You made many great points in your post, all of which I haven’t the time to discuss but appreciate none-the-less.

I will say this, I think you nailed your Williams argument. Indeed, the middle class theory is self-contained. Theory, as a matter of taste rather than literary value, is a surefire way to control exclusive access and keep the lower classes out. This type of literary theory insulates itself from the questions which could break its very structure.

To take it one step further, a paradox exists between oppression of the lower classes, which Williams says is the source of imagination and creativity, and middle class appreciation of that very same creativity. Marxist criticism breaks down the elitist barriers allowing a broad inclusion of literature spanning all classes. In this way literature continually raises questions of what came before, clearing the path to further study.

It is on this point that I depart from your assessment. I don’t agree that we rely too heavily on one particular theory today without room for question. Consider this: Growth through questioning and reinventing is what has brought about change in literary form as evidenced by how we are no longer bound to the written word. Literature has evolved with technology to include PA speeches, internet images, and other new forms to be “read.” Creativity is no longer enslaved by flowery language and uncontroversial subject matter. It lives, breathes and is moving in a direction that we can’t even fathom. Graphic novels and hyper texts are just the beginning of the experiment. Personally, I find the movement and flow fascinating. That we are limited only by our imaginations means there can be no end in sight.

See you in class!
Kim