Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Eagleton’s writing is blinded by ideology and his seemingly unending bitterness and lack of faith in humanity makes for a deeply unpleasant read. Having said that, it is a comprehensive overview of the main theories in the history of literary criticism, from hermeneutics to post-structuralism. I found his interpretation of Harold Bloom's theory of the "anxiety of influence" as a psychoanalytic rewriting of history particularly interesting, with each writer living in the oppressive shadow of his literary 'father', as it were.

Eagleton makes the bold claim that it is likely we will encounter a future where Shakespeare bears no relevance to anyone. I beg to differ. Shakespeare's writing deals with universal truths which speak to all of humanity. Indeed, Shakespeare is so relevant to the human experience that Bloom describes him as the "first truly multicultural writer". As long as there is humanity, Shakespeare has relevance. On the other hand, Eagleton's writing does not refer to universalities and speaks to a minority of academics. It is largely inaccessible due to its technical jargon and his narrow ideological framework. One can easily imagine a future (and a much better one at that) where his writing has faded into irrelevance. Fortunately, Shakespeare's place in the literary canon seems safe for the meantime as even Mr Eagleton cannot help paraphrasing and quoting him throughout his book.

Eagleton's own argument is that after the decline of the influence of religion, literature became a tool of the bourgeoisie for installing middle-class liberal values in the working class to prevent popular uprising and an end to private property. He criticises current literary criticism for perpetuating the interests of the upper and middle classes by forming "a part of the ideological apparatus of the modern capitalist state". However, it seems as though the only change Eagleton wants to make to the supposed current system is replacing the capitalist state with a Marxist one centred around the interests of the 'workers' in order to liberate them from their oppressors.

This was an arduous read and the margins of my copy are filled with objections to Eagleton's arguments. Were it not for his obviously well-informed knowledge of literary theory and helpfully detailed overview of various arguments, this would have been intolerable.