THL1501/201/1/2020

Tutorial Letter 201/1/2020

Introduction to Theory of Literature

THL1501

Semester 1

Department of Afrikaans and Theory of

Literature
This tutorial letter contains:
 Answers to Assignment 01
 Feedback on Assignment 02
 Preparation for the Exam

BAR CODE
CONTENTS Page

A. ANSWERS TO ASSIGNMENT 01 (MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS) 3

B. FEEDBACK ON ASSIGNMENT 02 3

1 GENERAL 3

2 REMARKS ON THE NATURE OF LITERARY THEORY 3

3 ACTIVITIES FOR SELF-EVALUATION 4

3.1 General 4
3.2 Reading 5

4 QUESTION ONE 5
4.1 General remarks about the definition of aesthetic objects 5
4.2 Specific questions: some problems 6

5 QUESTION TWO 7
5.1 General remarks 7
5.2 Intrinsic (message) and extrinsic (context) oriented proposals 8
5.3 The specific questions 9

6 QUESTION THREE 11
Three (A): General remarks 11
Three (B): General remarks 12

7. CONCLUSION 12

C. EXAMINATIONS 13

2
 THL1501/201

Dear student

This tutorial letter contains the answers to the multiple-choice questions (Assignment 01), as well as
feedback on Assignment 02 and preparation for the examination.

Prof Alan Northover

northra@unisa.ac.za
(012) 429-6794

A. ANSWERS TO THE MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS: ASSIGNMENT 01

This assignment is intended to orient you to the course. It seeks to enable you to gain an introduction and
overview to the content of the study material and some of the main issues which will be covered in the
course of your studies. It further aims to make you an active student by encouraging you to start reading
your study material as soon as you receive it. Check your answers against those given below:

1) 4
2) 1
3) 3
4) 3
5) 1
6) 4
7) 2
8) 3
9) 2
10) 1

B. FEEDBACK ON ASSIGNMENT 02

1 GENERAL

It was interesting and often stimulating to read your assignments. Many students used the self-evaluation
assignment to work themselves into the material properly and to come up with personal responses and
opinions about it. Relevant and original examples, clear arguments (or an effort at it), as well as lucid
writing were displayed in many assignments.

2 REMARKS ON THE NATURE OF THEORY

To assist you in understanding the nature of literary theory, I briefly discuss the role of definition in theory
by using the example of Sol T Plaatje’s Mhudi. It is relevant to the Activities in Study Units 2 and 3.

3
Note, that while the theory in the case is concerned with definition, it is not primarily interested in defining
Mhudi as such. In theoretical approaches, definition only makes sense when we are trying to see why we
classify together a number of texts as being of the same type (or a number of entities / objects as being of
the same type). Thus, there would be no point in attempting to define one particular text. Rather, the
theorist may have a definition in mind – that is, he or she may have formed a hypothesis about the defining
features of literary texts, or of a certain class of literary texts, and might look to particular literary texts for
corroborating evidence (that is, he or she might use the text to defend or support his or her definition).

In the case of Mhudi, the theorist may be interested in defining, describing and / or explaining any of the
following:

■ the nature of the historical novel;

■ the relationship between fact and fiction in the historical novel;
■ the relationship between past and present in historical novels;
■ South African literature of the 1930s;
■ the role of colonialism and anti-colonial struggles in historical novels in African literature.

These are just some possibilities out of an infinitely large number of choices. But in each of the possibilities,
the point is that the theorist is concerned with general principles (i.e. those which apply to a large number of
texts), rather than with particular texts in and for themselves. Any other literary example must be dealt with
in the same manner. Contrast this with a non-theoretical approach to the same novel in which the emphasis
will be on describing, explaining, interpreting and evaluating Mhudi without attempting to generalise about
the genre of the historical novel in African literature.

