What do you think?
Rate this book
丿乇 噩爻鬲噩賵蹖 賳卮丕賳賴 賴丕
芦亘賷爻鬲 爻丕賱 倬賷卮貙 丕诏乇 賲賷鈥屫堌ж池娯� 亘丿丕賳賷丿 噩丕賷诏丕賴 賳馗乇賷賴鈥屰� 丕丿亘賷 賰噩丕爻鬲貙 賲賳 賲賷鈥屭佖� "賳卮丕賳賴鈥屫促嗀ж迟�" 賵 亘乇丕賷 卮賳丕禺鬲 倬賷賵賳丿賴丕賷 亘賷賳 賳馗乇賷賴鈥屬� 丕丿亘賷 賵 賳卮丕賳賴鈥屫促嗀ж迟娯� 噩爻鬲噩賵賷 賳卮丕賳賴鈥屬囏з� 賰丕賱乇 亘賴鬲乇賷賳 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 亘賵丿. 丕賲丕 丌賷丕 丕賲乇賵夭賴 賳賷夭 亘賴鬲乇賷賳 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丕爻鬲責 倬丕爻禺 賴賲丕賳 丕爻鬲. 賰丕賱乇 丿乇 賴乇 賮氐賱 丿乇亘丕亘 賲爻丕卅賱 賵 賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲 丕氐賱賷 毓賱賵賲 丕賳爻丕賳賷貙 賲乇賵乇賷 丕噩賲丕賱賷貙 賳賯丿貙 倬乇爻卮鈥屬囏� 賵 乇丕賴 丨賱鈥屬囏з娰� 乇丕 丕乇丕卅賴 賰乇丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丕賷賳 賰鬲丕亘 賴賲丕賳 丕賴賲賷鬲 賵 鬲賷夭亘賷賳賷 诏匕卮鬲賴鈥屬囏� 乇丕 丿丕乇丕 丕爻鬲. 毓賱丕賵賴 亘乇 丕賷賳貙 亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 诏乇丕賷卮 賲賷丕賳 乇卮鬲賴鈥屫з� 丕賷賳 丕孬乇貙 賳馗乇賷賴鈥屬� 丕丿亘賷 禺賵丿 亘賴 賵爻賷賱賴鈥屫з� 賲鬲丿丕賵賱 亘乇丕賷 鬲丨賱賷賱 賮乇賴賳诏賷 丿乇 丕賷賳 賰鬲丕亘 鬲亘丿賷賱 賲賷鈥屫促堌�.禄
賲賷賰蹖 亘丕賱貙 丕爻鬲丕丿 賳馗乇賷賴 丕丿亘賷貙
丿丕賳卮诏丕賴 丌賲爻鬲乇丿丕賲
賲賷賰蹖 亘丕賱貙 丕爻鬲丕丿 賳馗乇賷賴 丕丿亘賷貙
丿丕賳卮诏丕賴 丌賲爻鬲乇丿丕賲
471 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1981
15 people are currently reading
356 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan D. Culler
52听books83听followersCuller's Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature won the James Russell Lowell Prize from the Modern Language Association of America in 1976 for an outstanding book of criticism. Structuralist Poetics was one of the first introductions to the French structuralist movement available in English.
Culler鈥檚 contribution to the Very Short Introductions series, Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction, received praise for its innovative technique of organization. Instead of chapters to schools and their methods, the book's eight chapters address issues and problems of literary theory.
In The Literary in Theory (2007) Culler discusses the notion of Theory and literary history鈥檚 role in the larger realm of literary and cultural theory. He defines Theory as an interdisciplinary body of work including structuralist linguistics, anthropology, Marxism, semiotics, psychoanalysis, and literary criticism.
Culler鈥檚 contribution to the Very Short Introductions series, Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction, received praise for its innovative technique of organization. Instead of chapters to schools and their methods, the book's eight chapters address issues and problems of literary theory.
In The Literary in Theory (2007) Culler discusses the notion of Theory and literary history鈥檚 role in the larger realm of literary and cultural theory. He defines Theory as an interdisciplinary body of work including structuralist linguistics, anthropology, Marxism, semiotics, psychoanalysis, and literary criticism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
August 24, 2015
I had never heard of this book before, or its author. Now, that might not sound terribly surprising, but I have been reading quite a lot about semiotics lately. Anyway, I was at Readings and they had 鈥楻outledge Classics鈥� on a three-for-two sale and this was one of them on the table.
