What do you think?
Rate this book
درآمدی بر نظریهه� و روشها� نقد ادبی
The second edition of Literary Criticism by Charles E. Bressler is designed to help readers make conscious, informed, and intelligent choices concerning literary interpretation. By explaining the historical development and theoretical positions of eleven schools of criticism, author Charles Bressler reveals the richness of literary texts along with the various interpretative approaches that will lead to a fuller appreciation and understanding of such texts.
357 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 1993
103 people are currently reading
935 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews
April 30, 2011
This is going to be a long post, so get ready, gentle reader!
I have never studied literary theory before. But I have always been interested. So I picked up a book that looked like a basic, simple introduction to the dominant schools of literary criticism. This book, geared to those who have no background in theory (like me!) has no primary texts, but instead each chapter (devoted to a particular theory) is divided into introduction, historical development, assumptions, methodology, questions for analysis, a sample student essay that reads a text through that theory, and tips for further reading. This third edition was published in 2003—I think two more newer editions have come out since then.
First, I’m going to describe each of the schools. This is mostly for my own edification, to reinforce what I’ve learned, and also to jog my own memory down the line. If this does not interest you, skip down to where I begin to opine about all this.
NEW CRITICISM
This is “the text and text alone� approach to literary analysis. In other words, the text’s meaning depends solely on the text. All other information (the author’s life, the historical context, the reader’s reaction, etc.) is more or less extraneous—the text contains all the information needed to discern its meaning. A New Critic close reads the text, which means she acknowledges allusions, diction, images, prosody, tone, and other literary devices—as well as all ambiguities, conflicts, and tensions� and ultimately resolves all of the preceding through one interpretation. There can only ever be one “right� interpretation. New Critics describe their methodology as “objective.� They fall under a larger school of criticism, the Formalists.
READER-RESPONSE CRITICISM
This is what it sounds like—the reader’s response is taken into account (unlike in New Criticism). The reader and text work together to form the meaning in a transactional experience. Structuralism (more on that later) is a type of reader-response criticism in that the reader brings certain codes (ways of understanding) to the text, and interprets the text via those codes. Phenomenology also falls under Reader-Response criticism, as this way of thinking emphasizes the perceiver. Objects exist if and only if we register them in our consciousness (concretization). One phenomenologist came up with reception theory that says that readers from any given historical period come up with the criteria by which they judge a text. How a text is evaluated changes from era to era (a particular era’s method of assessment is its horizon of expectation). Subjective Criticism is a third group of reader-response criticism, and it’s all about what the reader feels and identifies with in the text (“That old lady in Huck Finn makes me think of my grandma!�). What all of these sub-groups have in common is that the reader’s existence becomes important in terms of how a text is assessed. Depending on the sub-group, the reader can have a very prominent role in the relationship between reader, text, and meaning, or a very minor role.
STRUCTURALISM
This school is grounded in structural linguistics, or semiology (the study of signs), which was developed by Ferdinand de Saussure. I’m going to skip explaining most of the technical vocabulary , but basically Saussure analyzed language in a new way. For the purposes of literary theory, it’s probably most important to understand these terms: langue (what any little kid has internalized—the structure of the language that is mastered and shared by all its speakers), parole (individual utterances), and words as signs (a sign is made up of a signifier and a signified, where, for example, “tree� is the former and the concept of “tree� is the latter). Saussure says that there is no intrinsic link between the signifier and signified (for instance, calling a tree “tree� and not, say, “booga booga� is completely arbitrary). Meaning, he says, is relational—we know that a tree is a tree because it is not a truck or a bat. He says, “In language there are only differences.�
Structuralists, then, generalize Saussure’s findings to other areas. Signs are found everywhere, in that we read “codes� constantly—a red light means stop, a soccer ball indicates a certain kind of sport, etc. So, the “proper� way to arrive at meaning is to look at the codes behind the practice, not the practice itself. In terms of literature, Structuralists emphasize langue (the system of how texts relate to each other) and not parole (individual texts). Their crucial question is how a text conveys meaning rather what that specific meaning is. For example, in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “Young Goodman Brown,� Structuralists will be interested in how darkness comes to represent evil, and light goodness (not merely the fact that these representations occur). A Structuralist will ask, why does darkness often represents evil in any text? what sign system is at work that allows readers to often read darkness in this way? Intertexuality (how texts relate to each other) is thus very important.
Important literary structuralists include Claude Levi-Strauss and Roland Barthes (the latter talks about binary operations in a text, such as light/dark and good/evil, where we understand through oppositions).
DECONSTRUCTION
Deconstruction theory, which started to emerge in the 1960s, went directly against structuralism. No codes can be used to get to the interpretation of a text because, when it comes down to it, a text has many meanings, and no one “right� interpretation. Thus, undecideability. Deconstruction, then, is a very postmodern theory—everything is subjective; objectivity is dead. Jacques Derrida is the father of deconstruction theory with Michael Foucault as another important voice. These thinkers say that modernity failed because it wanted an external point of reference (such as God or science) which could be the basis for a philosophy. These postmodern thinkers say that there is no point of reference like this, for no ultimate truth or unifying reality exists.
But, to go back to Derrida. Derrida actually used many of the tenets of structuralism. He agreed with Saussure that signification is arbitrary and conventional. Derrida proposes that there is a transcendental signified (essentially, the external point of reference I discussed above). A transcendental signified can only be understood on its own terms, not in relationship to other signifiers or signifieds. However, Derrida argues that there is no transcendental signified, because everything can always be understood in terms of other things—for instance, “self� can become “id, superego, and ego,� which can then be broken down, etc. etc. The idea that there is a transcendental signified is logocentrism.
So, to be a good Deconstructionist, one must first acknowledge the existence of binary oppositions (whereas two things are put in a hierarchy, and one understood as superior to the other, for example, as in light/darkness.) Crucial to Derrida’s formulation is différance (the “what-if� question—what if there was no transcendental signified? What if binary operations were reversed, so, for example, light was valued over darkness?).
When reading a text through the Deconstructionist lens, then, one first of all allows that a text can be reinterpreted countless times. Then, the reader identifies binary oppositions and reverses them. This is all supposed to dismantle previously held ideas and to ultimately allow the meaning of the text to be undecideable.
PSYCHOANALYTIC CRITICISM
Freud! Lots of Freud! Unconscious; conscious; oral, anal, and phallic stages; Oedipus, Castration, and Electra complexes; id, superego, and ego. All words we’ve heard before. Jung differs in that he does not think that all human behavior is driven by sex, and comes up with the collective unconscious and proposes the importance of archetypes.
What was new for me was the introduction of Jacques Lacan. Apparently, he asserted that the unconscious is structured in the same way that language is. He divided the psyche into three stages: Imaginary (we are infants; we are united with the mother; everything is lovely), Symbolic (the father becomes the center of our concern; we learn language, gender differences; we realize our father can [metaphorically] castrate us; we therefore accept either the lack [girls] or the loss [boys] of the phallus, which, to Lacan, is not the penis but the transcendental signified—the ultimate meaning-giver which we therefore never possess, castrated as we are ] and the Real (the physical, actual world).
In terms of textual analysis, at the center of Lacanian theory is the belief that the psyche is marked by lack and fragmentation. Literary texts, though, can capture our desire to return to the idyllic Imaginary order.
There are many types of psychoanalytic criticism—for example, psychobiography (analyzing the author), character analysis, Freudian (applying the assumption that all human behavior is sexually driven to a text), Jungian (archetypal criticism—in literature, archetypes are characters/patterns/images of common human experience [birth, death, seasons]. The Jungian critic will examine a text to find various archetypes. For example, red will symbolize danger, and water, life ), and Lacanian (a critic attempts to show how the text represents elements of the Imaginary, Symbolic, and Real, and then how these representations demonstrate the fragmentary self).
FEMINISM
Honestly, I didn’t learn anything surprising here. It involves identifying antifeminist characterizations in literature, seeking works written by women that the canon has overlooked, and reading the canonized work of male authors from a woman’s point of view.