Keep this in mind when you discuss other aspects of the theoretical approach when dealing with the
questions in Assignment 02 and the Examination. Pay close attention to every element which forms part of
the theoretical approach. Details on this appear on pp. 20-35 of the Text and Workbook.

3 ACTIVITIES FOR SELF-EVALUATION

3.1 General

You could proceed with confidence to the second assignment once you completed the Self-evaluation
Activities. Your responses to the Activities are also of use in answering the questions for Assignment 02.
Keep this in mind when you prepare for the examinations.

Although many students did not slavishly follow the Text and Workbook when answering the questions for
the second assignment, there were those who are still too reliant on the Text and Workbook, both in the
formulation of their answers, and in the points of view which they seem to adopt. As was stated in the Text
and Workbook and in other tutorial materials, the most important things that we were looking for were
understanding and independent thinking. One of the most common failings was to believe that because a
particular conclusion appears in the Text and Workbook, the conclusion could merely be re-stated in your
answers without any further justification. This is not the case: every point must be motivated, even those
that you think I agree with. Furthermore, you should acknowledge your source(s) using in-text citations and
a list of references (bibliography) in the Harvard style. For instance, the study guide should be cited as
follows: (Carusi 2007:48). OR According to Carusi “the fundamental problem is one of justification”
(2007:48). You are not expected, however, to use in-text citations during the exam, since it is closed-book.

4
 THL1501/201

Every term used in your answers must be defined. Do not assume that your reader knows the terms, and
therefore does not require an explanation. It's not a matter of what I know, but of what you know. To put it
differently: you must make sure that I know that you know what you are talking about.

Certain questions in Question 2 require that you read a little wider than only the sections mentioned below
the questions. You have to establish what “sender” means, as well as, “intention” and “sender-oriented”
theories. Use the rest of the Text and Workbook as a kind of reference work where necessary. You will not
be tested on this ‘extra’ work in the examination, but some additional background about the context of what
has indeed been prescribed will significantly improve your picture and insight in the subject.

You will have noted that the theory you have chosen is presented within such a specific context. This letter
does not cover all of it – establish for yourself the context in which your selected theory appears in the
Guide. Lastly, Assignment 02 questions cover work which has not been done in the Self-evaluation. This is
on purpose. The Self-evaluation serves as background and preparation to the additional work required by
Assignment 02.

3.2 Reading

The reading is relevant for all the questions in Assignment 02. Here are the correct references:

Defining Aesthetic Objects: Study unit 1: pp. 2-16 and Study unit 4: pp 42-54
Theoretical approaches: Study Unit 2: pp. 21-35
Sender-centred proposals: Study Unit 5: pp. 55-65
Russian Formalism: Study Unit 6: pp. 69- 97 Focus on section 6.4.1
New Criticism: Study Unit 6: pp. 69-97 Focus on section 6.4.2
Context-centred proposals: Study Unit 7: pp. 98-107
Mukařovský: Study Unit 9: pp.116-135
Two forms of aesthetic value: Study-unit 1: pp: 131-145

4 ASSIGNMENT 02 : QUESTION ONE

4.1 General remarks about the definition of aesthetic objects

The question is concerned with the problems encountered when one attempts to define aesthetic objects.
So what is the problem regarding the definition of aesthetic objects? The problem is that normally, we have
clear criteria for the correct application of a concept to various items or objects. In the case of the aesthetic,
these criteria are problematic, for two reasons: (i) The very same criteria can be used to arrive at opposing
judgements, and (ii) different types of criteria are used for different types of items. Provide some of your
own examples to illustrate this.

If we cannot arrive at a clear understanding of the criteria for applying the concept “aesthetic”, then we are
faced with two further problems: i) either we are never justified when we apply the concept, or ii) the
concept is meaningless, that is, it cannot be used for the purposes of communication. Read Study Unit 4
again. Be sure to go over the Activities even if you think you have a clear understanding of the problem.
Revise the Activities since they will ensure that the problem becomes clear to you.

