November 6, 2024 - English Studies

“In Memoriam A.H.H.” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson: A Critical Analysis

Introduction: “In Memoriam A.H.H.” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

“In Memoriam A.H.H.” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson first appeared in 1850, published as part of a collection of elegiac verses dedicated to his dear friend Arthur Henry Hallam, who had died suddenly in 1833. This extended poem, consisting of 131 sections of four-line stanzas, explores themes of grief, faith, love, and the search for meaning in the face of personal loss. Tennyson uses this reflective journey to confront his own doubts about life and death, while addressing broader questions about human existence and spiritual resilience. The poem resonated deeply with readers, particularly in the Victorian era, who were grappling with shifting religious beliefs and scientific discoveries. Its popularity stems not only from its profound emotional depth but also from Tennyson’s lyrical mastery and his ability to articulate universal emotions related to mourning and hope, making “In Memoriam” both a personal tribute and a timeless exploration of human vulnerability.

Text: “In Memoriam A.H.H.” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Strong Son of God, immortal Love,

Whom we, that have not seen thy face,

By faith, and faith alone, embrace,

Believing where we cannot prove;

Thine are these orbs of light and shade;

Thou madest Life in man and brute;

Thou madest Death; and lo, thy foot

Is on the skull which thou hast made.

Thou wilt not leave us in the dust:

Thou madest man, he knows not why,

He thinks he was not made to die;

And thou hast made him: thou art just.

Thou seemest human and divine,

The highest, holiest manhood, thou.

Our wills are ours, we know not how;

Our wills are ours, to make them thine.

Our little systems have their day;

They have their day and cease to be:

They are but broken lights of thee,

And thou, O Lord, art more than they.

We have but faith: we cannot know;

For knowledge is of things we see

And yet we trust it comes from thee,

A beam in darkness: let it grow.

Let knowledge grow from more to more,

But more of reverence in us dwell;

That mind and soul, according well,

May make one music as before,

But vaster. We are fools and slight;

We mock thee when we do not fear:

But help thy foolish ones to bear;

Help thy vain worlds to bear thy light.

Forgive what seem’d my sin in me;

What seem’d my worth since I began;

For merit lives from man to man,

And not from man, O Lord, to thee.

Forgive my grief for one removed,

Thy creature, whom I found so fair.

I trust he lives in thee, and there

I find him worthier to be loved.

Forgive these wild and wandering cries,

Confusions of a wasted youth;

Forgive them where they fail in truth,

And in thy wisdom make me wise.

I held it truth, with him who sings

To one clear harp in divers tones,

That men may rise on stepping-stones

Of their dead selves to higher things.

But who shall so forecast the years

And find in loss a gain to match?

Or reach a hand thro’ time to catch

The far-off interest of tears?

Let Love clasp Grief lest both be drown’d,

Let darkness keep her raven gloss:

Ah, sweeter to be drunk with loss,

To dance with death, to beat the ground,

Than that the victor Hours should scorn

The long result of love, and boast,

`Behold the man that loved and lost,

But all he was is overworn.’

Old Yew, which graspest at the stones

That name the under-lying dead,

Thy fibres net the dreamless head,

Thy roots are wrapt about the bones.

The seasons bring the flower again,

And bring the firstling to the flock;

And in the dusk of thee, the clock

Beats out the little lives of men.

O, not for thee the glow, the bloom,

Who changest not in any gale,

Nor branding summer suns avail

To touch thy thousand years of gloom:

And gazing on thee, sullen tree,

Sick for thy stubborn hardihood,

I seem to fail from out my blood

And grow incorporate into thee.

III

O Sorrow, cruel fellowship,

O Priestess in the vaults of Death,

O sweet and bitter in a breath,

What whispers from thy lying lip?

‘The stars,’ she whispers, `blindly run;

A web is wov’n across the sky;

From out waste places comes a cry,

And murmurs from the dying sun:

‘And all the phantom, Nature, stands—

With all the music in her tone,

A hollow echo of my own,—

A hollow form with empty hands.’

And shall I take a thing so blind,

Embrace her as my natural good;

Or crush her, like a vice of blood,

Upon the threshold of the mind?

To Sleep I give my powers away;

My will is bondsman to the dark;

I sit within a helmless bark,

And with my heart I muse and say:

O heart, how fares it with thee now,

That thou should’st fail from thy desire,

Who scarcely darest to inquire,

‘What is it makes me beat so low?’

Something it is which thou hast lost,

Some pleasure from thine early years.

Break, thou deep vase of chilling tears,

That grief hath shaken into frost!

Such clouds of nameless trouble cross

All night below the darken’d eyes;

With morning wakes the will, and cries,

‘Thou shalt not be the fool of loss.’

I sometimes hold it half a sin

To put in words the grief I feel;

For words, like Nature, half reveal

And half conceal the Soul within.

But, for the unquiet heart and brain,

A use in measured language lies;

The sad mechanic exercise,

Like dull narcotics, numbing pain.

In words, like weeds, I’ll wrap me o’er,

Like coarsest clothes against the cold:

But that large grief which these enfold

Is given in outline and no more.

One writes, that `Other friends remain,’

That `Loss is common to the race’—

And common is the commonplace,

And vacant chaff well meant for grain.

That loss is common would not make

My own less bitter, rather more:

Too common! Never morning wore

To evening, but some heart did break.

O father, wheresoe’er thou be,

Who pledgest now thy gallant son;

A shot, ere half thy draught be done,

Hath still’d the life that beat from thee.

O mother, praying God will save

Thy sailor,—while thy head is bow’d,

His heavy-shotted hammock-shroud

Drops in his vast and wandering grave.

Ye know no more than I who wrought

At that last hour to please him well;

Who mused on all I had to tell,

And something written, something thought;

Expecting still his advent home;

And ever met him on his way

With wishes, thinking, `here to-day,’

Or `here to-morrow will he come.’

O somewhere, meek, unconscious dove,

That sittest ranging golden hair;

And glad to find thyself so fair,

Poor child, that waitest for thy love!

For now her father’s chimney glows

In expectation of a guest;

And thinking `this will please him best,’

She takes a riband or a rose;

For he will see them on to-night;

And with the thought her colour burns;

And, having left the glass, she turns

Once more to set a ringlet right;

And, even when she turn’d, the curse

Had fallen, and her future Lord

Was drown’d in passing thro’ the ford,

Or kill’d in falling from his horse.

O what to her shall be the end?

And what to me remains of good?

To her, perpetual maidenhood,

And unto me no second friend.

VII

Dark house, by which once more I stand

Here in the long unlovely street,

Doors, where my heart was used to beat

So quickly, waiting for a hand,

A hand that can be clasp’d no more—

Behold me, for I cannot sleep,

And like a guilty thing I creep

At earliest morning to the door.

He is not here; but far away

The noise of life begins again,

And ghastly thro’ the drizzling rain

On the bald street breaks the blank day.

VIII

A happy lover who has come

To look on her that loves him well,

Who ‘lights and rings the gateway bell,

And learns her gone and far from home;

He saddens, all the magic light

Dies off at once from bower and hall,

And all the place is dark, and all

The chambers emptied of delight:

So find I every pleasant spot

In which we two were wont to meet,

The field, the chamber, and the street,

For all is dark where thou art not.

