Gregsamsa's Reviews > Literary Theory: An Introduction
Literary Theory: An Introduction
by
by

If you are one of those near-sighted, pedantic, theory-addicted lit-geeks (like myself, thank you) and you tire of trying to 'splain to folks the various -isms that spin out of the ivory tower and splat into the public square (who woulda thought that the word "deconstruct" would one day make regular appearances in Entertainment Weakly(sic)? "Not I" says this "I.") then this is THE book to pass out as a nice quick primer to strangers at the airport or, better yet, the one or two people who will still talk to you about books.
The coolest thing about this survey/overview is that as Eagleton goes through each of the lit-crit "movements" or "schools" he also makes a persuasive case for them. This makes the book engaging almost like a novel can be in that there is some drama as he leads the reader into one school, makes the reader think "Hmm, I like these ideas and would like to subscribe to the newsletter" before he then pulls at a few threads and then demonstrates what critics of that approach actually did, showing up its flaws and questionable assumptions and stuff, before Eagleton goes on to show what was reassembled from that mess into a new trend of thought which he gives the whole pitch for, before doing that again.
Yes, I know what you are thinking; your exact thoughts right now are "But wait, isn't he reifying the idea of intellectual 'evolution' by imposing a progress-narrative myth over disparate communities of cultural discourse as if they are elements within a linear strand of causally-connected events?"
Well duh.
And as one of the esteemed UK Gucci Marxists he should know better, right? But ya gotta start somewhere and for a book so brief he does an amazing job at pressing compact profiles onto the page with a minimum of distortion and enough impact to shut up people you know who say stupid shit like "Deconstruction is about how nothing means anything, right?" Now, I know some folx may balk at the idea of reading a "marxist," and that is a completely understandable and quite-to-be-expected reaction forcapitalist bast people who daily struggle with seeing the world through a false consciousness (titter) but I don't think it colors his sketches in any meaningful way and certainly shouldn't impede understanding of his summaries of all these different critical approaches.
Now what approaches/schools/movements/factions/discourse-communities are these? Well let's see what we got here... you gotcher basic history of "English" as a proper subject for study in the first damn place and how shockingly tardy was its acceptance as a serious thang, then ya gotcher pre-New Criticism unpleasantness, 'course then ya gotcher actual New Criticism unpleasantness, then ya gotcher phenomenology guys and that whole debate about the in-your-head "in here" vs that whole "out there" deal and where the hell you put "intent" with all that, then ya gotcher sciency formalists, what with their semiotix and structuralism which you're really gonna wanna take a look at if ya like your categories and diagrams. Then ya gotcher deal where the previous machine turned on itself and got all AI on its own ass with the post-structuralists, then you can take a break on the couch with your psychoanalytic session. When you wake up and you realize you're almost done and you wonder "what about rhetoric?" he goes all rhet alright by blending that through feminism(s) and other political criticism(z).
And yes it's mostly a nice surface-scratching tour but if anyone wants to dig deeper his bibliography is phat.
The coolest thing about this survey/overview is that as Eagleton goes through each of the lit-crit "movements" or "schools" he also makes a persuasive case for them. This makes the book engaging almost like a novel can be in that there is some drama as he leads the reader into one school, makes the reader think "Hmm, I like these ideas and would like to subscribe to the newsletter" before he then pulls at a few threads and then demonstrates what critics of that approach actually did, showing up its flaws and questionable assumptions and stuff, before Eagleton goes on to show what was reassembled from that mess into a new trend of thought which he gives the whole pitch for, before doing that again.
Yes, I know what you are thinking; your exact thoughts right now are "But wait, isn't he reifying the idea of intellectual 'evolution' by imposing a progress-narrative myth over disparate communities of cultural discourse as if they are elements within a linear strand of causally-connected events?"
Well duh.
And as one of the esteemed UK Gucci Marxists he should know better, right? But ya gotta start somewhere and for a book so brief he does an amazing job at pressing compact profiles onto the page with a minimum of distortion and enough impact to shut up people you know who say stupid shit like "Deconstruction is about how nothing means anything, right?" Now, I know some folx may balk at the idea of reading a "marxist," and that is a completely understandable and quite-to-be-expected reaction for
Now what approaches/schools/movements/factions/discourse-communities are these? Well let's see what we got here... you gotcher basic history of "English" as a proper subject for study in the first damn place and how shockingly tardy was its acceptance as a serious thang, then ya gotcher pre-New Criticism unpleasantness, 'course then ya gotcher actual New Criticism unpleasantness, then ya gotcher phenomenology guys and that whole debate about the in-your-head "in here" vs that whole "out there" deal and where the hell you put "intent" with all that, then ya gotcher sciency formalists, what with their semiotix and structuralism which you're really gonna wanna take a look at if ya like your categories and diagrams. Then ya gotcher deal where the previous machine turned on itself and got all AI on its own ass with the post-structuralists, then you can take a break on the couch with your psychoanalytic session. When you wake up and you realize you're almost done and you wonder "what about rhetoric?" he goes all rhet alright by blending that through feminism(s) and other political criticism(z).
And yes it's mostly a nice surface-scratching tour but if anyone wants to dig deeper his bibliography is phat.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
Literary Theory.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
July 30, 2013
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-12 of 12 (12 new)
date
newest »

message 1:
by
Ian
(new)
-
added it
Aug 26, 2013 12:54PM

reply
|
flag

I swear that's exactly what I had composed in my head until you pre-empted me by predicting that that's what I'd think.
Anyway, great review. Looks like it would be useful stuff even for a curious amateur.