5
4.2 The specific questions: some problems

(a) You had to begin by spelling out the difference between natural objects and cultural objects. The
most important difference is that natural objects are not created by human agents while cultural
objects are the products of human activity. Cultural objects are purposive, practical and/or meaningful
objects. Aesthetic objects fall under the domain of cultural objects but they are a special kind of
cultural object. They are objects which are given this status on the basis of an evaluation that they
possess aesthetic qualities. Check the answers to the Activities in the Answer Book.

(b) Cultural objects are human-made objects and have a meaning or value which is determined by the
function the objects have in the society in which they were produced. Their characteristics are hard to
define because it is a matter of interpretation and value (not the stable and factual characteristics of
natural/physical objects). The problem of the definition of aesthetic objects is actually also relevant
here. The problem in defining aesthetic objects resides in the fact that:

 The fundamental problem is that of justification, i.e. providing reasons for our belief that
something is beautiful;
 Unlike objective scientific descriptions, aesthetic judgements are subjective;
 No clear criteria exist for the application or use of this concept which deals with matters of pure
beauty and taste in art;
 The same is true for the concepts of “art” and “aesthetic”, and so it does not help to define
“beauty” in these terms;
 Although the idea of beauty is much invoked there is no agreement on what it actually is;
 The same reasons used to justify why something is beautiful can be used to justify the opposite
conclusion;
 The criteria for what is considered beauty changes over time in all cultures;
 Different cultures have different criteria for beauty so that no universal criteria exist;
 Different persons from the same cultures, using the same criteria often have different views of
what beauty is;
 It is difficult to separate aesthetic from religious, emotive and moral judgements;
 “Aesthetic experience” is also subjective and so it does not help to shift the emphasis from the
aesthetic object to the experience of it.

(c) You could have concluded from the problems with the criteria that the words “aesthetic” or “beautiful”
should not appear in the definition. In case they do appear, they must be justified because these
words are used subjectively and do not refer to the features of the aesthetic object. Definitions should
contain both the necessary and sufficient conditions of the aesthetic object.

(d) Message centred theories like Russian Formalism and New Criticism focus on the intrinsic aspects of
the aesthetic object. Sender-centred, receiver-centred and context-centred theories focus on
extrinsic aspects. You must give a detailed answer with respect the theory you have chosen.

6
 THL1501/201

5 QUESTION TWO

5.1 General remarks

Question 2.2 was relatively straight-forward in respect of the theory you had chosen which would be one of
the following: Sender-centred proposals, Russian Formalism, New Criticism, Mukařovský’s theory or
Context-centred proposals. The purpose of the questions was to describe and evaluate these theories by
means of some specific aspects regarding (literary) theories in general. You were not to spend time on the
background or history of the theory or to merely sum up its “content”.

If you selected Sender-centred approaches you had to focus on two hypotheses with regard to attempts by
this approach to account for the aesthetic object, namely:

(i) The activity of the sender, and

(ii) The intentions of the sender.

If you focussed only on one of the above your answer would have been incomplete. You also had to point
out the shortcomings of each hypothesis and the explanation it puts forward as well as provide a critique of
sender-centred approaches as a whole. This had to be done by drawing on the views of the Romantics with
regard to the nature of the artist and writer and by referring to counter-examples such as senderless
objects with aesthetic value on the one hand and objects with aesthetic values created by sender without
the intention of creating such objects on the other. The theoretical terms of each hypothesis should be
extracted from the study material.

If you selected New Criticism it would have added to your insight and answers regarding New Criticism if
you had read the passage from Ryken on pp. 84-86. If you ignored this, you were unable to give an
account of why New Criticism is a “formalist” approach, which emphasises the intrinsic features of literary
texts.

For Questions 2 and 3 of this assignment with regard to Russian Formalism attention should be paid to
problems arising from the theory. These involve (i) the separation of form and content or meaning and (ii)
the fact that the intrinsic features brought about by devices which effect a deviation in poetic language
suggest that intrinsic feature can only be established with reference to external features.