This utterly changed (and very much for the better) with Chapter Three, Semiotics as a Theory of Reading. What he does here with Blake鈥檚 London is really lovely 鈥� and worth reading all on its own if you only have the wind for a dozen or so pages. This isn鈥檛 about giving a 鈥榥ew interpretation鈥� to a poem that has been extensively interpreted before 鈥� rather, what he does is look at a number of contradictory interpretations of the poem 鈥� particularly in how they resolve (in opposite ways) some of the mirrorings that occur in the poem 鈥� the soldier and palace walls, the chimney sweep and church walls, the harlot and the marriage hearse, and he complicates the interpretations so as to help show why a remarkably simple poem has no reading that is really all that 鈥榮imple鈥�.
For instance, most people read the stanza with the chimney sweep and the blackening churches being appalled as a criticism of the Church 鈥� which, I admit, I鈥檝e always read just as that. But this is a reading that is hard to justify from the actual text itself. Which, I鈥檓 not going to pretend, I was quite taken aback by. You really do need to read more stuff into the poem than is explicitly there to make that reading. Like I said, that has always been my reading, and it is likely to remain my reading of that stanza, but I鈥檓 much less confident in my reading now than I was. And that is a really good thing, I think.
The ten or so pages from about page 75 where London is quoted in full are really worth reading 鈥� just wonderful.
The other chapter of this that blew me away was Chapter 10. Look, I鈥檝e read lots and lots about metaphor over the years. It鈥檚 just one of those things that keeps coming up in my reading. Borges鈥檚 lectures on Poetics, Metaphors We Live By, a lovely book about Poetry and Metaphor 鈥� so, I wasn鈥檛 expecting to be surprised here. But this was particularly interesting and super clever. It starts by asking where are there so many conferences and books today on metaphor, but also points out that the idea of there being, say, a conference on synecdoche or simile seems odd to the point of being a joke. Why is that? What鈥檚 so special about metaphors?
The thing is that metaphors are like an advertisement years ago for a board game called Othello (a moment to learn, a lifetime to master). And part of the problem is that metaphors aren鈥檛 as easy to spot as we like to imagine or have been taught to expect. For instance, at high school when we were introduced to them by some jaded English teacher we were probably taught their meaning in opposition to similes. If you say 鈥榣ike鈥�, it鈥檚 a simile; if you don鈥檛, it鈥檚 a metaphor. He is like a lion, simile 鈥� he is a lion, metaphor. Simplicity itself. The problem is that metaphors have a habit of stopping being obvious. Did you know, for instance, that 鈥榙evelop鈥� is from Middle English and from Old French and means to unfold 鈥� sort of the opposite of envelop. And this original meaning sort of remains in its current meaning 鈥� to develop is a kind of unfolding in the sense we expect what is developing to 鈥榓lready be there鈥� in a sense. Metaphors 鈥榙ie鈥�, as Orwell liked to say, but it is becoming increasingly likely that virtually everything we say, particularly all our 鈥榥ouns鈥�, were probably once 鈥榤etaphors鈥� that have now died. That we no longer see as metaphors.
The bit I liked the most was him quoting Donald Davidson at the end of the chapter about a geometrical proof being like a mousetrap. Now, he doesn鈥檛 explain how the two things are alike, and that is the point. We immediately go looking for the ways in which the two things will be alike and disregard the ways they aren鈥檛 at all alike. Ideas like 鈥榮urprise鈥� and 鈥榮implicity鈥� seem like promising lines of attack in linking the two things that are appearing in a metaphorical connection 鈥� whereas cheese or decomposing rodents are probably less promising. And this reminded me of that lovely line from Get Smart where Max says that life is like a cumquat and someone questions him about this comparison, to which he responds by asking in a nearly outraged and surprised tone, 鈥淟ife isn鈥檛 like a cumquat?鈥� It is almost as if we are programmed to need to find similes and metaphors and to find out how they 鈥榳ork鈥� (which bits 鈥榳ork鈥� and which bits we can ignore) and that we will go to enormous lengths to make sure that they do work 鈥� as if making the metaphor work is our task, rather than something that should be left for the metaphor to do for us.
I really liked this book and it was much more clear than I thought it might prove to be when I picked it up. Semiology, like linguistics, has a pretty bad name for being insanely difficult (which, when you think about it, ought to be about the best definition of irony there is). Really a nice read and very clever.
