Prater Violet and Eagleton's Literary Theory Often,

Prater Violet and Eagleton's Literary Theory Often, when writing a literary work, authors are focused so much on their personal views and intentions with the story that no literary theory comes to mind. Furthermore, writers are seldom concerned with adhering to or promoting any specific theory. Nevertheless, it is the nature of readers and critics to want to impose theories upon literary works. Much like life, literary works present themselves in an unstructured way.

It is human nature, especially on the side of critics and readers, to wish to impose order where no such order is apparent. Indeed, this is the nature of critical reading and even human life in general. In Prater Violet by Isherwood (2001), for example, one might imposed various paths towards the literary theories explicated by Eagleton (2008), as followed by some of the characters in the novel b y Isherwood.

One example of such literary theory is new criticism, which promotes the idea that there is little or no connection between the literary work produced and the author's intention, or even life or social/historical context. According to this theory, all the reader needs to analyze the text presented, without any concern with the historical, social, or personal context involved. One good example of a character that can be analyzed in this way is Sandy Ashmeade, the story editor (p. 21-22).

Sandy is graceful, and also known as the "poet," being a star of the Marlowe Society. All these elements give specific clues about the character without any concern about how the author might feel about the existing social or political context of his writing. Sandy is a perfectly English gentleman, with romanticism and semiotics presented as his main reasons for living.

His "slim" and "perfectly rolled" umbrella, for example, offers him as a perfectly sculpted character for the context of the novel itself, without any concern for the author's specific personal or social context. Hence, to analyze this character, the New Criticism adherent would have to sever him from both author and reader. Indeed, no specific reader context could be imposed on the experience and reasons for action within the character. The character and story are entities entirely unto themselves (Eagleton, p. 41).

Structuralism is even more tightly focused on the work itself, by means of linguistic context. Historical, social, and biographical influences are ignored in favor of language, which is seen as a complete, self-contained system (Eagleton, p. 41). This aspect can be examined by the utterances of characters such as Lawrence Dwight (Isherwood, 2001, p. 66-67).

Lawrence's words are harsh, including phrases like "selling your soul," "the movies are too good for you," and "nineteenth century whores." The way in which these linguistic patterns are put together provides a specific linguistic context for the character's views. These can be used to derive information about the context of the story and the character's inner world. Like new criticism, structuralism does not acknowledge the influence of external factors. Psychoanalytic criticism, on the other hand, concerns the human mind and especially the expression of the unconscious.

Bergman, for example, is the embodiment of specific personal and psychological torments that lead him towards certain actions. He is, for example, highly concerned.