MARXISM
Major elements of Marxism, as relevant to Marxist literary theory—social and economic conditions directly influence how and what we believe and value. Through daily life and interactions and material exchanges, humans define themselves. Thus, our ideas and concepts come from the real “grit� of living rather than some ephemeral idea of a spiritual reality. Bourgeoisie indoctrinate the working classes with their ideology, which is reflected in literature. He who holds the purse strings controls the literature, essentially. Various schools—in reflection theory, if we analyze a text, we’ll expose the direct relationship between the economic base (the means of production in a society) and the superstructure (all human institutions and ideologies in a society, including its art). So, a text directly reflects a society’s consciousness. The Frankfurt School states that a complex relationship exists between the base and the superstructure (basically, says that reflection theory is one-sided—instead, base and superstructure mutually influence each other).
A Marxist literary critic, then, understands that any text must be interpreted in light of its culture.
CULTURAL POETICS/NEW HISTORICISM
New Criticism put historical context in the background. New Historicism brings historical context to the foreground, and also redefines history. This school declares that all history is subjective—any historian is necessarily biased by milieu, economic conditions, personality, etc. Stephen Greenblatt is a main proponent, arguing that one’s culture permeates both texts and the texts critics. He finds much use in the writings of Foucault, who argued that history was not linear or purposeful or a series of cause and effects. Foucault saw finding historical truth as a process of piecing many different narratives and artifacts together. Essentially, this school gives history a crucial place in the interpretive process.
CULTURAL STUDIES
Postcolonialism (concentrates on writings from colonized or formerly colonized cultures, usually in Australia, New Zealand, Africa, and South America, and usually as colonized by the British. Looks at questions of double consciousness [being caught between two cultures]) , African American Criticism (a main proponent being Henry Louis Gates, Gender Studies (an investigation not only of “femaleness� but also “maleness�.
OPINIONS!
(1) Good Lord, was I taught to be a New Critic in high school. I learned to analyze a text (poetry especially) through the magical lens of close reading. This was more or less the only way of reading that I was taught, and boy, did it have an impact on me! I was good at it, for one (close reading let me apply my neurotic sensitivity to a text!). For another, it was very satisfying—I could get to the “heart� of a text by picking, picking, picking at it. I could acknowledge weirdness and ambiguity but still have an overarching interpretation and conclusion. I could focus only on the words on the page, which, in a way, seemed like the ultimate respect to the author—I will grapple only with the world you have given me.
Honestly, until I started my M.F.A., it never really occurred to me that there WERE other ways to read and analyze a text. I began to get very frustrated when I encountered poetry like John Ashbery’s which simply could not be “decoded.� My close reading skills still helped me to have a vocabulary—I could talk about tone, diction, allusions, etc.—but when looking for a grand “meaning,� I had nothing. Then, the closer I looked at my own poetry, I realized that I more often than not had a “system� beneath my poem, something I expected the reader to examine until they got my meaning(s). I realize now, I was expecting my reader to be a New Critic! So, slowly, slowly, over the past two years, I’ve been expanding my ways to read and talk about a text (I can thank Marjorie Perloff for introducing the idea of “indeterminacy� into my vocabulary), as well as how to write a poem. But it was HUGE for me to realize that I was stabbing at every poem given to me (in workshop, in a book) with the tools of the New Critic—and this toolkit does not work for every poem. Not all poems are “meaty� in the way that the ideal New Critical poem is. Some are purely language and sound driven, others don’t want to mean, others mean but don’t want to mean coherently, etc. etc. I am glad that my high school taught me how to close read (this has been an extremely important skill), but in retrospect, I wish we had been introduced to alternative ways of looking at a text, so I didn’t think this was the only way!
(2) Which brings us to Harvard. HOW DID I GET THROUGH FOUR YEARS AT HARVARD AND NEVER HAVE TO READ A SINGLE PIECE OF LITERARY THEORY. Granted, I avoided classes that were theory based. But shouldn’t this have been forced upon me, at some point? I was, after all, an English major. How about in that sophomore seminar we all had to take? I recall comparing Joyce Carol Oates� We Were the Mulvaneys to old Viking sagas. An endearingly eccentric syllabus, perhaps, but oh, wouldn’t some Derrida have been more useful?
Actually, no. I did take one theory class at Harvard. The Theory of Metaphor, a graduate class which I sat in on and understood very little. This didn’t look at different ways of reading, though. It was lots of philosophical and linguistic takes on the metaphor.
But to continue my ranting. Outside of my freshman class on expository writing, I received no instruction on “how to write a paper.� The expos class was cool, but it basically reiterated the principles of close reading. In my actual English classes, the professor and TFs never told us how they thought one should write an essay. Now I wonder—where any of my peers writing Marxist or Structuralist or Deconstructionist analyses of texts? I close read over and over, and got no complaints. But man, did I just do my own thing. No one ever questioned how I argued.
All this to say—Harvard, your English department probably should have mandated theory. I graduated thinking there was only one right way to read and to analyze a literary text. Nobody every challenged this assumption. It is definitely true that I never sought out a professor for a conversation, but I did have to meet with TFs to talk about papers! And I’m sure they were too busy to question the fundaments of my belief system about critical writing, and I get that. But. This is why we should have had to take theory. I know that Harvard now has more stringent requirements for its English program. I hope theory is one of them.
(3) So, which theories did I like the best? I still think New Criticism has a lot to offer. Reader-Response Criticism seems like it could, at its reader-heavy spectrum, get pretty self-indulgent and silly. I thought Structuralism was fascinating. What a cool idea, to apply linguistics to literature! Deconstruction blew my mind, as I imagine it blows many people’s mind. This seemed like the most complicated theory as presented in the book I read. I’d be curious to read more. Psychoanalytic Criticism also seems like it could get pretty silly, and I have to say, I still don’t really get what Lacan was up to. Feminism was fairly straightforward, and a very necessary school, although not one that particularly excites me. I got a kick out of Marxism. I like the idea that economics and literature are so interconnected. I liked Cultural Poetics/New Historicism for connecting history and literature. Cultural Studies interested me with its talk of double consciousness—it made me think about all of the cultures we each belong to, and how sometimes those cultures can conflict. Now, if I were a literary critic (get ready for a tasty metaphor), my main meal would be New Criticism. I’d have a couple of sides of Structuralism, Marxism, and New Historicism. Dessert would be Deconstruction. Maybe my appetizer would be Cultural Studies. Hee!
I have never studied literary theory before. But I have always been interested. So I picked up a book that looked like a basic, simple introduction to the dominant schools of literary criticism. This book, geared to those who have no background in theory (like me!) has no primary texts, but instead each chapter (devoted to a particular theory) is divided into introduction, historical development, assumptions, methodology, questions for analysis, a sample student essay that reads a text through that theory, and tips for further reading. This third edition was published in 2003—I think two more newer editions have come out since then.
First, I’m going to describe each of the schools. This is mostly for my own edification, to reinforce what I’ve learned, and also to jog my own memory down the line. If this does not interest you, skip down to where I begin to opine about all this.
NEW CRITICISM
This is “the text and text alone� approach to literary analysis. In other words, the text’s meaning depends solely on the text. All other information (the author’s life, the historical context, the reader’s reaction, etc.) is more or less extraneous—the text contains all the information needed to discern its meaning. A New Critic close reads the text, which means she acknowledges allusions, diction, images, prosody, tone, and other literary devices—as well as all ambiguities, conflicts, and tensions� and ultimately resolves all of the preceding through one interpretation. There can only ever be one “right� interpretation. New Critics describe their methodology as “objective.� They fall under a larger school of criticism, the Formalists.
READER-RESPONSE CRITICISM
This is what it sounds like—the reader’s response is taken into account (unlike in New Criticism). The reader and text work together to form the meaning in a transactional experience. Structuralism (more on that later) is a type of reader-response criticism in that the reader brings certain codes (ways of understanding) to the text, and interprets the text via those codes. Phenomenology also falls under Reader-Response criticism, as this way of thinking emphasizes the perceiver. Objects exist if and only if we register them in our consciousness (concretization). One phenomenologist came up with reception theory that says that readers from any given historical period come up with the criteria by which they judge a text. How a text is evaluated changes from era to era (a particular era’s method of assessment is its horizon of expectation). Subjective Criticism is a third group of reader-response criticism, and it’s all about what the reader feels and identifies with in the text (“That old lady in Huck Finn makes me think of my grandma!�). What all of these sub-groups have in common is that the reader’s existence becomes important in terms of how a text is assessed. Depending on the sub-group, the reader can have a very prominent role in the relationship between reader, text, and meaning, or a very minor role.