Yet as that other, wandering there

In those deserted walks, may find

A flower beat with rain and wind,

Which once she foster’d up with care;

So seems it in my deep regret,

O my forsaken heart, with thee

And this poor flower of poesy

Which little cared for fades not yet.

But since it pleased a vanish’d eye,

I go to plant it on his tomb,

That if it can it there may bloom,

Or, dying, there at least may die.

Fair ship, that from the Italian shore

Sailest the placid ocean-plains

With my lost Arthur’s loved remains,

Spread thy full wings, and waft him o’er.

So draw him home to those that mourn

In vain; a favourable speed

Ruffle thy mirror’d mast, and lead

Thro’ prosperous floods his holy urn.

All night no ruder air perplex

Thy sliding keel, till Phosphor, bright

As our pure love, thro’ early light

Shall glimmer on the dewy decks.

Sphere all your lights around, above;

Sleep, gentle heavens, before the prow;

Sleep, gentle winds, as he sleeps now,

My friend, the brother of my love;

My Arthur, whom I shall not see

Till all my widow’d race be run;

Dear as the mother to the son,

More than my brothers are to me.

I hear the noise about thy keel;

I hear the bell struck in the night:

I see the cabin-window bright;

I see the sailor at the wheel.

Thou bring’st the sailor to his wife,

And travell’d men from foreign lands;

And letters unto trembling hands;

And, thy dark freight, a vanish’d life.

So bring him; we have idle dreams:

This look of quiet flatters thus

Our home-bred fancies. O to us,

The fools of habit, sweeter seems

To rest beneath the clover sod,

That takes the sunshine and the rains,

Or where the kneeling hamlet drains

The chalice of the grapes of God;

Than if with thee the roaring wells

Should gulf him fathom-deep in brine;

And hands so often clasp’d in mine,

Should toss with tangle and with shells.

Calm is the morn without a sound,

Calm as to suit a calmer grief,

And only thro’ the faded leaf

The chestnut pattering to the ground:

Calm and deep peace on this high world,

And on these dews that drench the furze,

And all the silvery gossamers

That twinkle into green and gold:

Calm and still light on yon great plain

That sweeps with all its autumn bowers,

And crowded farms and lessening towers,

To mingle with the bounding main:

Calm and deep peace in this wide air,

These leaves that redden to the fall;

And in my heart, if calm at all,

If any calm, a calm despair:

Calm on the seas, and silver sleep,

And waves that sway themselves in rest,

And dead calm in that noble breast

Which heaves but with the heaving deep.

XII

Lo, as a dove when up she springs

To bear thro’ Heaven a tale of woe,

Some dolorous message knit below

The wild pulsation of her wings;

Like her I go; I cannot stay;

I leave this mortal ark behind,

A weight of nerves without a mind,

And leave the cliffs, and haste away

O’er ocean-mirrors rounded large,

And reach the glow of southern skies,

And see the sails at distance rise,

And linger weeping on the marge,

And saying; `Comes he thus, my friend?

Is this the end of all my care?’

And circle moaning in the air:

‘Is this the end? Is this the end?’

And forward dart again, and play

About the prow, and back return

To where the body sits, and learn

That I have been an hour away.

XIII

Tears of the widower, when he sees

A late-lost form that sleep reveals,

And moves his doubtful arms, and feels

Her place is empty, fall like these;

Which weep a loss for ever new,

A void where heart on heart reposed;

And, where warm hands have prest and closed,

Silence, till I be silent too.

Which weep the comrade of my choice,

An awful thought, a life removed,

The human-hearted man I loved,

A Spirit, not a breathing voice.

Come, Time, and teach me, many years,

I do not suffer in a dream;

For now so strange do these things seem,

Mine eyes have leisure for their tears;

My fancies time to rise on wing,

And glance about the approaching sails,

As tho’ they brought but merchants’ bales,

And not the burthen that they bring.

XIV

If one should bring me this report,

That thou hadst touch’d the land to-day,

And I went down unto the quay,

And found thee lying in the port;

And standing, muffled round with woe,

Should see thy passengers in rank

Come stepping lightly down the plank,

And beckoning unto those they know;

And if along with these should come

The man I held as half-divine;

Should strike a sudden hand in mine,

And ask a thousand things of home;

And I should tell him all my pain,

And how my life had droop’d of late,

And he should sorrow o’er my state

And marvel what possess’d my brain;

And I perceived no touch of change,

No hint of death in all his frame,

But found him all in all the same,

I should not feel it to be strange.

To-night the winds begin to rise

And roar from yonder dropping day:

The last red leaf is whirl’d away,

The rooks are blown about the skies;

The forest crack’d, the waters curl’d,

The cattle huddled on the lea;

And wildly dash’d on tower and tree

The sunbeam strikes along the world:

And but for fancies, which aver

That all thy motions gently pass

Athwart a plane of molten glass,

I scarce could brook the strain and stir

That makes the barren branches loud;

And but for fear it is not so,

The wild unrest that lives in woe

Would dote and pore on yonder cloud

That rises upward always higher,

And onward drags a labouring breast,

And topples round the dreary west,

A looming bastion fringed with fire.

XVI

What words are these have falle’n from me?

Can calm despair and wild unrest

Be tenants of a single breast,

Or sorrow such a changeling be?

Or cloth she only seem to take

The touch of change in calm or storm;

But knows no more of transient form

In her deep self, than some dead lake

That holds the shadow of a lark

Hung in the shadow of a heaven?

Or has the shock, so harshly given,

Confused me like the unhappy bark

That strikes by night a craggy shelf,

And staggers blindly ere she sink?

And stunn’d me from my power to think

And all my knowledge of myself;

And made me that delirious man

Whose fancy fuses old and new,

And flashes into false and true,

And mingles all without a plan?

XVII

Thou comest, much wept for: such a breeze

Compell’d thy canvas, and my prayer

Was as the whisper of an air

To breathe thee over lonely seas.

For I in spirit saw thee move

Thro’ circles of the bounding sky,

Week after week: the days go by:

Come quick, thou bringest all I love.

Henceforth, wherever thou may’st roam,

My blessing, like a line of light,

Is on the waters day and night,

And like a beacon guards thee home.

So may whatever tempest mars

Mid-ocean, spare thee, sacred bark;

And balmy drops in summer dark

Slide from the bosom of the stars.

So kind an office hath been done,

Such precious relics brought by thee;

The dust of him I shall not see

Till all my widow’d race be run.

XVIII

‘Tis well; ’tis something; we may stand

Where he in English earth is laid,

And from his ashes may be made

The violet of his native land.

‘Tis little; but it looks in truth

As if the quiet bones were blest

Among familiar names to rest

And in the places of his youth.

Come then, pure hands, and bear the head

That sleeps or wears the mask of sleep,

And come, whatever loves to weep,

And hear the ritual of the dead.

Ah yet, ev’n yet, if this might be,

I, falling on his faithful heart,

Would breathing thro’ his lips impart

The life that almost dies in me;

That dies not, but endures with pain,

And slowly forms the firmer mind,

Treasuring the look it cannot find,

The words that are not heard again.