This utterly changed (and very much for the better) with Chapter Three, Semiotics as a Theory of Reading. What he does here with Blake鈥檚 London is really lovely 鈥� and worth reading all on its own if you only have the wind for a dozen or so pages. This isn鈥檛 about giving a 鈥榥ew interpretation鈥� to a poem that has been extensively interpreted before 鈥� rather, what he does is look at a number of contradictory interpretations of the poem 鈥� particularly in how they resolve (in opposite ways) some of the mirrorings that occur in the poem 鈥� the soldier and palace walls, the chimney sweep and church walls, the harlot and the marriage hearse, and he complicates the interpretations so as to help show why a remarkably simple poem has no reading that is really all that 鈥榮imple鈥�.
For instance, most people read the stanza with the chimney sweep and the blackening churches being appalled as a criticism of the Church 鈥� which, I admit, I鈥檝e always read just as that. But this is a reading that is hard to justify from the actual text itself. Which, I鈥檓 not going to pretend, I was quite taken aback by. You really do need to read more stuff into the poem than is explicitly there to make that reading. Like I said, that has always been my reading, and it is likely to remain my reading of that stanza, but I鈥檓 much less confident in my reading now than I was. And that is a really good thing, I think.
The ten or so pages from about page 75 where London is quoted in full are really worth reading 鈥� just wonderful.
The other chapter of this that blew me away was Chapter 10. Look, I鈥檝e read lots and lots about metaphor over the years. It鈥檚 just one of those things that keeps coming up in my reading. Borges鈥檚 lectures on Poetics, Metaphors We Live By, a lovely book about Poetry and Metaphor 鈥� so, I wasn鈥檛 expecting to be surprised here. But this was particularly interesting and super clever. It starts by asking where are there so many conferences and books today on metaphor, but also points out that the idea of there being, say, a conference on synecdoche or simile seems odd to the point of being a joke. Why is that? What鈥檚 so special about metaphors?
The thing is that metaphors are like an advertisement years ago for a board game called Othello (a moment to learn, a lifetime to master). And part of the problem is that metaphors aren鈥檛 as easy to spot as we like to imagine or have been taught to expect. For instance, at high school when we were introduced to them by some jaded English teacher we were probably taught their meaning in opposition to similes. If you say 鈥榣ike鈥�, it鈥檚 a simile; if you don鈥檛, it鈥檚 a metaphor. He is like a lion, simile 鈥� he is a lion, metaphor. Simplicity itself. The problem is that metaphors have a habit of stopping being obvious. Did you know, for instance, that 鈥榙evelop鈥� is from Middle English and from Old French and means to unfold 鈥� sort of the opposite of envelop. And this original meaning sort of remains in its current meaning 鈥� to develop is a kind of unfolding in the sense we expect what is developing to 鈥榓lready be there鈥� in a sense. Metaphors 鈥榙ie鈥�, as Orwell liked to say, but it is becoming increasingly likely that virtually everything we say, particularly all our 鈥榥ouns鈥�, were probably once 鈥榤etaphors鈥� that have now died. That we no longer see as metaphors.
The bit I liked the most was him quoting Donald Davidson at the end of the chapter about a geometrical proof being like a mousetrap. Now, he doesn鈥檛 explain how the two things are alike, and that is the point. We immediately go looking for the ways in which the two things will be alike and disregard the ways they aren鈥檛 at all alike. Ideas like 鈥榮urprise鈥� and 鈥榮implicity鈥� seem like promising lines of attack in linking the two things that are appearing in a metaphorical connection 鈥� whereas cheese or decomposing rodents are probably less promising. And this reminded me of that lovely line from Get Smart where Max says that life is like a cumquat and someone questions him about this comparison, to which he responds by asking in a nearly outraged and surprised tone, 鈥淟ife isn鈥檛 like a cumquat?鈥� It is almost as if we are programmed to need to find similes and metaphors and to find out how they 鈥榳ork鈥� (which bits 鈥榳ork鈥� and which bits we can ignore) and that we will go to enormous lengths to make sure that they do work 鈥� as if making the metaphor work is our task, rather than something that should be left for the metaphor to do for us.
I really liked this book and it was much more clear than I thought it might prove to be when I picked it up. Semiology, like linguistics, has a pretty bad name for being insanely difficult (which, when you think about it, ought to be about the best definition of irony there is). Really a nice read and very clever.
June 8, 2021
Jonathan supremacy
August 12, 2024
Culler is a clear and accessible writer: no obscurantism or poetic word salads.