STRUCTURALISM
This school is grounded in structural linguistics, or semiology (the study of signs), which was developed by Ferdinand de Saussure. I’m going to skip explaining most of the technical vocabulary , but basically Saussure analyzed language in a new way. For the purposes of literary theory, it’s probably most important to understand these terms: langue (what any little kid has internalized—the structure of the language that is mastered and shared by all its speakers), parole (individual utterances), and words as signs (a sign is made up of a signifier and a signified, where, for example, “tree� is the former and the concept of “tree� is the latter). Saussure says that there is no intrinsic link between the signifier and signified (for instance, calling a tree “tree� and not, say, “booga booga� is completely arbitrary). Meaning, he says, is relational—we know that a tree is a tree because it is not a truck or a bat. He says, “In language there are only differences.�
Structuralists, then, generalize Saussure’s findings to other areas. Signs are found everywhere, in that we read “codes� constantly—a red light means stop, a soccer ball indicates a certain kind of sport, etc. So, the “proper� way to arrive at meaning is to look at the codes behind the practice, not the practice itself. In terms of literature, Structuralists emphasize langue (the system of how texts relate to each other) and not parole (individual texts). Their crucial question is how a text conveys meaning rather what that specific meaning is. For example, in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “Young Goodman Brown,� Structuralists will be interested in how darkness comes to represent evil, and light goodness (not merely the fact that these representations occur). A Structuralist will ask, why does darkness often represents evil in any text? what sign system is at work that allows readers to often read darkness in this way? Intertexuality (how texts relate to each other) is thus very important.
Important literary structuralists include Claude Levi-Strauss and Roland Barthes (the latter talks about binary operations in a text, such as light/dark and good/evil, where we understand through oppositions).
DECONSTRUCTION
Deconstruction theory, which started to emerge in the 1960s, went directly against structuralism. No codes can be used to get to the interpretation of a text because, when it comes down to it, a text has many meanings, and no one “right� interpretation. Thus, undecideability. Deconstruction, then, is a very postmodern theory—everything is subjective; objectivity is dead. Jacques Derrida is the father of deconstruction theory with Michael Foucault as another important voice. These thinkers say that modernity failed because it wanted an external point of reference (such as God or science) which could be the basis for a philosophy. These postmodern thinkers say that there is no point of reference like this, for no ultimate truth or unifying reality exists.
But, to go back to Derrida. Derrida actually used many of the tenets of structuralism. He agreed with Saussure that signification is arbitrary and conventional. Derrida proposes that there is a transcendental signified (essentially, the external point of reference I discussed above). A transcendental signified can only be understood on its own terms, not in relationship to other signifiers or signifieds. However, Derrida argues that there is no transcendental signified, because everything can always be understood in terms of other things—for instance, “self� can become “id, superego, and ego,� which can then be broken down, etc. etc. The idea that there is a transcendental signified is logocentrism.
So, to be a good Deconstructionist, one must first acknowledge the existence of binary oppositions (whereas two things are put in a hierarchy, and one understood as superior to the other, for example, as in light/darkness.) Crucial to Derrida’s formulation is différance (the “what-if� question—what if there was no transcendental signified? What if binary operations were reversed, so, for example, light was valued over darkness?).
When reading a text through the Deconstructionist lens, then, one first of all allows that a text can be reinterpreted countless times. Then, the reader identifies binary oppositions and reverses them. This is all supposed to dismantle previously held ideas and to ultimately allow the meaning of the text to be undecideable.
PSYCHOANALYTIC CRITICISM
Freud! Lots of Freud! Unconscious; conscious; oral, anal, and phallic stages; Oedipus, Castration, and Electra complexes; id, superego, and ego. All words we’ve heard before. Jung differs in that he does not think that all human behavior is driven by sex, and comes up with the collective unconscious and proposes the importance of archetypes.
What was new for me was the introduction of Jacques Lacan. Apparently, he asserted that the unconscious is structured in the same way that language is. He divided the psyche into three stages: Imaginary (we are infants; we are united with the mother; everything is lovely), Symbolic (the father becomes the center of our concern; we learn language, gender differences; we realize our father can [metaphorically] castrate us; we therefore accept either the lack [girls] or the loss [boys] of the phallus, which, to Lacan, is not the penis but the transcendental signified—the ultimate meaning-giver which we therefore never possess, castrated as we are ] and the Real (the physical, actual world).
In terms of textual analysis, at the center of Lacanian theory is the belief that the psyche is marked by lack and fragmentation. Literary texts, though, can capture our desire to return to the idyllic Imaginary order.
There are many types of psychoanalytic criticism—for example, psychobiography (analyzing the author), character analysis, Freudian (applying the assumption that all human behavior is sexually driven to a text), Jungian (archetypal criticism—in literature, archetypes are characters/patterns/images of common human experience [birth, death, seasons]. The Jungian critic will examine a text to find various archetypes. For example, red will symbolize danger, and water, life ), and Lacanian (a critic attempts to show how the text represents elements of the Imaginary, Symbolic, and Real, and then how these representations demonstrate the fragmentary self).
FEMINISM
Honestly, I didn’t learn anything surprising here. It involves identifying antifeminist characterizations in literature, seeking works written by women that the canon has overlooked, and reading the canonized work of male authors from a woman’s point of view.
MARXISM
Major elements of Marxism, as relevant to Marxist literary theory—social and economic conditions directly influence how and what we believe and value. Through daily life and interactions and material exchanges, humans define themselves. Thus, our ideas and concepts come from the real “grit� of living rather than some ephemeral idea of a spiritual reality. Bourgeoisie indoctrinate the working classes with their ideology, which is reflected in literature. He who holds the purse strings controls the literature, essentially. Various schools—in reflection theory, if we analyze a text, we’ll expose the direct relationship between the economic base (the means of production in a society) and the superstructure (all human institutions and ideologies in a society, including its art). So, a text directly reflects a society’s consciousness. The Frankfurt School states that a complex relationship exists between the base and the superstructure (basically, says that reflection theory is one-sided—instead, base and superstructure mutually influence each other).
A Marxist literary critic, then, understands that any text must be interpreted in light of its culture.
CULTURAL POETICS/NEW HISTORICISM
New Criticism put historical context in the background. New Historicism brings historical context to the foreground, and also redefines history. This school declares that all history is subjective—any historian is necessarily biased by milieu, economic conditions, personality, etc. Stephen Greenblatt is a main proponent, arguing that one’s culture permeates both texts and the texts critics. He finds much use in the writings of Foucault, who argued that history was not linear or purposeful or a series of cause and effects. Foucault saw finding historical truth as a process of piecing many different narratives and artifacts together. Essentially, this school gives history a crucial place in the interpretive process.
CULTURAL STUDIES
Postcolonialism (concentrates on writings from colonized or formerly colonized cultures, usually in Australia, New Zealand, Africa, and South America, and usually as colonized by the British. Looks at questions of double consciousness [being caught between two cultures]) , African American Criticism (a main proponent being Henry Louis Gates, Gender Studies (an investigation not only of “femaleness� but also “maleness�.
OPINIONS!
(1) Good Lord, was I taught to be a New Critic in high school. I learned to analyze a text (poetry especially) through the magical lens of close reading. This was more or less the only way of reading that I was taught, and boy, did it have an impact on me! I was good at it, for one (close reading let me apply my neurotic sensitivity to a text!). For another, it was very satisfying—I could get to the “heart� of a text by picking, picking, picking at it. I could acknowledge weirdness and ambiguity but still have an overarching interpretation and conclusion. I could focus only on the words on the page, which, in a way, seemed like the ultimate respect to the author—I will grapple only with the world you have given me.