XIX

The Danube to the Severn gave

The darken’d heart that beat no more;

They laid him by the pleasant shore,

And in the hearing of the wave.

There twice a day the Severn fills;

The salt sea-water passes by,

And hushes half the babbling Wye,

And makes a silence in the hills.

The Wye is hush’d nor moved along,

And hush’d my deepest grief of all,

When fill’d with tears that cannot fall,

I brim with sorrow drowning song.

The tide flows down, the wave again

Is vocal in its wooded walls;

My deeper anguish also falls,

And I can speak a little then.

The lesser griefs that may be said,

That breathe a thousand tender vows,

Are but as servants in a house

Where lies the master newly dead;

Who speak their feeling as it is,

And weep the fulness from the mind:

`It will be hard,’ they say, `to find

Another service such as this.’

My lighter moods are like to these,

That out of words a comfort win;

But there are other griefs within,

And tears that at their fountain freeze;

For by the hearth the children sit

Cold in that atmosphere of Death,

And scarce endure to draw the breath,

Or like to noiseless phantoms flit;

But open converse is there none,

So much the vital spirits sink

To see the vacant chair, and think,

‘How good! how kind! and he is gone.’

XXI

I sing to him that rests below,

And, since the grasses round me wave,

I take the grasses of the grave,

And make them pipes whereon to blow.

The traveller hears me now and then,

And sometimes harshly will he speak:

`This fellow would make weakness weak,

And melt the waxen hearts of men.’

Another answers, `Let him be,

He loves to make parade of pain

That with his piping he may gain

The praise that comes to constancy.’

A third is wroth: `Is this an hour

For private sorrow’s barren song,

When more and more the people throng

The chairs and thrones of civil power?

‘A time to sicken and to swoon,

When Science reaches forth her arms

To feel from world to world, and charms

Her secret from the latest moon?’

Behold, ye speak an idle thing:

Ye never knew the sacred dust:

I do but sing because I must,

And pipe but as the linnets sing:

And one is glad; her note is gay,

For now her little ones have ranged;

And one is sad; her note is changed,

Because her brood is stol’n away.

XXII

The path by which we twain did go,

Which led by tracts that pleased us well,

Thro’ four sweet years arose and fell,

From flower to flower, from snow to snow:

And we with singing cheer’d the way,

And, crown’d with all the season lent,

From April on to April went,

And glad at heart from May to May:

But where the path we walk’d began

To slant the fifth autumnal slope,

As we descended following Hope,

There sat the Shadow fear’d of man;

Who broke our fair companionship,

And spread his mantle dark and cold,

And wrapt thee formless in the fold,

And dull’d the murmur on thy lip,

And bore thee where I could not see

Nor follow, tho’ I walk in haste,

And think, that somewhere in the waste

The Shadow sits and waits for me.

XXIII

Now, sometimes in my sorrow shut,

Or breaking into song by fits,

Alone, alone, to where he sits,

The Shadow cloak’d from head to foot,

Who keeps the keys of all the creeds,

I wander, often falling lame,

And looking back to whence I came,

Or on to where the pathway leads;

And crying, How changed from where it ran

Thro’ lands where not a leaf was dumb;

But all the lavish hills would hum

The murmur of a happy Pan:

When each by turns was guide to each,

And Fancy light from Fancy caught,

And Thought leapt out to wed with Thought

Ere Thought could wed itself with Speech;

And all we met was fair and good,

And all was good that Time could bring,

And all the secret of the Spring

Moved in the chambers of the blood;

And many an old philosophy

On Argive heights divinely sang,

And round us all the thicket rang

To many a flute of Arcady.

XXIV

And was the day of my delight

As pure and perfect as I say?

The very source and fount of Day

Is dash’d with wandering isles of night.

If all was good and fair we met,

This earth had been the Paradise

It never look’d to human eyes

Since our first Sun arose and set.

And is it that the haze of grief

Makes former gladness loom so great?

The lowness of the present state,

That sets the past in this relief?

Or that the past will always win

A glory from its being far;

And orb into the perfect star

We saw not, when we moved therein?

XXV

I know that this was Life,—the track

Whereon with equal feet we fared;

And then, as now, the day prepared

The daily burden for the back.

But this it was that made me move

As light as carrier-birds in air;

I loved the weight I had to bear,

Because it needed help of Love:

Nor could I weary, heart or limb,

When mighty Love would cleave in twain

The lading of a single pain,

And part it, giving half to him.

XXVI

Still onward winds the dreary way;

I with it; for I long to prove

No lapse of moons can canker Love,

Whatever fickle tongues may say.

And if that eye which watches guilt

And goodness, and hath power to see

Within the green the moulder’d tree,

And towers fall’n as soon as built—

Oh, if indeed that eye foresee

Or see (in Him is no before)

In more of life true life no more

And Love the indifference to be,

Then might I find, ere yet the morn

Breaks hither over Indian seas,

That Shadow waiting with the keys,

To shroud me from my proper scorn.

XXVII

I envy not in any moods

The captive void of noble rage,

The linnet born within the cage,

That never knew the summer woods:

I envy not the beast that takes

His license in the field of time,

Unfetter’d by the sense of crime,

To whom a conscience never wakes;

Nor, what may count itself as blest,

The heart that never plighted troth

But stagnates in the weeds of sloth;

Nor any want-begotten rest.

I hold it true, whate’er befall;

I feel it, when I sorrow most;

‘Tis better to have loved and lost

Than never to have loved at all.

