Without a doubt, the legacy of Newcomb’s paradox remains prevalent in the contemporary era. Essentially, the paradox brings to attention a striking conflict between two particular intuitions in regards to decision-making. Furthermore, it points out that what may appear to be the most rational choice could actually bring about a worse outcome than what may appear to be the irrational choice. Most importantly, the paradox incites a sense of ambiguity and raises questions about the degree of free will in the case of decision making. Throughout this essay, I will be detailing the paradox’s various components and analyzing it’s two unique approaches in order to ultimately argue that the choice to one-box yields more reward in the end.
Those critical approaches are Reader-Response Criticism and Psychological (psychoanalytic) criticism. Reader-Response Criticism is as important as the author is since; readers are active participants in literary works and has his or her own opinion, understanding and image of the work read. Even though the interpretation may look similar from one person to another, nonetheless, there will always be a slight difference in how it is perceived. According to Barnet, Burto, and Cain (2011), readers are to give a response that cannot be compared to the real life. “At one extreme are those who say that our response to a work of literature should be purely aesthetic- a response to a work of art-and not the response we would have to something comparable in real life” (p. 1745).
Psychologists give theories after their observation and analysis, whereas the literary artists convey their understanding of life through artistic presentation. Applying psychoanalytical theories to the literary work can help in understanding the hidden meaning of the text in a better way. B.J.Paris, a leading exponent of third force psychology himself affirms this notion. The term Third force psychology was first introduced in the year 1962, when Abraham Maslow used it in his seminal text Towards a Psychology of Being. It was a revolt against the behaviorist and the Freudian psychology as they both were concerned with the limited area of study.
Here we see Barton wondering if all the tales of Cruso were simply a myth to create the illusion of the famous castaway tale, a myth grounded in the male dominated literary tradition. Through Susan’s perspective, the narrative is re-constructed, and Foe sees that reconstruction as a threat, which is why he attempts to disrupt and conform Barton’s narrative to his own desires: the myth of the castaway narrative up holds the patriarchal power structure of literary tradition. However, by Barton disrupting the traditional narrative, she is, indeed, taking an old text, a myth, and taking it in a new critical direction. She admits, “We faced no perils, no ravenous beasts, not even serpents
t: In his article, "Cultural Studies and Cultural Text Analysis," Urpo Kovala discusses the role of textual analysis in cultural studies. He begins with a sketch of different conceptions of textual analysis within cultural studies by pointing to differences in the concepts of text and context themselves. Next, Kovala explores the reasons for including textual analysis as a category and method in cultural studies and in humanities and social sciences scholarship generally. Finally, Kovala sketches briefly a model for the cultural analysis of text where his main point is that the argument about the incompatibility of cultural studies and textual analysis is untenable today. Instead, what is needed now is a heterological, multi-level, and perspectival notion of both text and context.
It is used to continuously remind the readers that what they are reading is purely fiction, not reality. This also makes the narrator seem more present and seems to involve himself with the reader, in a sort of dialogue. One of the most important aspects of Kundera including an intrusive narrator is to, perhaps, explicitly establish the fact that the characters are a sole product of his imagination. His own creation. Although one may think of fictional characters as dimensionless and shallow, by admitting that his characters are entirely fictional, Kundera adds more depth to his characters.
In his book Literary Theory: An Introduction, Terry Eagleton addressed the problematic definition of literature as a term, concept and as a field of artistic expression. He started to problematize the definition of literature as an ‘imaginative’ form of writing- a definition that directly relates to fiction. However, this definition fails to encapsulate other forms of writing that acclaim a sense of ‘factual’ recording, presentation, and delivery of an author’s intention in his writings. Such texts include essays written by famous scientist like Francis Bacon, autobiographies, memoirs, scholastic and scientific publications. Moreover, Eagleton acknowledged that the distinction between ‘fact’ and ‘fiction’ in literature is often questionable.
The Dialectic between the Written and the Spoken Word in Maddaddam Postmodern literature is interested, resides many things, in emphasizing the artificiality of any created work. For this purpose, the postmodern writers use different Tools like metafiction and dynamic stasis. The use of these also results in making the reader question the way the entire world is percieved through created works. In Maddaddam by Margaret Atwood, the narrative voice presents transcriptions of oral myths in the making. These trascriptions fall in the definition of dynamic stasis coined by Linda Hutcheon.
He uses his Persona to point out his disagreement with other writers of his time. T.S.Eliot uses his personae like Alfred Prufrock and Sweeney to articulate his disillusionment against the degraded values of the twentieth century. Marc Pickren in his article, ‘Jungian Theory of the Persona’ talks about the Persona as, “Navigating the territory between the physical world we interact with daily and our inner lives, the persona forms from influences of values, culture and societal conditioning.”( Pickren 2010) The individual can cover his negative self and uncover his true self, whenever the persona permits. So the
By thus rejecting the norms of the early 18th century novel, Sterne’s work is a massive paradox for it takes the two genres of novel and anti-novel and combines them under one impressive and fearless text. “The tendency among critics has been to comment on its structural oddities without first discovering to what literary kind it belongs and what its author was trying to do.”( Jefferson, D.W 227 as qtd in Oana Ivan) This paper will attempt to define a novel and highlight the several ways in which Laurence Sterne’s