Honestly, until I started my M.F.A., it never really occurred to me that there WERE other ways to read and analyze a text. I began to get very frustrated when I encountered poetry like John Ashbery’s which simply could not be “decoded.� My close reading skills still helped me to have a vocabulary—I could talk about tone, diction, allusions, etc.—but when looking for a grand “meaning,� I had nothing. Then, the closer I looked at my own poetry, I realized that I more often than not had a “system� beneath my poem, something I expected the reader to examine until they got my meaning(s). I realize now, I was expecting my reader to be a New Critic! So, slowly, slowly, over the past two years, I’ve been expanding my ways to read and talk about a text (I can thank Marjorie Perloff for introducing the idea of “indeterminacy� into my vocabulary), as well as how to write a poem. But it was HUGE for me to realize that I was stabbing at every poem given to me (in workshop, in a book) with the tools of the New Critic—and this toolkit does not work for every poem. Not all poems are “meaty� in the way that the ideal New Critical poem is. Some are purely language and sound driven, others don’t want to mean, others mean but don’t want to mean coherently, etc. etc. I am glad that my high school taught me how to close read (this has been an extremely important skill), but in retrospect, I wish we had been introduced to alternative ways of looking at a text, so I didn’t think this was the only way!
(2) Which brings us to Harvard. HOW DID I GET THROUGH FOUR YEARS AT HARVARD AND NEVER HAVE TO READ A SINGLE PIECE OF LITERARY THEORY. Granted, I avoided classes that were theory based. But shouldn’t this have been forced upon me, at some point? I was, after all, an English major. How about in that sophomore seminar we all had to take? I recall comparing Joyce Carol Oates� We Were the Mulvaneys to old Viking sagas. An endearingly eccentric syllabus, perhaps, but oh, wouldn’t some Derrida have been more useful?
Actually, no. I did take one theory class at Harvard. The Theory of Metaphor, a graduate class which I sat in on and understood very little. This didn’t look at different ways of reading, though. It was lots of philosophical and linguistic takes on the metaphor.
But to continue my ranting. Outside of my freshman class on expository writing, I received no instruction on “how to write a paper.� The expos class was cool, but it basically reiterated the principles of close reading. In my actual English classes, the professor and TFs never told us how they thought one should write an essay. Now I wonder—where any of my peers writing Marxist or Structuralist or Deconstructionist analyses of texts? I close read over and over, and got no complaints. But man, did I just do my own thing. No one ever questioned how I argued.
All this to say—Harvard, your English department probably should have mandated theory. I graduated thinking there was only one right way to read and to analyze a literary text. Nobody every challenged this assumption. It is definitely true that I never sought out a professor for a conversation, but I did have to meet with TFs to talk about papers! And I’m sure they were too busy to question the fundaments of my belief system about critical writing, and I get that. But. This is why we should have had to take theory. I know that Harvard now has more stringent requirements for its English program. I hope theory is one of them.
(3) So, which theories did I like the best? I still think New Criticism has a lot to offer. Reader-Response Criticism seems like it could, at its reader-heavy spectrum, get pretty self-indulgent and silly. I thought Structuralism was fascinating. What a cool idea, to apply linguistics to literature! Deconstruction blew my mind, as I imagine it blows many people’s mind. This seemed like the most complicated theory as presented in the book I read. I’d be curious to read more. Psychoanalytic Criticism also seems like it could get pretty silly, and I have to say, I still don’t really get what Lacan was up to. Feminism was fairly straightforward, and a very necessary school, although not one that particularly excites me. I got a kick out of Marxism. I like the idea that economics and literature are so interconnected. I liked Cultural Poetics/New Historicism for connecting history and literature. Cultural Studies interested me with its talk of double consciousness—it made me think about all of the cultures we each belong to, and how sometimes those cultures can conflict. Now, if I were a literary critic (get ready for a tasty metaphor), my main meal would be New Criticism. I’d have a couple of sides of Structuralism, Marxism, and New Historicism. Dessert would be Deconstruction. Maybe my appetizer would be Cultural Studies. Hee!
March 7, 2020
با مقایسۀ ترجمۀ کتاب با خود کتاب، میتوا� پی برد که تمامی کتاب ترجمه نشده، اما این حجم از مطالب برای استفاده مناسب است. زیرا ترجمه سادهساز� شده است و به خصوص برای دانشجویان و علاقهمندا� جزو منابع مورد نیاز خواهد بود. بخشه� و رویکردهای نقد ادبی، از نظر کیفیت فراز و فرود دارند. برخی رویکردها بسیار زیبا و شفاف و کامل معرفی و برخی دیگر جز ملغمها� از مطالب تدوینی و ترجمها� نیست.
کاربردیتری� بخش کتاب، مسائل مربوط به رویکردهای ادبی در سدۀ اخیر بود. بهویژ� مکتب «نقد نو» و «مارکسیسم» و همچنین «تاریخگرای� نوین». مولف از این سه رویکرد به نحو احسن پردهبردار� کرده و توضیحات مناسبی اراده داده بود. مزیت این کتاب در ارائۀ نمونهه� و ضمیمههاییس� که قبلاً به عنوان تکلیف به دانشجویان ارائه شده و به همان شکل پس از معرفی هر مکتب، نمونهده� میشو�.
از متن:
«به زعم روزنبلت، فرایند قرائت مستلزم خواننده و متن است. خواننده و متن با هم تعامل میکنن� و به مشارکت در تجربها� تبادلی میپردازن�: متن نقش محرکی را ایفا میکن� که تجربیات و افکار و ایدهها� مختلف پیشین خواننده را � هم آنه� که در زندگی واقعی وی رخ دادهان� و هم آنه� که در تجارب مطالعاتی پیشین وی به دست آمدهان� � در وی زنده میکن�. در عین حال، متن از طریق گزینش و تحدید و تنظیم آن دسته از عقاید و افکار خواننده که مطابقت بیشتری با متن دارند، تجارب خواننده را شکل میده�. به واسطۀ این تجربۀ تبادلی، خواننده و متن دست به آفرینش جدید میزنن� و یک شعر میآفرینن�. در نظر روزنبلت و بسیاری از دیگر منتقدان رهیافت موسوم به نقد مبتنی بر واکنش خواننده، شعر واقعها� است که در خلال فرایند قرائت - یا آنچ� روزنبلت تبادل زیباییشناسان� مینام�- رخ میده�. شعر در این معنا، دیگر مترادف واژۀ «متن» نیست و با هر تعامل خواننده و متن خلق میشود� خواه آن تعامل نخستین خوانش یک متن باشد و خواه هر یک از خوانشها� بیشما� از یک متن واحد...
به اعتقاد روزنبلت، خوانندگان به یکی از دو روش زیر متن را میخوانن�:
اطلاعاتجویان� یا زیباییشناسان�. هنگامی که ما متنی را برای کسب اطلاعات میخوانیم،ب� قرائت اطلاعاتجویان� پرداختهای�... اما وقتی به قرائت زیباییشناسان� میپردازیم� متن را تجربه میکنی� و به تکت� واژگان، اصوات و الگوها و غیره در متن توجه میکنی� و در واقع تجربۀ تبادلی آفرینش شعر را از سر میگذرانی�.
ما در حین قرائت زیباییشناسانه� خود را در جریان مواجهها� پیچیده و مبتنی بر داد و ستد با متن قرار میدهی�. متن در همان حال که با بیدار کردن تجربیات گوناگون گذشته در خواننده وبرجسته ساختن آنها� راه را بر تفسیرهای بسیاری میگشاید� دامنۀ معانی موجه و قابل حصول توسط متن را محدود میکن�. بنابرین، در نظر روزنبلت معنای شعر ملغمها� از معانی بیشما� نیست، بلکه تجربها� است مبتنی بر داد و ستد که طی آن، چندین معنای مختلف و در عین حال محتمل شکل میگیرن� و در نتیجه «شعر»های گوناگونی میآفرینن�.» (ص 107-108)
98/12/17
کاربردیتری� بخش کتاب، مسائل مربوط به رویکردهای ادبی در سدۀ اخیر بود. بهویژ� مکتب «نقد نو» و «مارکسیسم» و همچنین «تاریخگرای� نوین». مولف از این سه رویکرد به نحو احسن پردهبردار� کرده و توضیحات مناسبی اراده داده بود. مزیت این کتاب در ارائۀ نمونهه� و ضمیمههاییس� که قبلاً به عنوان تکلیف به دانشجویان ارائه شده و به همان شکل پس از معرفی هر مکتب، نمونهده� میشو�.