You mean Gucci as in GUCCI!? Since when did Marxists start dressing up in designer garments? I guess,they are all corrupt then!
Trust Samsa to make even a dry,drab,lit-crit review interesting.
Have you read & reviewed his Ideology books? There has been a lot of interest in them on Gr lately.

I read Ideology of the Aesthetic a long time ago, but I haven't reviewed it and I don't remember it well enough to be able to without a re-read. When I first got on this site I caught all of his blogs on my update page, but now I guess they get drowned now that I have friends and belong to groups, because I haven't seen one in a while. This happened also to the imported feed from Will Self's blog. Maybe I should tune up my filters.

First, I just instinctively--and by utter, blind prejudice--view these people as the enemy (and sorry if that casts you on the enemy's side). I have just always viewed criticism and literary theory with deep suspicion. For instance, I always vomit through the nostrils whenever I hear the word post-modern, even though I don't know what it means and don't want to know. And then you mentioned Marxism and I nearly swallowed my eyeballs.
On the other hand, I often tell myself (without quite convincing myself) that I should not be proud of ignorance or afraid of knowledge, plus it's possible to read about something without being indoctrinated by it (I hope). So, I should like try, right? I've been reading the bible lately, for instance, and it hasn't chased the devils away (thank God).
Then I recall that David Lynch has repeated the story several times that he once considered going into psychotherapy, and he asked the therapist whether there was a chance that the process could change him in some way that would damage or alter his creativity. The therapist told him that honestly, that could happen. He couldn't guarantee that it wouldn't change him as an artist. For that reason, David never underwent psychotherapy (but then fell under the spell of Transcendental Meditation).
So, here's the gist: Will reading about theory damage me as a reader, or as a writer? Are these theory-monkeys going to fuck with my brain in a way that is undefuckable? Are they going to try to convince me that I am wrong when I declare that literature need not have any social responsibility, consciousness, or awareness at all, that those things are usually besides the point, and that all academic critics are nut-jobs who forgot how to read? Just for instance...
And what will they say about Nietzsche's "The text has disappeared under the interpretation."?

"Marxism" in literary theory has nothing to do with any top-down political program or project. It basically means that a reading's emphasis is on how a work reflects the structures by which humans interact with stuff, and how power's uses or potentials effect these interactions, borrowing mostly from Vol 2 of Das Kapital's analysis of materialism. These can range from highly philosophical critiques that posit the humans/stuff juncture of experience as an irreducible starting point, to what is called "vulgar Marxism" which is just pointing out who oppresses whom. Certainly nothing worth swallowing your eyeballs over.
Modernism attempted to distance itself from tradition by making a clean break; Post-modernism realized this was impossible so affects the distance by borrowing consciously, with tweaks. That's it. (I know it's ridiculous to talk about these movements as agents doing things, but for brevity...)
Reading this book will not harm you. Reading through the original sources covered in this book will fuck you up real bad. Ok, maybe not you, perhaps you're less easily roped into stuff like this, but Barthes and Derrida messed with my reading badly and my writing disastrously. It was temporary, but I cannot accurately assess the overall effects as, alas, the pre-disaster phase is inaccessible now.
I can't think of any serious theorists who push a value-judgement system based on how socially responsible, conscious, or aware a book is (although it is common among some lower-tier vulgar Marxist, queer, and feminist criticism). Most, I think, would suggest that those things, to some degree, are already implicit in any text but the more sophisticated of these analyses rarely unite that with an evaluative framework.
As for the relationship between the text and the interpretation, there are likely as many different characterizations of that as there are theorists, but a general grouping would have some saying that good criticism only brings out what's already in the text, so criticism is a product of it, others see any text as an utterance within a larger cultural discourse whose wholeness depends on there being a variety of genres (not just criticism, just poetry, just fiction), others would answer the question "has the text disappeared under the interpretation?" by saying "yes, every time it is read; their is no "real" text "beneath" the interpretive act of reading.
And thank you for such a thought-provoking comment.


You have to learn to use other orifices, if this reaction is inevitable!

no escaping interpretative assumptions. theory is the study of those assumptions; criticism is their active application.

no escaping interpretative assumptions. theory is the study of those assumptions; criticism is their active application."
I go on for hours and dude just sums it up in like 5 seconds

Then I come back looking for my friend Gregsamsa, and I find this awesome thread. In fact, I jealously wish I could borrow Greg and sologdin's summaries there; so brief and yet so completely apt that it almost gave me a nerdgasm.