What criteria are used to close for "lit crit"

Question

I understand there is a limited list of common reasons to declare a question as off-topic, and that we have to stretch some terms to provide coverage, but I am genuinely confused by what is meant by lit crit on this site.

In this thread What does the expression "old soldier" mean?, I see nothing that even approaches lit crit. Furthermore, there is every reason to believe that the question can be addressed constructively from well-sourced examples. I don't see what distinguishes this question from any other question that provides an example of the usage they are curious about.

As long as the subject of the discussion is the phrase in question, and not the peculiarities of the author, I don't see any lit crit, regardless of how much textural context is needed to support an answer. Some questions do require a lot of context when meanings have changed over time, literary styles have changed over time, and the cultures reflected in the dialog have changed over time. These issues may need to be addressed in the answer; and I feel it detracts from the site if we feel forced to avoid them in our answers.

1. What role does needing extensive context play in determining lit crit?
2. Is discussing usage with respect to literary style off-topic?
3. Are answers pertaining to literary dialog more susceptible to being labeled lit crit? If so is this a problem?

Answer 1

Lit crit is the examination and analysis of literature as reduced to a set of "texts", i.e., as works unrelated to the usual classifications like novel, play, poetry, etc. The inquiry is performed through the lens of literary theory, a method of applying various social theories (e.g., marxism, feminism, gender studies, etc.) to the texts. There is some claim that lit crit is the application of the theory, but it would be hard to make a distinction since both are written in identical and impenetrable jargon that is so abstract and metaphoric that it can have no meaning discernible to the reader. (That is, the only possible method of understanding would have to be to query the critic directly.) For an example, try typing "Sian Ede" in the search box.

My favorite explication:

Q: What's the difference between a literary theorist and a mafia don?
A: A literary theorist makes you an offer you can't understand.

As used here, the term is a misnomer applied to questions that ask about the interpretation of a passage of a work as that passage is related to the overall theme or deeper meaning of the work. There are a few works that would have definite answers (say, Pilgrim's Progress), but for most literature, any answer would be hopelessly opinion-based.

If the lit crit charge were used solely to close questions that are thus hopeless to answer -- many of which are motivated, I suspect, by the approaching deadline of a school assignment -- that would be fine. But the charge is also used in an attempt to discourage any discussion of context for the understanding of specific words, terms, or phrases.

The old soldier answer is a case in point. Understanding this term requires some understanding of the class structure of Trollope's day. In another recent example, you're not likely to understand the wording of a passage of Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman without knowing about Talleyrand's contribution to The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

In my opinion, careful judgment is required to distinguish between a question that seeks an explication of the context of a work of literature and a question that seeks the understanding of the language of a work, when that understanding in turn requires understanding some context.

(Of course, in the case of lit crit itself, there is no discernible distinction. Again, search for Sean Ede.)