از متن:
«به زعم روزنبلت، فرایند قرائت مستلزم خواننده و متن است. خواننده و متن با هم تعامل میکنن� و به مشارکت در تجربها� تبادلی میپردازن�: متن نقش محرکی را ایفا میکن� که تجربیات و افکار و ایدهها� مختلف پیشین خواننده را � هم آنه� که در زندگی واقعی وی رخ دادهان� و هم آنه� که در تجارب مطالعاتی پیشین وی به دست آمدهان� � در وی زنده میکن�. در عین حال، متن از طریق گزینش و تحدید و تنظیم آن دسته از عقاید و افکار خواننده که مطابقت بیشتری با متن دارند، تجارب خواننده را شکل میده�. به واسطۀ این تجربۀ تبادلی، خواننده و متن دست به آفرینش جدید میزنن� و یک شعر میآفرینن�. در نظر روزنبلت و بسیاری از دیگر منتقدان رهیافت موسوم به نقد مبتنی بر واکنش خواننده، شعر واقعها� است که در خلال فرایند قرائت - یا آنچ� روزنبلت تبادل زیباییشناسان� مینام�- رخ میده�. شعر در این معنا، دیگر مترادف واژۀ «متن» نیست و با هر تعامل خواننده و متن خلق میشود� خواه آن تعامل نخستین خوانش یک متن باشد و خواه هر یک از خوانشها� بیشما� از یک متن واحد...
به اعتقاد روزنبلت، خوانندگان به یکی از دو روش زیر متن را میخوانن�:
اطلاعاتجویان� یا زیباییشناسان�. هنگامی که ما متنی را برای کسب اطلاعات میخوانیم،ب� قرائت اطلاعاتجویان� پرداختهای�... اما وقتی به قرائت زیباییشناسان� میپردازیم� متن را تجربه میکنی� و به تکت� واژگان، اصوات و الگوها و غیره در متن توجه میکنی� و در واقع تجربۀ تبادلی آفرینش شعر را از سر میگذرانی�.
ما در حین قرائت زیباییشناسانه� خود را در جریان مواجهها� پیچیده و مبتنی بر داد و ستد با متن قرار میدهی�. متن در همان حال که با بیدار کردن تجربیات گوناگون گذشته در خواننده وبرجسته ساختن آنها� راه را بر تفسیرهای بسیاری میگشاید� دامنۀ معانی موجه و قابل حصول توسط متن را محدود میکن�. بنابرین، در نظر روزنبلت معنای شعر ملغمها� از معانی بیشما� نیست، بلکه تجربها� است مبتنی بر داد و ستد که طی آن، چندین معنای مختلف و در عین حال محتمل شکل میگیرن� و در نتیجه «شعر»های گوناگونی میآفرینن�.» (ص 107-108)
98/12/17
June 4, 2017
پیشت� بخشهای� از کتاب را برای نوشتن طرح درس تاریخ نظریه ادبی خوانده بودم و این بار فرصت دست داد که تمامش را بخوانم.
این کتاب یک معرفی اجمالی از تاریخ نظریهها� ادبی به دست میده� و نقطه� قوتش مثالهای� از کاربست این نظریهه� بر روی متنهاس� (فارغ از کیفیت این نقد عملی.) معرفیا� از نظریهه� چندان عمیق و تحلیلی نیست و بههی� عنوان هم انتقادی نیست، ولی برای آشنایی ابتدایی و اجمالی توضیح روشن و شفافی دارد و طبقهبند� مطالب به تکوین تاریخی، مفروضات و روششناس� کارآمد است.
اما انتقاد بزرگ من به این کتاب این است که مترجم اولین یا دومین ویراست کتاب را ترجمه کرده است، ویراستی قدیمی از آن اواخر دهه� ۹۰. من ویراست پنجم کتاب را هم در دست داشتم و جدا از فصول بیشتر کتاب، توضیحات کتاب بیشتر و گویاترند. خیلی از مطالب مهمی که در ویراست اول گذرا بیان شدهان� آنجا بهتر تشریح شدهان� (مانند لکان) و گزیدههای� از متون نظریهپردازه� را هم در ویراست پنجم میشو� دید. مترجم ترجمه� خوبی کرده است اما این ویراست کتاب بسیار ابتدایی، اجمالی و دور از اهداف کتاب اصلیست. کاش جناب پاینده چنین گوشزدی به مترجم میکردن� یا دست کم مترجم همّتی میگماش� و ویراست آخر که افستش در کتابفروشیه� بسیار است را ترجمه میکر�.
این کتاب یک معرفی اجمالی از تاریخ نظریهها� ادبی به دست میده� و نقطه� قوتش مثالهای� از کاربست این نظریهه� بر روی متنهاس� (فارغ از کیفیت این نقد عملی.) معرفیا� از نظریهه� چندان عمیق و تحلیلی نیست و بههی� عنوان هم انتقادی نیست، ولی برای آشنایی ابتدایی و اجمالی توضیح روشن و شفافی دارد و طبقهبند� مطالب به تکوین تاریخی، مفروضات و روششناس� کارآمد است.
اما انتقاد بزرگ من به این کتاب این است که مترجم اولین یا دومین ویراست کتاب را ترجمه کرده است، ویراستی قدیمی از آن اواخر دهه� ۹۰. من ویراست پنجم کتاب را هم در دست داشتم و جدا از فصول بیشتر کتاب، توضیحات کتاب بیشتر و گویاترند. خیلی از مطالب مهمی که در ویراست اول گذرا بیان شدهان� آنجا بهتر تشریح شدهان� (مانند لکان) و گزیدههای� از متون نظریهپردازه� را هم در ویراست پنجم میشو� دید. مترجم ترجمه� خوبی کرده است اما این ویراست کتاب بسیار ابتدایی، اجمالی و دور از اهداف کتاب اصلیست. کاش جناب پاینده چنین گوشزدی به مترجم میکردن� یا دست کم مترجم همّتی میگماش� و ویراست آخر که افستش در کتابفروشیه� بسیار است را ترجمه میکر�.
February 20, 2016
همیشه به دنبال منبعی بودم که مبحث نقد ادبی را بدون اینکه مرا از این بحث مهم زده کند، بیابم. نهایتاً به این کتاب رسیدم. در فاصله کوتاهی یک بار آن را خواندم و فهمیدم مدخل مناسبی به بحث است اما به دلایلی دیگر لازم شد دوباره آن را بخوانم.
حالا در مورد خیلی چیزها بهتر می فهمم، به خیلی چیزها علاقمند شده ام و می توانم بگویم کتاب نه تنها خواننده را از بحث زده نمی کند بلکه مشتاق به مطالعه بیشتر راجع به انواع نقد ادبی و زبانی هم می کند.
این کتاب را به هر کسی که علاقه به نقد ادبی دارد توصیه می کنم.
حالا در مورد خیلی چیزها بهتر می فهمم، به خیلی چیزها علاقمند شده ام و می توانم بگویم کتاب نه تنها خواننده را از بحث زده نمی کند بلکه مشتاق به مطالعه بیشتر راجع به انواع نقد ادبی و زبانی هم می کند.
این کتاب را به هر کسی که علاقه به نقد ادبی دارد توصیه می کنم.
January 5, 2020
این کتاب یکی از بهترین متونی بود در باب تاریخ نقد ادبی و مکتبهای ادبی قرن بیستم که با جزییات و روش های نقد صحیح نگارش شده، از بهترین فصل های کتاب میتونم به نقد پسااستعماری، نقد نو و پساساختارگرایی اشاره کنم که نظریات این سه حوزه در میان دیگر نظریات ادبی برای من درخور توجه بود.و اینکه، من کتاب رو به زبان اصلی خوندم چرا که ترجمه کتاب درامدی بر نظریه های ادبی چاپ انتشارات نیلوفر فقط گزیده ایی از این کتاب رو ترجمه کرده و کامل نیست و این کتاب کامل هست. من که از خوندنش لذت بردم امیدوارم بقیه دوستان هم لذت ببرن.
