The introductory summary of Michael Ryan’s Literary Theory: A Practical Introduction touches upon many of the topics in his book, which are listed in the table of contents, such as Freudian Psychology and Psychoanalysis, Gender Roles/Studies, Historical Criticism, Political Criticism. He manages to discuss these topics and relate them to subject matter which most readers should have familiarity with while avoiding delving too deep into the specifics, thus giving a clear understanding as what to expect from further reading. I can’t decide how I feel about this text. While the premise--introducing theory, and then applying it--has merit, I often found some of his specific examples too abstract at times.
Ryan’s illustrations of the theories were helpful. He stressed the points of the topics in his book without highlighting them and gave a solid blueprint of what to look forward to in it. He avoided using any technical jargon in the summary, while simultaneously making the concepts and complex ideas he presented accessible to the layman reader. I wish, however, he had done a better job in defining—in limiting, establishing boundaries around—his explanations and examples.
One of Ryan’s strongest moves was applying almost every idea he challenged or presented with some form of applicable situation or current event. Looking at familiar aspects of the typical American’s perspective on current social and cultural perspectives, and using already familiar scientific theories and ideas through the different lenses of critical theories was very helpful (such as drawing parallels between the concept of evolutionary biology and the adaptation of social norms). The most interesting and illuminating point he made, in my opinion, was the idea that norms aid us in being self-regulating within our constructed idea of ‘order’, and the cyclical relationship of how “we project order onto the world, and as human culture evolves, the kinds of order we create also change.” Ryan also demonstrates the versatility of literary theories by applying each to works of different genres, including references made to films, history, science, and current cultural/civil issues.
My biggest complaint about Ryan’s text is that his analysis (of both literary texts and theories) has a very definite liberal social and political slant, to the point of being almost hostile to conservative viewpoints. I tend to be more liberal than not, so I’m clearly not upset that he’s liberal or that he’s expressing liberal views. However, while it is necessary to acknowledge that the ideal of objectivity in writing is a myth, if the writer of an educational text is going to allow their political and social views to be so present in the undercurrents of their text, I think they should state them outright in order to maintain credibility as a writer. If Ryan presented his bias, I would have been prepared for it and it wouldn’t have been nearly as distracting.
All-in-all I was left with a bitter sweet taste in my mouth after closely reading Ryan’s introduction. There were paragraphs he had me riveted and intrigued in what lay ahead, and others where I was violently rolling my eyes, wishing I could get punched in the face. But I do appreciate how well composed and thought-out the entirety of the introduction was, despite its blatant bias and sometimes contradictory combative tone when essentially preaching understanding and open-mindedness.
