Sign in with Facebook
Kristi Siegel's Reviews > Literary Theory: An Introduction
Literary Theory: An Introduction
by
by
An introduction to literary theory?
Perhaps. Or perhaps this is more of an essay on theory from a Marxist slant.
Terry Eagleton's prefatory statement: "Hostility to theory usually means an opposition to other people's theories and an oblivion of one's own" seems ironic in a book, though innocuously entitled Literary Theory: An Introduction, that works instead to decimate most literary theory in the 60 years prior to the book's publication. Eagleton does spare Marxism (his own ideology) and feminism (not a politically tactful maneuver for a man).
Eagleton's incisive wit in part accounts for what blinds a reader to his deceptive menace. It is very hard not to laugh, for instance, when he encapsulates a notion of T. S. Eliot's by stating that "Somewhere in the seventeenth century, though Eliot is unsure of the precise date, a 'dissociation of sensibility' set in: thinking was no longer like smelling."
Eagleton's rhetoric is less funny when he loosely, without offering hard evidence, connects Heidegger's theories with the Third Reich, or - in a book where he himself is writing literary theory - moralistically denounces the theories of Roland Barthes by commenting, "There is something a little disturbing about this avant-garde hedonism in a world where others lack not only books but food."
Whatever Eagleton's polemic is, it is not, to my mind, a neutral introduction to literary theory. While Eagleton does provide some excellent synopses of critical theory, knowing he has an agenda is essential.
Perhaps. Or perhaps this is more of an essay on theory from a Marxist slant.
Terry Eagleton's prefatory statement: "Hostility to theory usually means an opposition to other people's theories and an oblivion of one's own" seems ironic in a book, though innocuously entitled Literary Theory: An Introduction, that works instead to decimate most literary theory in the 60 years prior to the book's publication. Eagleton does spare Marxism (his own ideology) and feminism (not a politically tactful maneuver for a man).
Eagleton's incisive wit in part accounts for what blinds a reader to his deceptive menace. It is very hard not to laugh, for instance, when he encapsulates a notion of T. S. Eliot's by stating that "Somewhere in the seventeenth century, though Eliot is unsure of the precise date, a 'dissociation of sensibility' set in: thinking was no longer like smelling."
Eagleton's rhetoric is less funny when he loosely, without offering hard evidence, connects Heidegger's theories with the Third Reich, or - in a book where he himself is writing literary theory - moralistically denounces the theories of Roland Barthes by commenting, "There is something a little disturbing about this avant-garde hedonism in a world where others lack not only books but food."
Whatever Eagleton's polemic is, it is not, to my mind, a neutral introduction to literary theory. While Eagleton does provide some excellent synopses of critical theory, knowing he has an agenda is essential.
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
Literary Theory.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
November 13, 2009
– Shelved as:
theory
November 13, 2009
– Shelved as:
general-theory
November 13, 2009
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-8 of 8 (8 new)
date
newest »
newest »
Buck wrote: "I cannot BELIEVE I’m about to stick up for Terry “The Rococo Marxist� Eagleton, but do we really need any further evidence of Heidegger’s Nazism? After all, the guy was a card-carrying member of t..."Oh, I'll probably fold on Heidegger. I have a passionate hatred of all things Nazi. However, I can't defend Eagleton's book, even though he provides some pretty clear explanations and many of them are funny as hell. He does have a blatant Marxist bias, and I think if you're going to write an "introductory" text, you have to at least pretend to be objective.
I'm not an *anything* theory-wise. I use whatever theories work when I've done academic writing but I don't really buy into any one -ism. I just enjoy the subject. Heidegger drives me slightly nuts. Derrida's clearer than he is.
It isn't you. Some of these theorists are unforgivably obtuse.
Huh. I actually had to read this at some point in my life. The cover's familiar, anyway.
Because I have nothing substantive to add, and apparently I can't spell substantive either, according to spellcheck, I'll just link to this , which I think I've done before on one of Buck's threads.
(Sorry Buck. I have a limited number of things to say about certain subjects, so if you hang out long enough, you'll hear me say them several times. My one thing to say about football: "Oh, well, everyone knows that college football is better." This is just enough gasoline to start everyone fighting and then I can just lean back.)
Because I have nothing substantive to add, and apparently I can't spell substantive either, according to spellcheck, I'll just link to this , which I think I've done before on one of Buck's threads.
(Sorry Buck. I have a limited number of things to say about certain subjects, so if you hang out long enough, you'll hear me say them several times. My one thing to say about football: "Oh, well, everyone knows that college football is better." This is just enough gasoline to start everyone fighting and then I can just lean back.)
On Barthes, I didn't know Eagleton was such a humorless scold. "Avant-garde hedonism" is a noble tradition and someone's gotta hold it up. We need the dandies; there are enough German professors.
Eric wrote: "On Barthes, I didn't know Eagleton was such a humorless scold. "Avant-garde hedonism" is a noble tradition and someone's gotta hold it up. We need the dandies; there are enough German professors. "Yes, let's hear it for the dandies, and for that matter, what in the heck does Eagleton think he's writing. It's THEORY. How hedonistic of him.
Such a tiresome stock figure, the writer who chides writing's giddier reaches. I'll take Barthes' collages and reveries (and his longueurs) instead.
I had to read part of this text for a class at my university - I remember feeling disgruntled at Eagleton's summary of formalism as well (having taken a class on the formalist/marxist debates the semester before). He "summed up" formalism in such a way that it seemed much more primitive and didactic than I thought it was after having read some of the Soviet formalists first hand. This makes me hesitant to read the rest of Eagleton's text - I am afraid his introduction might not be as charitable as an introduction ought to be.
A marxist book by a marxist author, how surprising! it has a "marxist agenda"! Worthless comment
But I suppose the question you raise is whether his philosophy itself is tainted by Nazism. I’m not even remotely qualified to weigh in on that one, but as other critics have pointed out, it’s a smidge ironic that a thinker who always railed against the dehumanizing effects of industrialization never had word one to say about the industrialized slaughter of the Jews.
Are you a Heideggerian, by any chance? I mean, we can still be friends if you are. I just enjoy arguing with Heideggerians, even though I always end up losing because I can never figure out what the hell they’re talking about. In my less generous moments, I suspect many of them have no idea what they're talking about, either. But Derrideans fill me with the same vague unease, so maybe it's me.