January 10, 2019
one of the many readings of this book:
I've studied pages 48 to 122 and it was an understandable intro to formalism, reader-oriented theory, structuralism and poststructuralism. the notions of derrida were explained well and it was reader-friendly. 😍 something that's quite rare for books of criticism.
I've studied pages 48 to 122 and it was an understandable intro to formalism, reader-oriented theory, structuralism and poststructuralism. the notions of derrida were explained well and it was reader-friendly. 😍 something that's quite rare for books of criticism.
June 8, 2020
کتاب را چند سالِ پیش یکی از دوستان - که هرگز او را ندیدم و تنها نامی از او در خاطرم بهج� مانده - معرّفی کرد. امروز که کتاب را تمام کردم؛ حسرت خوردم که چرا زودتر از اینه� کتاب را نخوانده بودم. بسیار بعید میدانست� که نتوانم چنین کتابی را با مضامینِ گاه پیچیده و سنگینش زمین بگذارم؛ ولی شد.
به گمانم زبدهت� از این کتاب نمیتوا� دیدِ جامع و درعینِحا� مختصری از مهمتری� مکاتبِ نقدِ ادبیِ معاصر ارائه داد. اسلوبِ مناسبِ کتاب در معرّفیِ مکاتبِ نقد با تبویبِ مناسبِ ابواب و یکسانسازی� سرفصله� برایِ هرچه بهتر درک کردنِ هر مکتب بهوسیلۀ مقایسه با مکاتبِ دیگر باعث میشو� که خواننده علاوهب� لذّت بردن از مفادِ کتاب، احساسِ خستگیِ کمتری کرده و استفادۀ حدّاکثری را ببرد.
کتاب در فصلِ اوّل به تعریف و بیانِ ضرورتِ نقد و ادبیّات و جایگاه� آنه� پرداخته و در فصلِ دوّم سیرِ تکوینیِ مکاتب و دیدگاهها� نقدِ ادبی را از دورۀ افلاطون تا قرنِ نوزدهم بررسی مینمای�. این دورنمایِ ارائه شده در فصلِ دوّم بهخوب� میتوان� یک دیدِ کلّی درموردِ چگونگیِ قرائتِ متون در طولِ تاریخ و برخوردِ هر طیفِ خواننده و منتقد با آن به مخاطب ارائه دهد. فصلهای� سوّم تا دهمِ کتاب هر کدام بهطور� مفصّل یکی از مکاتبِ نقدِ معاصر (پیداشده در قرنهای� نوزدهم و بیستم) را بهترتیب� زمانی بررسی میکنن� که در هر فصل پس از بیانِ مقدّمها� کوتاه ابتدا تکوینِ تاریخیِ مکتبِ یادشده موردِ بررسی قرار میگیرد� سپس مفروضاتِ کلّی ِ حاکم بر مکتب بیان شده و در نهایت روششناسی� مکتبِ مزبور ارائه میگرد�.
از نکاتِ قوّتِ کتاب میتوا� به چند مورد اشاره کرد: یکی معرّفیِ منابعِ اضافیِ بسیار مناسب در پایانِ هر فصل برایِ مطالعۀ بیشتر در حوزۀ مکتبِ موردِ بحث در آن فصل و دیگری نمونۀ نقدِ دانشجویی در پایانِ هرفصل. موردِ دوّم را از این لحاظ میتوا� درخشان به حساب آورد که علاوهب� اینک� یک نمونۀ عملی از اعمالِ نقد و شیوۀ قرائتِ متن طبقِ مکتبِ موردِ بحث در هر بخش را ارائه میدهد� نمونۀ ارئهشد� از قلمِ یک دانشجو - که اکثریّتِ طیفِ مخاطبِ کتاب را تشکیل میدهن� - تراوش شده است و در ضمنِ سادگی ممکن است نقاطِ ضعفهای� نیز داشته باشد که مخاطب میتوان� حولِ آن به استنتاج و استدلال پرداخته و با اعمالِ نظرِ خود به آنه� خود نیز (احتمالاً) اوّلین گامِ خود را در حوزۀ نقدِ عملی بردارد.
کتابِ درآمدی بر نظریّهه� و روشهای� نقدِ ادبی نوشتۀ چارلز ای برسلر با ترجمۀ خوبِ مصطفی عابدینیف� بدونِ شک میتوان� شروعِ خوب و جامعی برایِ دوستداران� ادبیّات و نقدِ ادبی باشد.
به گمانم زبدهت� از این کتاب نمیتوا� دیدِ جامع و درعینِحا� مختصری از مهمتری� مکاتبِ نقدِ ادبیِ معاصر ارائه داد. اسلوبِ مناسبِ کتاب در معرّفیِ مکاتبِ نقد با تبویبِ مناسبِ ابواب و یکسانسازی� سرفصله� برایِ هرچه بهتر درک کردنِ هر مکتب بهوسیلۀ مقایسه با مکاتبِ دیگر باعث میشو� که خواننده علاوهب� لذّت بردن از مفادِ کتاب، احساسِ خستگیِ کمتری کرده و استفادۀ حدّاکثری را ببرد.
کتاب در فصلِ اوّل به تعریف و بیانِ ضرورتِ نقد و ادبیّات و جایگاه� آنه� پرداخته و در فصلِ دوّم سیرِ تکوینیِ مکاتب و دیدگاهها� نقدِ ادبی را از دورۀ افلاطون تا قرنِ نوزدهم بررسی مینمای�. این دورنمایِ ارائه شده در فصلِ دوّم بهخوب� میتوان� یک دیدِ کلّی درموردِ چگونگیِ قرائتِ متون در طولِ تاریخ و برخوردِ هر طیفِ خواننده و منتقد با آن به مخاطب ارائه دهد. فصلهای� سوّم تا دهمِ کتاب هر کدام بهطور� مفصّل یکی از مکاتبِ نقدِ معاصر (پیداشده در قرنهای� نوزدهم و بیستم) را بهترتیب� زمانی بررسی میکنن� که در هر فصل پس از بیانِ مقدّمها� کوتاه ابتدا تکوینِ تاریخیِ مکتبِ یادشده موردِ بررسی قرار میگیرد� سپس مفروضاتِ کلّی ِ حاکم بر مکتب بیان شده و در نهایت روششناسی� مکتبِ مزبور ارائه میگرد�.
از نکاتِ قوّتِ کتاب میتوا� به چند مورد اشاره کرد: یکی معرّفیِ منابعِ اضافیِ بسیار مناسب در پایانِ هر فصل برایِ مطالعۀ بیشتر در حوزۀ مکتبِ موردِ بحث در آن فصل و دیگری نمونۀ نقدِ دانشجویی در پایانِ هرفصل. موردِ دوّم را از این لحاظ میتوا� درخشان به حساب آورد که علاوهب� اینک� یک نمونۀ عملی از اعمالِ نقد و شیوۀ قرائتِ متن طبقِ مکتبِ موردِ بحث در هر بخش را ارائه میدهد� نمونۀ ارئهشد� از قلمِ یک دانشجو - که اکثریّتِ طیفِ مخاطبِ کتاب را تشکیل میدهن� - تراوش شده است و در ضمنِ سادگی ممکن است نقاطِ ضعفهای� نیز داشته باشد که مخاطب میتوان� حولِ آن به استنتاج و استدلال پرداخته و با اعمالِ نظرِ خود به آنه� خود نیز (احتمالاً) اوّلین گامِ خود را در حوزۀ نقدِ عملی بردارد.
کتابِ درآمدی بر نظریّهه� و روشهای� نقدِ ادبی نوشتۀ چارلز ای برسلر با ترجمۀ خوبِ مصطفی عابدینیف� بدونِ شک میتوان� شروعِ خوب و جامعی برایِ دوستداران� ادبیّات و نقدِ ادبی باشد.
