Walking the Talk: Disserting the Controversies Between Literary Criticism, Literary Theory and Textual Interpretations and Analyses

After reading through a number of research works, journal articles, dissertations and theses, I realized that one of the greatest challenge faced by Post Graduate (PG) students in the department of English in the University of Buea, and some budding researchers is how to effectively, systematically, and appropriately use critical theories consistently in the analyses and interpretation of literary texts and research data. While some students get mixed up (and in some cases are completely confused) in differentiating between Literary Criticism and Literary Theory and how they can be appropriated in their research works, others just find it difficult to navigate between literary theory and textual analyses in the body of their research works. In most of the students’ research papers, long essays and theses, once a theory or theories are mentioned at the beginning of the research work, or at times in chapter one, they live and die at that level. From an eclectic theoretical perspective and drawing inspiration from the critical views of Benth Lindfors, Terry Eagleton, Bernard Fonlon, Chidi Amuta, Biodun Jeyifo, Louis Monstrose, Omafame F. Onoge, Roland Barthe, Pierre Micheray, Jacque Lancan amongst many others, this paper intends to orientate students and researchers on how to appropriately, scientifically, methodologically, and consistently use critical theories to navigate, in a logical manner, their interpretation and analyses of literary texts. This paper will equally use interviews to collect data that will enable us better understand how student make choices when it comes to selecting theories for textual interpretation and analysis. The analyses in this paper reveal that literary criticism, literary theory and textual interpretations and analyses must resonate in a symbiotic relationship when it comes to writing articles, dissertations and thesis. This paper validates Chidi Amuta’s claims that criticism must be guided by theory and theory, in turn, by philosophy and that in the absence of this chain of relationship, critics and researchers will display incoherence in their pronouncements on literature and culture.