A need for theory???

I do not know if I agree with this article, but I found it very interesting. I have been wondering, for most of our class, if we are right in assigning specific criticisms to specific literary works. I am not saying it is wrong to assign critiques, I have just been curious about our criticisms. This article addressed this issue head on by stating the supposed fallacies and problems of literary critiques. By far the most fascinating argument was that of the wave and the poem. I gave serious thought to this example and I found that I actually agreed with the idea of erosion. If the poem appears randomly, by way of erosion, then I am not actually looking at language but rather a coincidence of sand pebbles falling in the correct place. The erosion may appear to be language because it is decipherable but in actuality it is not language in the typical sense. Although, I did see the justification in Juhl’s discussion of the parrot and his intention, I tended to agree with our authors. In the end, I think the authors are wrong because I think that certain literary criticisms give poignancy to texts and arguments. Certain types of criticism I can see as redundant or not necessary; but I appreciate other criticisms. Knapp and Michaels have made a compelling argument for their belief in literary theories, rather their belief in our need not to have literary theories.