In addition to this, you had to assess whether Russian Formalism contributes to a better understanding of
the literary object. Many students did not spell out the fact that because of its focus on form, Russian
Formalism draws attention to the fact that all literary objects, and for that matter all other aesthetic objects,
are characterised by formal features without which the work is inconceivable. Even though the Formalist
claim that the function of the formal features created by the devices is to foreground language and so draw
attention to it is not applicable to all forms of literature and art, the Formalist emphasis on form nevertheless
provides an important insight into the nature of the literary object as an aesthetic object.

With regard to Mukařovský’s theory, most students summarised the content of the theory very clearly and
identified the main problems with regard to the emphasis placed on the receiver. You should have
mentioned that by suggesting (i) that the receivers are the creators of the aesthetic objects and (ii) that they
attribute value to it, Mukařovský neglects the fact that these attributes are intrinsic to the work and placed

7
there by the sender and not by the receiver. This in turn, calls into question the rigid distinction made by
Mukařovský between the artefact and the aesthetic object. In other words, the object created by the sender
is not devoid of aesthetic qualities and value. In addition, Mukařovský’s terminology is often not clearly
defined. The same vagueness pertains to his use of the term receiver. These problems are outlined on
pp.121-123 of the Text and Workbook.

5.2 Intrinsic (message) and extrinsic (context) oriented proposals

It was relevant that your answers to Question 1 and 2 reflected somewhere that you are aware of the
difference between message centred and context centred theoretical proposals (and definitions) about
literature, as well as the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic features. These two points are especially
important for Question 3 but we deal with them here because it could help you with your general insight into
the question you have selected.

We discuss these two groups in the terms in which your theory is described in the Text and Workbook here
very briefly, complementing the reading given for the Self-Evaluation. We briefly deal with message-centred
proposals in general of which Russian Formalism and New Criticism are examples.

What are message centred proposals? They are proposals which define aesthetic objects by their intrinsic
features. In order to understand this, you must make sure you grasp the distinction between intrinsic and
extrinsic features. Message-centred proposals are intrinsic because they are concerned with the aspects
which are internal to the object. While this distinction is important, it should be borne in mind that the
internal aspects of a message are placed there by the sender and have to be perceived by the receivers.
Furthermore, the internal features of the works are also part of the conventions which govern a particular
aesthetic form. These are all extrinsic features – features which are external to the literary object as such.

In other words, an emphasis on only the intrinsic features, and a neglect of how external features come to
bear on intrinsic features, leads to a one-sided view and a partial definition of the aesthetic object.

Make sure you understand the distinction as well as the relationship between form and content.
This is relevant to both Russian Formalism and New Criticism. This appears in Study Unit 6.

In the case of Russian Formalism the following needs to be highlighted:

■ it is concerned with the intrinsic features of the aesthetic object;

■ its object of study is literariness and the form of the literary text which is distinguished from other forms
of communication on the ground of its literariness;
■ literary, poetic or aesthetic language is distinguished by the fact that it deviates from non-literary
language;
■ the deviation is brought about by formal devices, some of which are automatised and others which are
foregrounded;
■ the poem is a complex interaction of automatised and defamiliarised elements;
■ the internal and external deviation in turn defamiliarises or makes the language strange;
■ the defamiliarisation leads to a foregrounding of language and a defamiliarisation of perceptions.

The main shortcoming of this message-centred proposal is that the internal features it attributes to the
literary work are also found in other non-literary forms of communication. Furthermore, it separates the form
of the literary text from the content in a way which is not tenable. While form and content can be
distinguished from each other, form cannot be separated from the content or meaning of the literary text. In
addition, the intrinsic features of the text can only be distinguished by referring to external matters such as

8
 THL1501/201

non-literary language. Thus, while, Russian Formalism, as a message-centred proposal, stresses the
importance of the internal features, it also demonstrates the importance of external matters.