Annotations: “In Memoriam A.H.H.” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Stanza	Summary
I	Explores the theme of faith amidst uncertainty, highlighting belief in divine presence and creation. Man is called to trust in God despite the inability to fully comprehend Him.
II	Reflects on the cycle of life and death, contrasting the timeless nature of the yew tree with the transient lives of men. The yew becomes a symbol of endurance and continuity amid mortality.
III	Confronts the duality of nature, described as both beautiful and cruel, which mirrors human sorrow and joy. The poet questions if embracing nature’s darker side is a wise choice.
IV	Describes surrender to sleep as a form of escape from grief, where the heart longs for answers but is left in solitude and loss, mourning what is irrevocably gone.
V	Discusses the limits of language to express grief, noting how words only partially reveal the depth of sorrow and that such expression can numb pain temporarily.
VI	Reflects on the unhelpful platitudes offered by others, underscoring that while loss is universal, each experience of grief is deeply personal and cannot be soothed by generalizations.
VII	The speaker returns to the house of his friend, feeling an acute absence. The empty doorway becomes a powerful symbol of loss, as familiar spaces now feel desolate.
VIII	Compares a lover returning to find his beloved gone to the speaker’s own sense of emptiness when revisiting places he shared with his lost friend. The joy of past memories now darkens.
IX	Envisions Arthur’s return to England, asking the ship to bear his remains gently, preserving his memory in the voyage. The sea journey symbolizes the path of mourning.
X	Ponders the duality of the ship, which brings joy to others but carries sorrow for the speaker, as it brings his friend’s lifeless body back. The vessel becomes a symbol of finality.
XI	Finds a strange sense of peace in the calm morning, aligning the external world’s stillness with his internal despair, feeling a kinship with nature’s quiet grief.
XII	Imagines himself as a bird flying towards Arthur’s ship, showing a strong desire to reconnect with him. The speaker’s restless spirit mirrors his unsettled grief.
XIII	Describes grief as a haunting presence, like a widow mourning forever, recognizing that the sense of loss is eternal and profound, impossible to fully overcome.
XIV	Imagines an impossible reunion with Arthur, highlighting the depth of his yearning and the pain of realizing that such reunions are only dreams.
XV	Observes the shifting seasons and turbulent winds, mirroring the internal turmoil of grief and the desire for peace amidst the raging emotions of loss.
XVI	Examines the strange coexistence of calm and despair within, comparing it to a lake that holds reflections of life but remains unmoved by them.
XVII	Prays for Arthur’s safe return across the seas, symbolizing the speaker’s enduring love and hope that, despite death, Arthur’s spirit remains protected.
XVIII	Finds solace in knowing Arthur rests in his homeland, where he can be remembered and cherished among familiar places and people.
XIX	Describes Arthur’s burial near the Severn, connecting the natural ebb and flow of the river to the speaker’s fluctuating emotions, which mirror the rhythm of grief.
XX	Notes how smaller griefs can be shared with others, but the deeper, frozen sorrow remains a private, isolating experience that words cannot touch.
XXI	Justifies his continued mourning in song despite criticism, asserting that his grief is an intrinsic need, much like a bird that sings because it must.
XXII	Recalls happy memories with Arthur, underscoring the shared companionship that once gave life its meaning and the painful void left in its absence.
XXIII	Wanders mentally, reflecting on the simplicity of his joyful past with Arthur, contrasting it with the complex sorrow that now consumes him.
XXIV	Questions if grief romanticizes the past, pondering whether the memories seem brighter because of the darkness of the present sorrow.
XXV	Reflects on how love made burdens bearable in the past, suggesting that mutual support lightened life’s weight, which now feels heavier in Arthur’s absence.
XXVI	Asserts that love endures beyond time and death, pushing back against the cynicism that denies lasting connections, despite the loss.
XXVII	Concludes with the famous line, “‘Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all,” affirming the transformative power of love, even amid loss.

Literary And Poetic Devices: “In Memoriam A.H.H.” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Device	Example	Explanation
Alliteration	“Strong Son of God, immortal Love, Whom we, that have not seen thy face ” (Stanza I)	Repetition of the initial “s” and “w” sounds creates a musical quality, emphasizing the contrasting emotions of calm and unrest.
Allusion	“Strong Son of God, immortal Love” (Stanza I)	Refers to Jesus Christ as the “Son of God,” connecting the poem’s themes to Christian beliefs about life, death, and resurrection.
Apostrophe	“O Sorrow, cruel fellowship” (Stanza III)	Directly addresses abstract concepts like “Sorrow,” personifying them and emphasizing the poet’s personal interaction with grief.
Assonance	“One writes, that ‘Other friends remain,'” (Stanza VI)	Repetition of the “i” sound in “writes” and “remain” creates internal rhyme, enhancing the line’s rhythm and solemnity.
Caesura	“I hold it true, whate’er befall;” (Stanza XXVII)	A pause in the middle of the line emphasizes the speaker’s firm belief in the value of love despite loss.
Consonance	“Let Love clasp Grief lest both be drown’d” (Stanza I)	Repetition of the “l” and “d” sounds at the start and end of words creates harmony and enhances the line’s mournful tone.
End Rhyme	“to one clear harp in divers tones, / Of their dead selves to higher things.” (Stanza I)	The rhyme of “tones” and “things” creates closure and musicality, typical of the ABBA rhyme scheme used throughout the poem.
Enjambment	“The far-off interest of tears?” (Stanza I)	The thought spills over from one line to the next, maintaining flow and reflecting the continuity of grief and questioning.
Epiphora	“And thou hast made him: thou art just.” (Stanza I)	Repetition of “thou” at the end of phrases emphasizes God’s control over creation and judgment.
Imagery	“Old Yew, which graspest at the stones” (Stanza II)	Vivid description of the yew tree as it wraps around tombstones, evoking visuals of death and nature’s persistence.
Irony	“Too common! Never morning wore / To evening, but some heart did break.” (Stanza VI)	Though grief is universal, it feels intensely personal; the “common” experience of loss is ironically isolating for the speaker.
Juxtaposition	“Calm despair and wild unrest” (Stanza XVI)	Contrasts “calm” with “wild unrest” to highlight the inner conflict and paradoxical nature of mourning.
Metaphor	“a hollow form with empty hands” (Stanza III)	Nature is described as a “hollow form,” symbolizing the emptiness and lack of meaning the poet feels in grief.
Oxymoron	“calm despair” (Stanza XVI)	Combines opposing ideas to express the complexity of the poet’s emotions, finding calm within sorrow.
Personification	“Thy fibres net the dreamless head” (Stanza II)	The yew tree is given human-like qualities, as its “fibres” encircle the dead, suggesting a connection between life and death.
Refrain	“Tears, idle tears” (appears in other works too)	Although not as common in In Memoriam, Tennyson often returns to similar phrases, underscoring the recurrence of grief and sorrow.
Rhetorical Question	“Or reach a hand thro’ time to catch / The far-off interest of tears?” (Stanza I)	Asks a question to provoke thought and highlight the uncertainty of future comfort or meaning in grief.
Simile	“Like dull narcotics, numbing pain” (Stanza V)	Compares the act of writing about grief to a narcotic, emphasizing how expression dulls but does not resolve pain.
Symbolism	“Dark house” (Stanza VII)	Represents the emptiness left after Arthur’s death, with the “dark house” symbolizing both the physical and emotional void.
Synecdoche	“O Father, wheresoe’er thou be” (Stanza VI)	Uses “Father” to represent all parents mourning lost children, universalizing the theme of parental grief.

Themes: “In Memoriam A.H.H.” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Grief and Mourning: The overwhelming sorrow of losing his friend Arthur Henry Hallam permeates the entire poem, with Tennyson delving deeply into the complex and enduring nature of grief. In Stanza VII, he returns to the “dark house” where Hallam once lived, symbolizing the void left by his absence and evoking a haunting sense of loss: “Behold me, for I cannot sleep, / And like a guilty thing I creep.” The persistent emptiness and longing for his friend reflect Tennyson’s inability to find closure, highlighting how grief lingers and shapes one’s existence.
Faith and Doubt: Tennyson grapples with faith and the role of divine power in life and death, often questioning the justice and purpose of human suffering. In the opening lines, he addresses God as “Strong Son of God, immortal Love,” admitting that people must “By faith, and faith alone, embrace, / Believing where we cannot prove.” This sentiment captures his struggle between trusting in a higher purpose and wrestling with doubt, especially in light of personal loss. The poem reflects Victorian concerns with reconciling traditional religious beliefs with the uncertainties of a changing world.
Love and Friendship: The profound bond between Tennyson and Hallam is at the heart of In Memoriam, celebrating the transformative power of friendship and love. Tennyson finds solace and meaning in the memory of Hallam, expressing that love endures beyond death. In Stanza XXVII, he famously concludes, “‘Tis better to have loved and lost / Than never to have loved at all,” suggesting that the emotional growth and resilience gained from love are worth the pain of loss. This enduring connection with Hallam becomes both a source of strength and an idealized memory.
The Nature of Knowledge and Progress: Tennyson often contemplates the limitations of human knowledge and the balance between intellectual growth and spiritual reverence. In Stanza LIV, he urges, “Let knowledge grow from more to more, / But more of reverence in us dwell,” recognizing the importance of scientific and intellectual progress but warning against losing sight of spirituality and humility. This theme echoes Victorian anxieties about the potential moral consequences of rapid advancements in science, suggesting that wisdom must be tempered with a deeper respect for life’s mysteries.