He ends his preface:
I hope that twenty years from now we
will be closer to a comprehensive theory of discourse and discourses than we are today.
Jonathan Culler Ithaca, New York
Jan 2001
I don't think we can say his hope has been answered or fulfilled. Based on my limited knowledge of the subject field. And amateur status and understanding and using it for my book review.
This is a collection of essays. Culler reviews some of the chief concerns of structuralism when it comes to discussing literature, narratology, and reader response. He uses staples classical literature for his examples. When he finds his colleagues wanting, he uses it as an opportunity to expand and concretize his own ideas.
With Culler the reader always benefits.
He ends his preface:
I hope that twenty years from now we
will be closer to a comprehensive theory of discourse and discourses than we are today.
Jonathan Culler Ithaca, New York
Jan 2001
I don't think we can say his hope has been answered or fulfilled. Based on my limited knowledge of the subject field. And amateur status and understanding and using it for my book review.
This is a collection of essays. Culler reviews some of the chief concerns of structuralism when it comes to discussing literature, narratology, and reader response. He uses staples classical literature for his examples. When he finds his colleagues wanting, he uses it as an opportunity to expand and concretize his own ideas.
With Culler the reader always benefits.
June 5, 2013
Hrmmmmm.....
Having read a few books and essays on semiotics, my opinion is that it's a hopelessly broad and floppy term: writings on semiotics seem to either be about things and the significance or meaning they have, or the way in which things can mean or signify other things. This encompasses everything from semantics to social perceptions and conditioning. Culler here makes a damn good effort to draw some of this together here but he's also throwing in 'literature' and 'deconstruction' into the mix. The book is mostly semiotics and deconstruction applied to literature, so that narrows the scope a bit but Culler recommends a fairly broad understanding of literature so things still get hazy.
Incedently the best summation of semiotics I have read occurs in - I think - the first chapter of where they have a fairly good knock down argument against a lot of the more technical writing on semiotics.
This is the first full literature theory book I have ever read and my impression is that there is an irritating tendency for people to try and show off just how much they have read, but this may well be because I have not read the things that these people have read and the references that Culler picks out really are useful anchor points to demonstrate his ideas - I'm not quite convinced.
To be honest I'm not quite sure how to write this review, the book itself is a big jumbled up mess of a lot of sticky dense lumps of ideas, sometimes it seems like there's some great ideas in there, but by the time you untangle all the technical terms defined with examples - examples which are supposed to illustrate oddities of the technical terms themselves - you're often left wondering where your idea went.
Ultimately I think culler has just thrown too much stuff together here and there really is only the vaguest feeling of cohesion, direction or order, some of the ideas are really clever and stimulating but I don't think they really explain or illuminate much at all, I would not recommend this book as a guide so much as an introduction of how to be appropriately confused by semiotics, with a pleasant backdrop of literature if you're that way inclined.
All being said I think this book would be a lot more rewarding for someone who had read more of the literature he refers to, but ultimately I think that semiotics is not so much a dead end but one of those annoying roads that goes in the direction of the destination that you were trying to get to for ages but then slowly veers you round to the road that you started on, only now it's getting late and your still not sure which road to take, and your all cheesed off because y'know you were sure that that road was going to take you there, I mean why couldn't they have built like a small path just by like taking a slither off someone's garden, I know pedestrian traffic can be annoying, but I'm sure they wouldn't get that many people coming through here, I mean it's like a million miles to the other road, erghhhh......
Having read a few books and essays on semiotics, my opinion is that it's a hopelessly broad and floppy term: writings on semiotics seem to either be about things and the significance or meaning they have, or the way in which things can mean or signify other things. This encompasses everything from semantics to social perceptions and conditioning. Culler here makes a damn good effort to draw some of this together here but he's also throwing in 'literature' and 'deconstruction' into the mix. The book is mostly semiotics and deconstruction applied to literature, so that narrows the scope a bit but Culler recommends a fairly broad understanding of literature so things still get hazy.
Incedently the best summation of semiotics I have read occurs in - I think - the first chapter of where they have a fairly good knock down argument against a lot of the more technical writing on semiotics.
This is the first full literature theory book I have ever read and my impression is that there is an irritating tendency for people to try and show off just how much they have read, but this may well be because I have not read the things that these people have read and the references that Culler picks out really are useful anchor points to demonstrate his ideas - I'm not quite convinced.
