Reed Richards wrote:
Just not the capital L literature they stick you with in undergrad classes, you know? I do not like to inject analysis where it is unnecessary.
I'm going to start by noting the merit of the above statement. Lit theory is in fact not necessary to read or understand or enjoy any literature, even that of the "capital L" variety, and that's fine. I think it's important to understand however, that Literary theory is not a means of analyzing texts, as much as it is the practice of using texts as a lens through which to analyze history, culture, religion, psychology, humanity or whatever else your heart desires. In this way Lit theory and criticism are a secondary endeavor to the primary act of reading books, and one that does not appeal to everyone. The professors who design and teach college level literature courses do so with the understanding that their students are there for that reason; neither they, nor their field should be faulted if, for whatever reason, a student doesn't share that understanding.
If Hemingway writes a story about an aging bullfighter, it's a book about an aging bullfighter. At least this is a case where the author agrees with me.Does he?