Thus a message-centred proposal such as Russian Formalism, by defining the aesthetic object in terms of
its intrinsic features, meets a necessary condition for defining literary objects as aesthetic objects. It does
not meet necessary and sufficient conditions for the definition of aesthetic objects.

A useful starting point for the understanding of context-centred proposals is the fact that the aesthetic
objects are defined by aesthetic norms, conventions and traditions. These are external factors. Of central
importance is the relationship between institutional considerations and the intrinsic features of aesthetic
objects.

While the intrinsic features of aesthetic objects are important, it should be understood that these features
are never wholly internal since they partly belong to other objects of a similar type as well as to the genres
and styles to which they belong. These styles and genres in turn emerge in specific historical contexts.
They change over time and usually differ from one cultural context to another. As a member of a particular
society, the sender is aware of the conventions and traditions which prevail at the time of creating an
aesthetic object. The main shortcoming of a context-centred approach is that the context by itself is
necessary but it is not necessary and sufficient for the definition of an aesthetic object. The intrinsic
features (and in fact the sender’s intentions), as well as the evaluation of the objects by receivers in a
particular context, are required for the definition to meet both necessary and sufficient conditions to be
defined as an aesthetic object.

5.3 The specific questions

(1) This point deals with Question 2.1, namely theoretical and non-theoretical approaches.

The most important difference between theoretical and non-theoretical approaches is while non-
theoretical approaches makes various assumptions while studying literary artworks, theoretical
approaches make these assumptions explicit and subject them to testing and critical interrogation.
This makes theoretical approaches more objective and scientific than the more subjective ones of
criticism interpretation and scholarship. You were not simply meant to list the differences between
theoretical and non-theoretical approaches, but to structure the differences in an argument in
response to the question.

(2) The remaining points deal with Question 2.2.

Some students gave the object of study of their theory as “literature”. This is far too general. New
Criticism, for example, paid a lot of attention to criticism and specific texts but these are not study
objects as meant here. They are rather fields of application. What is the aspect your chosen theory
regards as that which should be analysed, described and defined?

Here you should have studied the theory you have chosen very closely. Often a theory contains a list
of hypotheses. The object of study is an aspect of literature or texts which is accentuated, whereas
hypotheses are statements which the theory proposes or which are its propositions and which the
theory then has to prove by means of innovative analyses, supportive arguments, research,
descriptions, etc. Formalists propose that literary language differs from ordinary language, but the
crux of the proposal is that this is the distinguishing formal characteristic of a literary text. New

9
 Criticism must prove the hypothesis that literature is a form of knowledge or the hypothesis that form
and meaning cannot be distinguished. Hypotheses are completely part of theoretical propositions and
not of the issues and debated matters resulting from these. The following is, for example, not a
hypothesis but an opinion or debated issue: literature must be autonomous and should not be the
study of the writer or his social and personal world.

In the relevant sections of the Text and Workbook theoretical terms usually are in bold and
highlighted by margin texts. You must list and define all the terms. In the case of sender centred-
centred theories you should identify and define terms such as “sender”, “activity”, “intention”,
“originality”, “creative genius”, “imagination” and others.

Apart from the discussions of this in the Text and Workbook, I welcome students offering their own
conclusions or (motivated) opinion. You can of course base your own opinion on the criticism in the
study material or state why you do not agree with the Text and Workbook.

The Self-evaluation should have guided you to refer here to the definition of the study object,
theoretical terms and the quality of definitions provided by the theory you have chosen. You could,
however, have put your own arguments as long as they were well argued.

A major means to test the ‘success’ of a theory as theory is the criteria that the definitions the theory
provides must include all and both the necessary and sufficient conditions of the object defined.
Although you were certainly not going to be failed should you not have referred to this, we would like
you to make sure that you understand these criteria of definitions in theory.