May 31, 2010
So I read this as part of the process of selecting textbooks for a class I'm building which means to be an intro to creative writing, and this has a lot of the features I want for the class' book: namely, it covers a variety of approaches, it has sample essays, and it has a unified authorial voice that can draw contrasts between the schools.
One drawback is that the newer edition of this book appears to be seriously larded up; it's about 200 pages longer, and priced at a little more than I think it's probably worth; amazon shows it as something like $65, which I think is too much for what this is, even at twice the size.
My main problem, though, is more substantive: I don't really like the writing here, or trust it as being accurate; as much as I think its interesting to give the historical development of the critical school, I think the way that its done here is, well, a little weird and judgmental. And it's possible that I wouldn't care, but that I think it takes pages away from what feels to me more relevant, the assumptions and methodology sections that feel pretty impoverished at their best, and at spots kind of inaccurate to boot.
I remember when I learned theory as an undergrad, and the portrait that always emerged from reading chapters and intros was always greatly supplemented by what I learned in class-- in other words, it's not only Bressler who suffers this fate of giving what feel like partial and occasionally misleading intros to the schools of theory. But it does make me wonder why you'd assign materials to a class where several times you're going to need to come in and say, "okay, that's not quite right at all." It feels a little contrary to the purpose.
I do really like some of the sample essays, though, even when they seem to draw on a much wider range of terms and approaches than the chapter presents. Maybe that's a note that should be pursued by someone new when they put together a book like this: commission the essays first from your most talented students, and then write the materials that allow those essays to make sense. Here, I'm not sure that works as smoothly as it ought to, and on occasion, at least, that means that the richest and most valuable parts of the chapters are potentially at least a little mystifying.
One drawback is that the newer edition of this book appears to be seriously larded up; it's about 200 pages longer, and priced at a little more than I think it's probably worth; amazon shows it as something like $65, which I think is too much for what this is, even at twice the size.
My main problem, though, is more substantive: I don't really like the writing here, or trust it as being accurate; as much as I think its interesting to give the historical development of the critical school, I think the way that its done here is, well, a little weird and judgmental. And it's possible that I wouldn't care, but that I think it takes pages away from what feels to me more relevant, the assumptions and methodology sections that feel pretty impoverished at their best, and at spots kind of inaccurate to boot.
I remember when I learned theory as an undergrad, and the portrait that always emerged from reading chapters and intros was always greatly supplemented by what I learned in class-- in other words, it's not only Bressler who suffers this fate of giving what feel like partial and occasionally misleading intros to the schools of theory. But it does make me wonder why you'd assign materials to a class where several times you're going to need to come in and say, "okay, that's not quite right at all." It feels a little contrary to the purpose.
I do really like some of the sample essays, though, even when they seem to draw on a much wider range of terms and approaches than the chapter presents. Maybe that's a note that should be pursued by someone new when they put together a book like this: commission the essays first from your most talented students, and then write the materials that allow those essays to make sense. Here, I'm not sure that works as smoothly as it ought to, and on occasion, at least, that means that the richest and most valuable parts of the chapters are potentially at least a little mystifying.
June 30, 2018
Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the truth� But let us beware of publishing our dreams till they have been tested by waking understanding.Friedrich August kekule
February 12, 2015
This is one of my textbooks for Advanced Literary Analysis and we had to read it in two weeks, and take a long detailed test after each chapter and I want to throw this book in a fire for one, boring me to death every day, and two, making literary theory muddy and unclear. Thankfully I have studied literary theory before because some of the chapters here made even what I already knew seem confusing. This book just bumbled around, giving a roundabout "maybe it's this, maybe it's that" definition of each theory followed by the world's most boring student essays to cap the chapter. I am really glad it's over so that I can start on my 10 page theory based analysis, for which I will not once refer back to this book.
And this is not a criticism of the book, but what the heck is wrong with Freud? Every time I study him, I think he is a total nutter. Not everything in this world is about incestuous longings and penis envy, pervert. Now I have to try to apply his crappy ideas to a story about war. I think human psychology is incredibly complex and trying to shove it all in to his narrow world view is absurd. Or maybe I am just jealous of him because I don't have a penis.
And this is not a criticism of the book, but what the heck is wrong with Freud? Every time I study him, I think he is a total nutter. Not everything in this world is about incestuous longings and penis envy, pervert. Now I have to try to apply his crappy ideas to a story about war. I think human psychology is incredibly complex and trying to shove it all in to his narrow world view is absurd. Or maybe I am just jealous of him because I don't have a penis.
September 10, 2014
This Bressler guy is like your all-so-serious, no-funny-business-in-my-class teacher, or I suppose, Professor, but still, I like him, and by him I mean his writing, and by his writing I mean his teaching- he could explain some concepts more, though; like "dialectic materialism" which I'm still not sure I entirely understand.
Anyway, I learned a whole lot, and now it feels like a whole new world is opened up to me.
I couldn't thank you enough, Mr. Bressler!
Anyway, I learned a whole lot, and now it feels like a whole new world is opened up to me.
I couldn't thank you enough, Mr. Bressler!
June 30, 2019
کتاب مختصرا به پیشینه� نقد و نظریه ادبی، نقد نو، نقد مبتنی بر واکنش خواننده، ساختارگرایی، واسازی، نقد روانکاوانه، فمینیسم، مارکسیسم و تاریخگرایی نو میپردازد� جایگاه هر یک را در مقدمها� کوتاه پیش روی مخاطب میگذار� و سپس به تکوین تاریخی، مفروضات، روششناس� و یک نمونه از آن نوع نقد میپرداز�.
واقعیت آن است که هیچ از روشه� و مکاتب آن گونه که مخاطب به شناخت جامع و حداقلی از آن به رسد معرفی نشده است و حتی نمونه نقدی که آورده شده از نمونهها� درخور نقد در آن مکتب به شمار نمیرو�. بدین معنی کتاب نه جامع است و نه مانع، اما برای کسی که آشنایی چندانی با مکاتب نداشته باشد و صرفا در پی آشنایی اولیه با این مکاتب باشد میتوان� درآمد بسیار بسیار خوبی باشد تا خواننده از پس از مطالعه این کتاب بتواند مسیر مطالعات بعدی و جدیتر� را مشخص کند.
در واقع برای ان کسی که قصد ورود به دنیای نقد و نظریه ادبی داشته باشد میتوان� همچون یک نقشه ابتدایی راهنما عمل کند. صدالبته که جای چنین چیزی در این حوزه خالی بوده و میتوان� بسیار راهگشای نوآموزان این راه باشد.
واقعیت آن است که هیچ از روشه� و مکاتب آن گونه که مخاطب به شناخت جامع و حداقلی از آن به رسد معرفی نشده است و حتی نمونه نقدی که آورده شده از نمونهها� درخور نقد در آن مکتب به شمار نمیرو�. بدین معنی کتاب نه جامع است و نه مانع، اما برای کسی که آشنایی چندانی با مکاتب نداشته باشد و صرفا در پی آشنایی اولیه با این مکاتب باشد میتوان� درآمد بسیار بسیار خوبی باشد تا خواننده از پس از مطالعه این کتاب بتواند مسیر مطالعات بعدی و جدیتر� را مشخص کند.
در واقع برای ان کسی که قصد ورود به دنیای نقد و نظریه ادبی داشته باشد میتوان� همچون یک نقشه ابتدایی راهنما عمل کند. صدالبته که جای چنین چیزی در این حوزه خالی بوده و میتوان� بسیار راهگشای نوآموزان این راه باشد.
June 7, 2015
من خیلی چیزها از این کتاب یاد گرفتم ...
March 3, 2019
This book helped me a lot during my english studies in Undergrad.
March 16, 2023
Great general overview, but pretty basic. Would be perf for a 101 course on lit theory / undergrad reading
April 21, 2015
It is an introduction to Literary Theory, just as the title of the text says. It provides a history of literary theories along with critical reactions and interpretations. I cannot fault it for that.