To be honest I'm not quite sure how to write this review, the book itself is a big jumbled up mess of a lot of sticky dense lumps of ideas, sometimes it seems like there's some great ideas in there, but by the time you untangle all the technical terms defined with examples - examples which are supposed to illustrate oddities of the technical terms themselves - you're often left wondering where your idea went.
Ultimately I think culler has just thrown too much stuff together here and there really is only the vaguest feeling of cohesion, direction or order, some of the ideas are really clever and stimulating but I don't think they really explain or illuminate much at all, I would not recommend this book as a guide so much as an introduction of how to be appropriately confused by semiotics, with a pleasant backdrop of literature if you're that way inclined.
All being said I think this book would be a lot more rewarding for someone who had read more of the literature he refers to, but ultimately I think that semiotics is not so much a dead end but one of those annoying roads that goes in the direction of the destination that you were trying to get to for ages but then slowly veers you round to the road that you started on, only now it's getting late and your still not sure which road to take, and your all cheesed off because y'know you were sure that that road was going to take you there, I mean why couldn't they have built like a small path just by like taking a slither off someone's garden, I know pedestrian traffic can be annoying, but I'm sure they wouldn't get that many people coming through here, I mean it's like a million miles to the other road, erghhhh......
June 12, 2021
A highly stimulating read. There is some literary theory lingo like metaphor, metonym, synechdoche, catachresis, trope, tropology, apostrophe etc. to watch out for though. For example, I didn't know that apostrophe meant something completely different in literary theory than it does in everyday use. Probably better to read with some background knowledge on what literary theory is and how it relates to other fields like semiotics and deconstruction.
January 11, 2017
One of the books I had to read for the PhD program at Penn State. I found it interesting but not something I ever wanted to reread.
January 10, 2018
Chapters 1 and 2 most interesting for me. Literary analysis that follows less so. Chapter on metaphor largely a faff as is the final chapter on graduate school. Still, an important book I hope to come back to.
Read
July 31, 2020噩賲賷賱 噩丿丕 賲賵囟賵毓 丕賱毓賱丕賲丞 賵丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丕鬲 賵丕賱爻賷賲賷賵賱賵噩賷丕
賵賴匕丕 氐丕乇 賰鬲丕亘 賰賱丕爻賷賰賷 賮賷 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 賱丕夭賲 鬲賯乇兀賴 丕匕丕 鬲丨亘 鬲賮賴賲 賲丕賴賷 丕賱毓賱丕賲丞 責
賵賴匕丕 氐丕乇 賰鬲丕亘 賰賱丕爻賷賰賷 賮賷 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 賱丕夭賲 鬲賯乇兀賴 丕匕丕 鬲丨亘 鬲賮賴賲 賲丕賴賷 丕賱毓賱丕賲丞 責
April 16, 2023
mostly quite dull but i really enjoyed "apostrophe" and "the turns of metaphor"
September 23, 2014
This is another of Culler's clever works of criticism. The chapter on apostrophe should be required reading for anyone interested in poetry, and the chapter on narrative brings new insights into what is often a dull discipline. He often illustrates his literary theory with famous literary works, i.e. Shelley, Proust, Shakespeare but don't be discouraged if you haven't read them. You can follow his explanations even if you haven't read the texts he discusses.
This book is less deconstructive than many of Culler's other works, despite the title. The first several chapters offer careful intellectual histories of New Criticism and literary semiotics. I especially enjoyed how often he pokes holes in Stanley Fish (although Fish's "Affective Stylistics" is recommended without reservation near the end of the book). As with any good book of criticism, I finished with at least 3 more things added to my reading list.
This book is less deconstructive than many of Culler's other works, despite the title. The first several chapters offer careful intellectual histories of New Criticism and literary semiotics. I especially enjoyed how often he pokes holes in Stanley Fish (although Fish's "Affective Stylistics" is recommended without reservation near the end of the book). As with any good book of criticism, I finished with at least 3 more things added to my reading list.
January 14, 2016
I had used this as a source on a paper in one of my linguistics classes. It looked interesting at the time, so now that I've had some time I've read it. It's very interesting. The chapter on metaphor and metonymy really caught me. Probably the strongest in the book.
July 8, 2022
Acquired Oct 16, 1999
City Lights Book Shop, London, Ontario
City Lights Book Shop, London, Ontario
August 23, 2012
Heavy going i places but the best introduction to the field of semiotics
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.