What the proposal actually consists in: that is, what conditions does it include in its definition? Then
consider the following questions:

(i) Is this a necessary condition?

(ii) Is this a sufficient condition?

I here provide a fairly extensive overview in order to assist you in establishing whether your theory
fulfils the conditions for good theoretical definitions.

In order to test whether something is a necessary condition, see whether you can find an example
which does not meet the condition, but is an aesthetic object. For example: the claim that attention to
intrinsic features is a necessary condition for something to be an aesthetic object may be countered
with the example of Andy Warhol’s Five Coke Bottles.

In order to test whether something is a sufficient condition, see whether you can find an example
which does meet the condition, but is not an aesthetic object. For example: the claim that an
aesthetic intention on the part of the sender is a sufficient condition for something to be an aesthetic
object may be countered with the example of someone who got to write a poem (i.e. has the
appropriate intention), but who hasn’t the talent.

Sometimes, even if you have put forward what you think is a genuine counter-example (and therefore
a knock-down argument against the proposal), proponents of the proposal may still feel that they can
respond. In this sense, we could say that talk about art, and attempts to define it, are part of an
endless conversation, of which your answers are tiny fragments. You could have tried to use counter-
examples in your answers to Question 2(1).

10
 THL1501/201

Apart from casting your answers (or part thereof) in terms of a test for necessary and / or sufficient
conditions, you could have given a more well-rounded answer by considering a general view about
art and literature: something about art and literature which you consider really important or
fundamental to it. This would have given a distinctive angle to your answers, which would serve as its
focal point.

6 QUESTION THREE

Three (A) : General remarks

Question 3 is concerned with the criterion of evaluation for aesthetic objects. The text- and workbook
viewpoint is that there are criteria for evaluation of aesthetic objects. However, it states that the criteria used
for evaluation are not accepted by everyone under all conditions. It is the universal acceptability of the
criteria which is refuted by the statement. You could have read about the viewpoints around canons and the
assumptions of FR Leavis that human beings everywhere intuitively know what criteria to apply in the
evaluation of aesthetic objects.

One way in which you could have approached this question was by broaching the distinction between
inherent and consequential value. Put yourself in the position of someone who must defend the continued
support of art and literature in a politically and economically beleaguered country. (This is what many of us
involved in the cultural domain in South Africa do almost on a daily basis!) Let’s say that you have to
persuade the people in power in the Department of Education that literature should continue to be taught at
schools. What kinds of reasons will you give?

If you are inclined to say that literature simply is beautiful – or that the best literature is – and that it should
be taught simply because it is, you are likely to be an inherentist (that is a proponent of the idea that
literature has inherent aesthetic value).

If you are inclined to say that literature helps us to understand the social world we live in, that it teaches us
to be better people – perhaps more morally sensitive people, that it is an ideological or cultural weapon, or
any similar reason, you are likely to be a consequentialist (that is a proponent of the idea that literature has
consequential aesthetic value).

Can one be both an inherentist and a consequentialist? It’s quite possible to appreciate the force of both
positions: to recognise in a literary work both that it has consequences on which we place a high value, and
that it has inherent value. Or that a work is beautiful, but the reason it is valuable are for its social
consequences. But I think that one has to adopt one or the other as a bottom-line position. Do you agree?

One point that needs to be cleared up is the following: consequentialists do not necessarily ignore intrinsic
features. For example, the position put forward by the New Critics is consequentialist, in that they believe
that the value of poetry lies in the knowledge it gives us. But they certainly do not ignore its intrinsic
features: in fact, it is because poetry has the intrinsic features that it does have, that it can have this
consequence at all. It would, however, appear that inherentists can’t but place a high premium on the
intrinsic features of aesthetic objects.

Russian formalisation is the only theory that exclusively concerns inherent value, since it focusses only on
the form of artworks.

All the other theories are consequentialist. You must be able to provide reasons to explain exactly why.