The problem with this text is twofold, if a problem at all and not merely a petty complaint on my part: 1) the text does not provide any qualitative examples of how to conduct criticism and analysis within the theory (too focused on history of the theories) and 2) the text does not present any solid reasoning for legitimizing these critical theories nor how to implement them purposefully.
I do not need them to tell why they're interesting, or why they may be personally edifying to use as an academic exercise, to stretch the mind and boundaries of thought, but I want to know why I should concern myself with these theories as it applies to actually understanding the world or a given text. At some point, many of the theories become square-peg, round-hole issues and it becomes an issue of reader-intentionality on the text.
It's the old argument that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." - not Freud
The problem with this text is twofold, if a problem at all and not merely a petty complaint on my part: 1) the text does not provide any qualitative examples of how to conduct criticism and analysis within the theory (too focused on history of the theories) and 2) the text does not present any solid reasoning for legitimizing these critical theories nor how to implement them purposefully.
I do not need them to tell why they're interesting, or why they may be personally edifying to use as an academic exercise, to stretch the mind and boundaries of thought, but I want to know why I should concern myself with these theories as it applies to actually understanding the world or a given text. At some point, many of the theories become square-peg, round-hole issues and it becomes an issue of reader-intentionality on the text.
It's the old argument that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." - not Freud
November 15, 2011
'Literary Criticism' was a very clearly written introduction the theory and practice of Literary Criticism throughout a vast amount of time. Although at times the author did seem to repeat himself and it seemed to drag on. It is very insightful and I recommend it to anyone looking to dive headfirst into Literary Criticism but with no prior knowledge on the topic. Most literary theories are listed in depth in this book, the good, the bad and the ugly :)
July 1, 2021
While I enjoyed it when I read it in college, rereading it now, I know I got much more out of it. Having now taught literature for a few years, the different schools and approaches to making meaning out of texts hold more applicability now. I liked the addition of the later chapters in this edition.
September 19, 2007
A concise introduction of Literary Criticism. The examples are very easy of Literary Criticism. The examples are very easy to understand. It's good for beginners to learn various approches and theory to literary criticism.
June 30, 2013
the part about psychoanalytic criticism was quite impressive and appellation.
February 5, 2025
This all-inclusive yet handy guide to literary theory, renders it an indispensable resource for students and scholars alike. The book provides a historical synopsis of major literary theories, from classical criticism to postmodern approaches, while upholding a clear and attractive writing style. One of the book’s fortes is its structured exhibition of diverse critical perspectives, including Formalism, Structuralism, Deconstruction, Feminism, Marxism, and Postcolonialism, among others. Bressler not only explains these theories in detail but also contextualizes them within the wider literary and cultural landscape, making complex ideas more digestible. The inclusion of key theorists, terminology, and real-world applications further improves its value. While the book is extremely informative, its strength also lies in its pedagogical approach. Each chapter includes discussion questions and exercises, making it particularly useful for classroom settings. However, some readers might find its coverage of newer or emerging critical theories somewhat limited, as the field of literary criticism continues to evolve. Overall, this is a well-organized and insightful introduction to literary theory. Bressler’s clear clarifications and structured approach make it an instrumental text for anyone seeking to understand the foundational principles of literary criticism. Most recommended for students.
September 16, 2022
I read the main chapters and also the chapter on New Criticism. I skipped the chapters on Feminist criticism, Post-colonialist criticism, Marxist, Queer Theory, Ecocentrist, etc., etc. The foundational chapters were really helpful and make the book worth reading (at least in part). The book has two main benefits. First, Bressler establishes the scope of the "literary criticism" field, then explains why it is necessary. Literary criticism is like many other disciplines--the questions is not whether you are a philosopher/political theorist/ethicist/etc. or not, but which philosophy/political theory/ethics/etc. you hold to, and whether it is good or bad. "[E]very reader espouses some kind of literary theory." It is unavoidable. "An incomplete, unconscious, and therefore, unclear literary theory more frequently than not leads to illogical, unsound, and haphazard interpretations. On the other hand, a well-defined, logical, and clearly articulated theory enables readers to develop a method by which to establish principles that enable them to justify, order, and clarify their own appraisals of a text in a consistent manner."
Secondly, the history of literary criticism was excellent. It provides a brief overview of the history of literary criticism, from Plato and Aristotle right down to modern literary criticism.
Secondly, the history of literary criticism was excellent. It provides a brief overview of the history of literary criticism, from Plato and Aristotle right down to modern literary criticism.
October 26, 2019
Following a quick talk with a colleague, I re-introduced myself to literary criticism to prepare for a course on theories once more. This time though, instead of an overview of the theories, more specific analyses stemming from seminal texts on literary theories. Using this structured presentation of Greek philosophers to modernist thinkers, the texts included here form the foundation for one to become aware of how to criticize and analyze, at least. Treading on formalism to postmodernism, from Marxism to structuralism, from gender studies to post-colonial theories--which are some of the key theories that need to underscored when trying to frame current and historical contexts that remain important in taking a look at the past to know where to take the future.
August 17, 2020
Best introductory book. Not enough for gaining any academic insight, but enough for finding your way through the jungle of countless theories.
My Personal Highlights of the Book:
* Very precise differentiation between overlapping ideas which helps understanding.
* Some original articles at the end, which is in my opinion the best part of the book.
* It gives a very practical sense of methodology and Assumptions for each literary movement, for which it can be considered better than many similar books.
My Personal Highlights of the Book:
* Very precise differentiation between overlapping ideas which helps understanding.
* Some original articles at the end, which is in my opinion the best part of the book.
* It gives a very practical sense of methodology and Assumptions for each literary movement, for which it can be considered better than many similar books.
September 19, 2020
I have read the book for academic purposes and I can safely say it was quite helpful for me.
The book gives enough introductory information about criticism and the most famous theories and approaches. Therefore, if you are looking into in-depth explanations of the schools, this book will be no good for you. However, all in all, it is insightful about the most important parts of each theory.
I liked in particular, Psychoanalysis, postcolonialism and the Marxism chapters. At the same time, Feminism and Gender chapters need modification and better representation.
4 stars!
The book gives enough introductory information about criticism and the most famous theories and approaches. Therefore, if you are looking into in-depth explanations of the schools, this book will be no good for you. However, all in all, it is insightful about the most important parts of each theory.
I liked in particular, Psychoanalysis, postcolonialism and the Marxism chapters. At the same time, Feminism and Gender chapters need modification and better representation.
4 stars!
May 5, 2020
A relatively readable literary criticism textbook. Much of it definitely still went over my head, but at least according to my professor, other textbooks would have been much more difficult to understand. A helpful introduction to schools of thought which I had no idea existed. While it doesn't have the space to go into a lot of depth, there are lists of further reading for each school of criticism, that I will probably explore a bit later on in the summer.
May 9, 2022
It's length would be halved if you could remove all the repetitive sentences. Then again you could add to it with all the necessary yet missing explanations of some of the more complex stuff, especially on the chapters about structuralism, post-structuralism & Marxism.
It does however give a general idea of the different schools of criticism (except the horrible job is does on structuralism & post-structuralism)
It does however give a general idea of the different schools of criticism (except the horrible job is does on structuralism & post-structuralism)
May 2, 2024
I technically didn’t read the whole thing. I only read the stuff I had to read for my class but it was probably about half of the book or a little more than half.
It was a slog to get through usually. I liked the chapter on Feminist Criticism because all of the quotes. I just don’t understand why every sentence had to be so long and convoluted. It felt like the author didn’t know the material well enough sometimes and tried to complicate it so much.
It was a slog to get through usually. I liked the chapter on Feminist Criticism because all of the quotes. I just don’t understand why every sentence had to be so long and convoluted. It felt like the author didn’t know the material well enough sometimes and tried to complicate it so much.
May 8, 2023
This is great for understanding the history and philosophical approaches to the theories presented in this book. However, some of the methodology parts were hit and miss. The examples used to show case these theories sometimes made perfect sense due to the clear detail. Other times it was like, "Yeah, these theorists did this." No further elaboration.
June 29, 2018
I had the immense pleasure of reading this text when I was in college, and it changed the way that I read literature as well as how and why I write. I would highly suggest this book to any serious literary scholars!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.