Literary Theories and “In Memoriam A.H.H.” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Literary Theory	Explanation	References from the Poem
Psychoanalytic Theory	Psychoanalytic theory, particularly Freudian ideas, analyzes Tennyson’s mourning process, focusing on his internal struggle with grief and loss. Tennyson’s grief can be seen as a journey through Freudian stages of mourning and melancholia, with lingering feelings of despair and the struggle to detach from Hallam’s memory.	In Stanza VII, Tennyson reflects on his sorrow by revisiting the “dark house” of his friend’s absence: “Behold me, for I cannot sleep, / And like a guilty thing I creep.” This haunting return to loss suggests an unresolved attachment to Hallam, reflecting the psychological impact of bereavement.
Religious and Theological Criticism	This approach examines Tennyson’s exploration of faith, doubt, and the afterlife, which are prominent in the poem. He confronts questions of divine justice, the existence of God, and human suffering, reflecting Victorian anxieties about religion. Tennyson’s struggle with faith and hope amid despair resonates with the theological debates of his time, particularly the conflict between science and faith.	Tennyson’s address to God in Stanza I, “Strong Son of God, immortal Love… / Believing where we cannot prove,” underscores his ambivalence about belief without proof. This sentiment, echoed throughout, reflects his search for spiritual consolation amidst doubt and sorrow.
Romanticism	Rooted in Romantic ideals, this approach highlights Tennyson’s focus on intense emotion, individual experience, and nature’s symbolism in the face of mortality. Like the Romantics, Tennyson views personal grief as a means to connect with broader existential questions, valuing subjective experience as a source of insight and wisdom.	In Stanza XVI, he combines contrasting emotions, “calm despair and wild unrest,” to portray the depth of his sorrow. His introspective journey through grief reflects Romantic ideals of finding universal truth in personal experience, nature, and introspection.

Critical Questions about “In Memoriam A.H.H.” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

How does Tennyson reconcile faith and doubt in the face of personal tragedy?
Throughout “In Memoriam,” Tennyson grapples with profound questions of faith, especially concerning life, death, and the possibility of an afterlife. His dedication to God is clear from the opening lines, “Strong Son of God, immortal Love,” where he admits, “Believing where we cannot prove” (Stanza I). Yet, as he continues, his belief wavers, and he finds himself in moments of despair, unable to fully accept the loss of his friend Hallam as part of a divine plan. The poet’s oscillation between devotion and skepticism captures a struggle that reflects the larger Victorian crisis of faith, as scientific discoveries began to challenge traditional religious beliefs. Does Tennyson find solace in his faith, or is he left with more unanswered questions?
What role does nature play in shaping Tennyson’s experience of grief and mourning?
Nature is a pervasive and complex presence in “In Memoriam,” symbolizing both the constancy of life cycles and the indifferent passage of time. In Stanza II, Tennyson meditates on the yew tree, which “graspest at the stones” that mark graves, showing how nature intertwines with death. The poet’s ambivalence toward nature’s beauty and cruelty becomes a reflection of his own emotional turmoil—he sees it as a reminder of life’s continuity but also of his own mortality. Through this lens, Tennyson appears to wrestle with whether nature offers comfort in its timelessness or simply indifference to human suffering, leaving the reader to question whether he finds any true solace in the natural world.
How does Tennyson portray the impact of loss on personal identity and self-perception?
The loss of Hallam profoundly alters Tennyson’s sense of self, leaving him to navigate his identity in the absence of his closest companion. Stanza VII poignantly illustrates this as he returns to the “dark house” where Hallam once lived, confessing, “Behold me, for I cannot sleep, / And like a guilty thing I creep.” Here, Tennyson’s grief manifests as both physical and emotional displacement, where he feels like a stranger in familiar spaces. This sense of estrangement extends inward as he questions his purpose and ability to move forward. Does Tennyson ultimately discover a new sense of self through his mourning, or does he remain overshadowed by his loss?
In what ways does Tennyson explore the theme of love’s endurance beyond death?
Tennyson reflects on the endurance of love throughout “In Memoriam,” considering it a force that transcends even the boundaries of death. He famously asserts, “‘Tis better to have loved and lost / Than never to have loved at all” (Stanza XXVII), suggesting that love’s worth is not diminished by loss. This enduring love is evident as Tennyson continues to converse with Hallam’s memory and imagine his presence, maintaining a spiritual connection despite Hallam’s physical absence. The poem leaves readers to ponder whether Tennyson’s love ultimately provides him with comfort or if it serves to deepen his sorrow, as he remains bound to a friend who can never return.

Literary Works Similar to “In Memoriam A.H.H.” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

“Adonais” by Percy Bysshe Shelley
Like In Memoriam, this elegy mourns the death of a close friend, poet John Keats, and grapples with themes of immortality and nature’s role in human loss.
“Lycidas” by John Milton
Milton’s pastoral elegy reflects on the untimely death of a friend, incorporating nature and divine justice, much like Tennyson’s meditation on fate and faith.
“When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom’d” by Walt Whitman
Written in memory of Abraham Lincoln, this elegy shares Tennyson’s themes of national and personal mourning, as well as the cyclical symbolism of nature.
“Thyrsis” by Matthew Arnold
In this pastoral elegy, Arnold laments the loss of his friend Arthur Hugh Clough, expressing a similar sense of deep, personal sorrow and searching for meaning.
“Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard” by Thomas Gray
Gray’s elegy contemplates death and memory in a rural setting, resonating with Tennyson’s exploration of life, loss, and the desire for remembrance beyond the grave.