11
Three (B) : General remarks

This question deals with the interpretation of aesthetic objects and literary works in particular. It is covered
in Study Units 13, 14 and 15. In other words, it is concerned with the meaning of aesthetic objects and
literary works. This centres on the question what a particular aesthetic object or literary work is about. You
will recall that in discussing the nature of aesthetic objects it was mentioned that they are meaningful
objects that require interpretation in order to be understood. While every day communication is relatively
easy to understand this is not the case with artworks. Just think how difficult it can be to interpret and make
sense of poetry.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that literary and other aesthetic objects often have more than
one meaning. Furthermore, different people often respond differently when interacting with artworks. The
case of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet is discussed as an example and some 8 different interpretations that
can be made of the play are listed. Can you think of other literary examples with multiple meanings and
interpretation possibilities?

Once you have done the above, you can move on the matter of correct interpretations. While New Criticism
insisted that close and attentive reading will produce the correct interpretation of literature, Mukařovský
argues that this is not necessarily the case: as long as an interpretation is coherent, valid, insightful and
supported by the aesthetic object it meets the condition of acceptability.

Finally, you had to discuss the three kinds of intentionality or, rather, the three approaches to the question
of the author’s/artist’s intention. These are anti-intentionalism, radical intentionalism and moderate
intentionalism. You also had to justify which form of intentionalism you think is most appropriate for
interpreting literary works and other aesthetic objects.

7. CONCLUSION

Please feel free to contact me if any other problems arise. Congratulations to all of you who performed well
in the assignments. I encourage the rest of you to improve on your performances. Work carefully through
the Activities and check your answers with those in the Answer book. Read the feedback letter carefully
when revising Assignment 02.

All the best with your preparation for the exam.

12
 THL1501/201

C. EXAMINATION

This feedback letter should be used in your revision of your assignment and in your preparation for the
examinations. The exam takes on the format of Assignment 02 so make sure you revise it
thoroughly.

1. INTRODUCTION

Many of you will already have begun revising and preparing for the examination for THL1501: Introduction
to Theory of Literature. This tutorial letter gives you some guidelines and advice for this purpose.

The examination does not differ significantly from Assignment 02. We expect you to do better since
you have received feedback and had time to revise your work. If you did not hand in any assignments, you
would not have had the benefit of this and you would also have forfeited your year mark.

2 THL1501: INTRODUCTION TO THEORY OF LITERATURE

2.1 Format of the paper

The paper is set out as follows:

Question 1 [30 marks]

Question 2 [50 marks]
Question 3(A) [20 marks]
OR
Question 3(B) [20 marks]

Total: 100 marks

Answer all questions. You have a choice between the various theories when answering these
questions.

The pass mark in the exam is 50%. The exam contributes 75% to your final mark. The
assignments contribute 25%

2.2 Scope of the paper

The paper covers all of the most important sections of the Text and Workbook.

2.3 What to include in your revision

Obviously, everything that you should have covered for the assignments is required for the exam.
Some students in the past wrote very rushed assignments, and evidently had not gone through
everything required for the assignment. Pay close attention to the feedback tutorial letter for
Assignment 02 and to the comments on your assignment.

13
2.4 What we are looking for in your answers

An understanding of the issues presented in the study material is required. This calls for an ability to
pick out information relevant to the question (so don’t try to write down everything) and, where
appropriate, to the argument you are putting forward. Some of the questions ask for your own opinion.
Remember that this does not mean that your answers can consist simply of a statement of your own
views, without any consideration whatsoever to the presentation of these issues in the Study material.

2.5 Time allocation

The duration of the paper is TWO hours.

Work out the time that you should allot to each question now. Don’t go over the allotted time for each
question. You will lose more marks by not answering a question at all, than by giving an incomplete
answer. You may have time at the end to come back to any incomplete answers.

3 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Most of you have done well in Assignment 02. I hope you will do even better in the exams. Best of luck to
all of you!

Regards

Prof Alan Northover

14