Reframing Latin America: A Cultural Theory Reading ... - BGSU Blogs

52 reframing latin america
represent different elements of the story and c is the end result. For hermeneuticians,
deciphering a narrative is like solving a math equation with one
clear answer. The answer to the equation is a number, and the solution to
a narrative, for them, is its internal truths, those kernels of enlightenment
that supposedly reside at the core of every worthwhile piece of literature.
According to hermeneutics, the challenge before readers and critics is to
decipher the code and discover that deep meaning.
It might seem impossible to describe narrative in terms of objectivity and
science because it is, ultimately, an aesthetic form, an artistic expression
in which standards of quality would seem to vary according to individual
taste. How can there be a standard of measure for narrative?
Establishing this standard is precisely what essentialist literary theorists
and critics, many of whom are authors themselves, seek to achieve. As the
supposed experts in the fi eld, they are its arbiters of quality, and they strive
to agree upon standards that will be used to distinguish good narrative
from bad. In expressing their opinions, often in the form of debates among
themselves, they are like scientists setting out to prove the validity of their
claims. They see themselves weeding out the false ideas and half-truths
of bad narrative and inaccurate criticism from the objective truth of good
narrative and accurate criticism. Those critics who apply this perspective
in education believe that they are training the reading public so it, too, can
enjoy access to the inner truths of narrative. 1
The quintessential expression of this debate over quality occurs in the
creation of a literary canon, the body of work that represents the best and
most signifi cant forms of narrative. These supposedly set the standards for
future work. Creating canonical lists and subsequently debating one another
concerning the validity of a list are common exercises among modernist
narratologists and critics.
Frank Raymond Leavis (1895–1978) was one of the best-known modernist
literary critics. He fi rmly believed in the existence of a literary hierarchy
and in objective standards for quality narrative. He sought out those works
that met standards and disregarded the rest as unworthy or as pop culture
trash. Leavis embraced the notion of a literary canon, and he believed that
critics and narratologists had critical roles to play in preserving canonical
standards. He defended his position on this issue strongly because he believed
that the fi nest literature and the best critics had the power to transform
the world for the better. In the words of a student of his work:
Leavis revealed a lifelong aggressive certainty about the high place
and central importance of literary criticism in solving the crisis of the