite approach to literature as structuralist. I am guessing that your favorite approach is post-structuralist.

But not every poem speaks to me, even if I can appreciate its craftsmanship. As I study literature, I discover my own interests, biases, passions, and sometimes fears and struggles.
As I am sure you do yours.

Thanks for taking time to comment.

Glenn