Representative Quotations of “In Memoriam A.H.H.” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Quotation	Context	Theoretical Perspective
“‘Tis better to have loved and lost / Than never to have loved at all.” (Stanza XXVII)	Tennyson reflects on the value of love, asserting that the experience of deep affection outweighs the pain of loss.	Romanticism – Highlights the Romantic belief in the transformative power of love and emotional experience.
“Strong Son of God, immortal Love, / Whom we, that have not seen thy face…” (Stanza I)	Opens the poem with a reverent address to God, revealing Tennyson’s struggle between faith and doubt.	Religious and Theological Criticism – Examines the poet’s need for faith amidst spiritual uncertainty.
“Let knowledge grow from more to more, / But more of reverence in us dwell.” (Stanza LIV)	Tennyson calls for a balance between intellectual progress and spiritual reverence.	Victorian Skepticism – Reflects Victorian anxieties over scientific advancement potentially eroding faith.
“Behold me, for I cannot sleep, / And like a guilty thing I creep.” (Stanza VII)	Tennyson describes returning to his friend’s house, now empty, embodying his overwhelming sense of loss.	Psychoanalytic Theory – Reveals the depth of Tennyson’s unresolved grief and lingering attachment to Hallam.
“I sometimes hold it half a sin / To put in words the grief I feel.” (Stanza V)	Expresses Tennyson’s reluctance to articulate his grief, viewing words as inadequate for deep sorrow.	Expressivist Theory – Examines the limitations of language to capture intense emotions authentically.
“Our little systems have their day; / They have their day and cease to be.” (Stanza I)	Comments on the transient nature of human beliefs and institutions.	Structuralism – Highlights human constructs as fleeting and imperfect representations of divine truth.
“And thou hast made him: thou art just.” (Stanza I)	Despite his grief, Tennyson acknowledges God’s justice in creating life and death.	Religious and Theological Criticism – Reflects an attempt to reconcile divine justice with personal suffering.
“The path by which we twain did go, / Which led by tracts that pleased us well…” (Stanza XXII)	Remembers the joyful memories shared with Hallam, contrasting them with present sorrow.	Nostalgia Theory – Examines how memory romanticizes the past, intensifying grief by highlighting its loss.
“And all the phantom, Nature, stands— / A hollow echo of my own.” (Stanza III)	Tennyson portrays nature as a reflection of his inner emptiness, finding no solace in its beauty.	Ecocriticism – Considers nature as a mirror of human emotions, symbolizing alienation rather than comfort.
“Forgive these wild and wandering cries, / Confusions of a wasted youth.” (Stanza L)	Tennyson asks forgiveness for the despair expressed in his mourning, suggesting a feeling of guilt.	Moral Criticism – Indicates self-reproach for his perceived weakness, highlighting Victorian ideals of stoicism.

“On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc: Summary And Critique

“On Reading and Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc first appeared in 2022 in the journal SRAZ, contributing a critical discourse to the ongoing evolution of literary theory.

Introduction: “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc

“On Reading and Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc first appeared in 2022 in the journal SRAZ, contributing a critical discourse to the ongoing evolution of literary theory. Dolenc’s work re-evaluates the significance of literariness, especially as it is framed by the philosophies of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze. She addresses the dynamic and often conflicting definitions of “literariness,” a concept foundational to understanding what makes a text “literary.” By examining how Derrida’s deconstructive reading and Deleuze’s event-based approach open possibilities for interpreting literariness, Dolenc suggests a shift away from rigid institutional definitions of literature. Her study implies that reading should move beyond merely verifying theoretical postulates and instead approach the text as a unique linguistic event. This reconceptualization challenges literary theory to continuously redefine its purpose, given the unsettled nature of what constitutes “literary” work, thus keeping theory itself in a state of becoming. This work is pivotal for its contribution to literary scholarship, as it underscores the necessity of theory to adapt and embrace the inherent indeterminacies within literary texts, expanding the discourse on how literature can be understood and valued within academia.

Summary of “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc

Literary Theory’s Evolution and Limitations
Barbara Dolenc examines the concept of literariness and its foundational role in literary theory, particularly through the lens of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze. She addresses how traditional, institutionalized literary theory often struggles with defining its core objectives, partly due to the varying and conflicting approaches within the field. According to Dolenc, the complexity of literariness challenges literary theory’s sustainability, highlighting an inherent tension in defining “what is literature” amidst a “stiff competition” of theories (Dolenc, 2022, p. 35).
The Concept of Literariness
Dolenc delves into the genealogy of literariness, referencing Roman Jakobson’s view that “the subject of literary scholarship is not literature but literariness,” which underscores the search for what inherently makes a work literary. This focus, rooted in Russian formalism and structuralism, aims to isolate literariness from general aesthetics or philosophy, legitimizing literary study through specific methodologies (Jakobson, 1997, p. 179; Dolenc, 2022, p. 36). However, the latter half of the 20th century, influenced by deconstruction, questioned literary theory’s authority to define literature’s essence, suggesting that “literary theories cannot seem to agree” on fundamental principles (Solar, 2014, p. 30).

Deconstruction and the Literary Text
The work discusses Derrida’s deconstructive perspective, which reframes literariness not as an intrinsic property of the text but as a construct of the “experience of literature.” Derrida insists that literature is defined through its openness to interpretation and connection to other discourses, challenging readers to see literariness as “a correlative of an intentional relation to the text” that evolves with each reading (Derrida, 1992b, p. 45; Dolenc, 2022, p. 38). This iterative and context-sensitive approach to texts allows literature to resist definitive categorization within the “literary institution.”
Deleuze’s Sense of Event and Literariness
Dolenc also explores Deleuze’s notion of “event” as a key component of literariness, viewing literature as a “bloc of sensations,” inherently dynamic and always in a state of “becoming” through the reader’s interaction. This idea positions literature as an experience of constantly shifting interpretations, produced rather than discovered, and driven by a “logic of inventing a style in literature” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994, p. 164; Dolenc, 2022, p. 39). According to Deleuze, the literary text, through its unique style and syntax, creates a “foreign language within language,” offering an eventful space for continuous and limitless reading.
Redefining Literary Theory
Ultimately, Dolenc calls for a literary theory that acknowledges its own instability and capacity for “deconstruction in aporetic experience,” which resists predefined methods and embraces the undecidable nature of literariness (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41). She argues that a renewed literary theory would prioritize the text’s singularity, focusing on how each reading becomes an event in itself, rather than reducing it to a fixed methodological framework. This perspective asserts that the potential of literary theory lies in its openness to reformation, embracing each reading as a unique encounter with the “unreadable” aspects of literariness.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc

Term/Concept	Definition	Explanation in Context
Literariness	The quality that makes a text “literary”; introduced by Roman Jakobson as “that which makes of a given work a work of literature.”	Dolenc examines literariness as a central focus in literary theory, suggesting that it distinguishes literary texts from non-literary ones through their unique qualities.
Deconstruction	A philosophical approach, primarily developed by Jacques Derrida, that critiques the notion of fixed meaning and emphasizes the fluidity of interpretation.	Dolenc explores how deconstruction questions the foundations of literariness, challenging the idea of static literary definitions and encouraging interpretive openness.
Event	A concept by Deleuze, referring to the occurrence within language that creates meaning; it is not an essence but an effect of language in action.	Dolenc suggests that literariness is an “event” that happens in the act of reading, where meaning arises through dynamic interaction with the text rather than static elements.
Iterability	The capacity for a text to be read and reinterpreted in different contexts, central to Derrida’s concept of textuality.	Dolenc argues that iterability allows literary texts to transcend their original contexts, providing a basis for continuous and evolving interpretations.
Singularity	The unique, one-time occurrence or characteristic of a text or reading experience.	For Dolenc, each reading is a singular experience, a unique encounter with the text that cannot be replicated or standardized.
Institutionalization	The process by which theories and approaches become formalized and accepted within academic structures.	Dolenc critiques how institutionalized literary theory can sometimes limit the scope of interpretation, creating rigid frameworks around what constitutes “literary theory.”
Interdisciplinarity	Integrating methods or insights from multiple academic disciplines to enrich understanding.	Dolenc highlights interdisciplinary approaches, particularly through Derrida and Deleuze’s philosophies, to address the multifaceted nature of literariness.
Aporia	A state of puzzlement or unresolved contradiction, especially relevant in deconstructive readings.	Dolenc sees literary theory in an “aporetic” state, suggesting that its inherent contradictions provide an impetus for ongoing theoretical exploration and re-evaluation.
Mimetologism	Derrida’s term related to the concept of mimesis, critiquing representations of reality as inherently limited or flawed.	Dolenc uses mimetologism to discuss how literary theory navigates the balance between reflecting “truth” and embracing interpretation beyond mere replication of reality.
Countersignature	The act of responding to a text in a way that acknowledges its singular event while creating a new, unique response.	Dolenc suggests that reading and interpretation are countersignatures, where each reading reaffirms and uniquely engages with the text.
Foreign Language within Language	The transformation of language to convey new meanings within an existing language framework, as described by Deleuze.	In the context of literary texts, Dolenc argues that the creation of new syntaxes or expressions within language reflects a becoming-other, creating layers of meaning.
Canon	A collection of works considered authoritative or representative in a given field.	Dolenc refers to the canon as a traditional way to define literariness, critiquing its limitations in recognizing the evolving nature of what constitutes literature.
Formalism	An approach to literary analysis that emphasizes structural elements of the text rather than contextual factors like authorial intent or historical setting.	Dolenc discusses formalism’s focus on the “aesthetic function” and literariness, noting its influence on literary theory despite its limitations.

Contribution of “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc to Literary Theory/Theories

Deconstruction
Dolenc extends Derrida’s principles of deconstruction to argue that literariness itself resists definitive categorization, asserting that literature is best understood as an “experience” rather than an essence. Through deconstruction, she challenges the institutionalized structure of literary theory, arguing that fixed methodologies limit the interpretive possibilities of texts. Instead, deconstruction enables a fluid, open-ended reading that values the singularity and unique event of each text (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41; Derrida, 1992b, p. 45).
Formalism and Russian Formalism
Building on the Russian Formalists’ notion of literariness, particularly Roman Jakobson’s idea that literariness is “that which makes of a given work a work of literature,” Dolenc critiques the limitations of purely formalist approaches. She acknowledges the value of formalism’s focus on intrinsic elements within the text but critiques its inadequacy in addressing the dynamic interaction between text and reader. Dolenc’s perspective thus challenges formalism to accommodate the shifting and relational aspects of literariness (Jakobson, 1997, p. 179; Dolenc, 2022, p. 36).
Reader-Response Theory
Dolenc’s emphasis on the role of the reader aligns with reader-response theory, which sees meaning as co-created through the act of reading. She argues that literariness is realized in the “intentional relation to the text,” highlighting the reader’s active role in creating meaning. This perspective reinforces the idea that literariness is not a fixed property but an event occurring through each unique engagement with the text, suggesting a reorientation of literary theory to foreground the reader’s interpretive experience (Dolenc, 2022, p. 38; Derrida, 1992b, p. 44).

Post-Structuralism and the Concept of Iterability
Dolenc engages with Derrida’s concept of iterability, or the idea that a text can be detached from its original context and reinterpreted infinitely. By supporting the iterative nature of texts, Dolenc situates her argument within post-structuralism, which recognizes the openness of texts to various interpretations. Her focus on iterability highlights that literariness is not confined to the text’s original context, but instead gains significance through its potential for reinterpretation and transformation across contexts (Dolenc, 2022, p. 39; Derrida, 1982, p. 315).
Interdisciplinary Approaches and Cultural Studies
Dolenc’s work advocates for an interdisciplinary approach, considering insights from philosophy, linguistics, and cultural studies. She argues that literary theory can benefit from embracing interdisciplinary methodologies, especially given how theories from Derrida and Deleuze challenge traditional literary norms. This openness to other fields reflects the evolving landscape of literary studies, where cultural studies, in particular, have reshaped literary theory to include broader social, ideological, and cultural contexts (Dolenc, 2022, p. 36).
Aporia and Institutional Critique
Reflecting Derrida’s concept of aporia, or unresolved contradictions, Dolenc critiques the institutionalized literary theory for limiting interpretive possibilities by imposing rigid structures. She argues that literary theory’s current state, caught in an “aporetic experience of re-evaluation,” needs to evolve by embracing the uncertainties of interpretation rather than adhering to standardized methodologies. This perspective aligns with the critique of institutionalized literary studies and supports a more flexible, adaptive theoretical approach (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41; Derrida, 1981a, p. 70).

Theories of the Literary Canon
Dolenc’s critique of canonical approaches in literary theory questions the traditional selection of texts deemed “literary” based on historical or aesthetic conventions. Her discussion opens up the canon to texts that may challenge or expand definitions of literariness, supporting a move toward inclusivity and responsiveness to contemporary cultural shifts. This re-evaluation encourages literary theory to reconsider its criteria for canon formation, enabling new texts and interpretations to gain recognition (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41).

Examples of Critiques Through “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc

Literary Work	Dolenc’s Theoretical Perspective	Example Critique
Hamlet by William Shakespeare	Deconstruction & Iterability: Dolenc emphasizes Derrida’s notion of iterability, suggesting that a text’s meaning evolves with each reading and context.	Through Dolenc’s lens, Hamlet is not confined to any single interpretation but is perpetually open to re-interpretation. Each reading may emphasize different aspects—such as existential questions, political implications, or psychological depth—highlighting the play’s “iterative structure” (Derrida, 1982, p. 315).
To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf	Reader-Response Theory & Event of Reading: Dolenc values the reader’s role in creating meaning, positioning the reading experience as an “event” where literariness is realized.	Through Dolenc’s framework, To the Lighthouse becomes a literary “event,” as each reader’s unique experience constructs different meanings, whether focusing on themes of memory, time, or identity. Woolf’s text thus invites the reader to engage actively, making the text’s literariness contingent on this engagement (Dolenc, 2022, p. 38).
Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett	Aporia & Unresolved Meaning: Dolenc’s approach incorporates Derrida’s idea of aporia, suggesting that unresolved questions can be integral to a text’s literariness.	Waiting for Godot exemplifies an aporetic text through its cyclical dialogue and lack of resolution. Dolenc’s approach would critique the play’s deliberate ambiguity, asserting that its meaning is found within the tension of its unanswered questions, challenging readers to engage with its existential uncertainties (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41).
The Waste Land by T.S. Eliot	Interdisciplinarity & Cultural Studies: Dolenc advocates for an interdisciplinary approach, allowing multiple contexts and discourses to inform a text’s literariness.	Applying Dolenc’s perspective, The Waste Land can be analyzed as a “bloc of sensations,” drawing on diverse cultural, historical, and religious references. This approach allows readers to interpret Eliot’s fragmented style and layered allusions as a reflection of cultural disintegration, making the poem an event in cultural critique (Deleuze/Guattari, 1994, p. 164).

Criticism Against “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc

Overemphasis on Deconstruction
Critics may argue that Dolenc’s heavy reliance on Derridean deconstruction limits her analysis, potentially overshadowing other valuable theoretical approaches. By focusing mainly on deconstruction and iterability, the text might neglect more concrete methods that could enhance practical literary analysis.
Lack of Practical Application
Dolenc’s theoretical discussions on literariness as an “event” or “experience” may feel abstract and difficult to apply practically. Critics might contend that her approach lacks clear guidelines or frameworks for real-world literary analysis, making it challenging for students or scholars seeking actionable insights.

Marginalization of Traditional Literary Theory
By critiquing formalist and canonical approaches, Dolenc risks sidelining established literary theories that many believe still hold relevance. Some may argue that her approach disregards the value of formalism, structuralism, and other traditional frameworks that continue to be instrumental in literary studies.
Potential for Relativism
Dolenc’s embrace of an open, reader-centered interpretation may lead to an “anything goes” mentality, where interpretations lack stability or accountability. This perspective could risk reducing literary theory to a subjective exercise, weakening its rigor and making it harder to establish any shared, objective understanding of texts.
Challenges in Institutional Contexts
Her critique of institutionalized literary theory might be seen as impractical, given that academic frameworks require structure and methodology. Critics could argue that Dolenc’s ideal of a continuously evolving theory disregards the need for standardized practices in educational settings, potentially complicating the teaching and assessment of literature.

Representative Quotations from “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Literariness is not a natural essence, an intrinsic property of the text.” (Derrida 1992b: 44)	Dolenc underscores that literariness does not inherently reside within a text itself but emerges from the interpretive act of reading, challenging static or essentialist views of what constitutes “literary” in a work.
“The subject of literary scholarship is not literature but literariness.” (Jakobson, 1997, p. 179)	Dolenc references Jakobson to highlight that literary studies should focus on the distinctive qualities that make a work “literary,” suggesting that literariness itself, rather than the text alone, is the true subject of literary theory.
“Theory’s answer is still, of course, a reading.” (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41)	For Dolenc, literary theory remains tied to the act of reading, implying that each interpretive engagement with a text reaffirms theory’s purpose and prevents it from becoming static or overly methodological.
“Deconstruction…does not settle for methodical procedures but opens up a passageway.” (Derrida, 1992a, p. 337)	Dolenc uses Derrida’s description of deconstruction to emphasize its capacity to disrupt and redefine fixed interpretive methods, enabling literary theory to be flexible and inventive rather than rigid and prescriptive.
“Is it necessary to read works by Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze… given that the theory has been institutionalized?”	Dolenc questions whether literary theory benefits from returning to Derrida and Deleuze, critiquing the constraints that institutionalized approaches place on theoretical innovation and the potential enrichment these thinkers bring to theory.
“If the imperative of literary theory is reading literary texts, the state of undecidability is a challenge.” (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41)	Dolenc posits that literary theory must embrace the inherent ambiguities in reading, which challenges the discipline to evolve and continually question the limitations and possibilities of interpretation.
“The event of the literary text happens in reading.” (Dolenc, 2022, p. 38)	This statement reflects Dolenc’s view that literariness arises dynamically during the act of reading, emphasizing that the literary text is not a static object but a participatory event created through interpretation.
“It is possible to re-evaluate the objectives and the purpose of a theoretical approach to a literary text.”	Dolenc advocates for a continual reassessment of literary theory’s goals, particularly as theories like deconstruction and reader-response challenge conventional methodologies and encourage more adaptable frameworks.
“Formal analysis belongs to the order of calculable guarantees and decidable evidence.” (Derrida, 2005, p. 152)	Dolenc echoes Derrida’s critique of formal analysis, suggesting that literary theory should move beyond rigid, calculable approaches that limit interpretive richness and often ignore the evolving nature of literariness.
“Writing is always incomplete, always in the midst of being formed.” (Deleuze, 1998, p. 1)	Through Deleuze’s words, Dolenc emphasizes the fluid and ongoing nature of writing and literature, presenting literary texts as unfinished and perpetually open to interpretation, in contrast to finalized or definitive readings.

Suggested Readings: “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc

Dolenc, Barbara. “On reading and literariness: The (im) possibility of literary theory.” Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia: Revue publiée par les Sections romane, italienne et anglaise de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Zagreb 67 (2022): 35-42.
Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain.” Comparative Literature, vol. 59, no. 2, 2007, pp. 97–118. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40279363. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.

Zamora, Margarita. “Historicity and Literariness: Problems in the Literary Criticism of Spanish American Colonial Texts.” MLN, vol. 102, no. 2, 1987, pp. 334–46. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2905693. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.
McNAMER, SARAH. “The Literariness of Literature and the History of Emotion.” PMLA, vol. 130, no. 5, 2015, pp. 1433–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44017160. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.

“Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán: Summary and Critique

“Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán first appeared in 1999, as part of the scholarly discourse around literary theory and its intersections with literary expression.

Introduction: “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán

“Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán first appeared in 1999, as part of the scholarly discourse around literary theory and its intersections with literary expression. Presented during the “Literatures of Theory” conference at Janus Pannonius University, Kálmán’s work delves into the fundamental ambiguity between literature and theory, questioning if and how theoretical texts can be read as literary works and vice versa. Kálmán explores this boundary by examining the stylistic and rhetorical features that could attribute a sense of “literariness” to theoretical discourse. His approach is notably inspired by Russian Formalism’s concept of literariness (“literaturnost”) but extends beyond by acknowledging the paradoxes that this theoretical-literary interplay evokes. Through examples such as Roland Barthes’s “Systeme de la Mode” and Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s “Loose Canons,” Kálmán illustrates the spectrum where theoretical texts can possess literary qualities and literary texts can engage with theoretical concerns. The importance of Kálmán’s insights lies in his assertion that analyzing the literary techniques in theoretical writing—such as metaphor, narrative form, and rhetorical structures—can reveal new dimensions of understanding. This work highlights the layered complexity in categorizing texts strictly as literary or theoretical and emphasizes that readers’ perceptions and interpretative frameworks play a significant role in such classifications.

Summary of “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán

Conceptual Tension between Literature and Theory: Kálmán discusses the unavoidable “conceptual essentialism or fundamentalism” that arises when distinguishing between literature and theory. He suggests that boundaries exist but are often blurred, with theoretical texts possessing “textual, tropical or generic” qualities that can give them a literary essence.

Literariness as a Construct: Drawing from Russian Formalism’s concept of literaturnost (literariness), Kálmán posits that while literariness is a “disqualified concept,” it still offers valuable insights. He proposes exploring “several levels of literariness” in theoretical texts, despite the lack of a definitive “core” of what makes a text literary.
Blurred Boundaries in Theoretical Texts: Kálmán explores how certain theoretical works embody literary traits, suggesting that both literary and theoretical texts are crafted in a manner that may “deconstruct the distinction” between the two.
Case Studies of Literary-Theoretical Texts: Using Roland Barthes’s “Systeme de la Mode” and Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s “Loose Canons” as examples, Kálmán shows how seemingly theoretical texts employ “highly poetized and rhetorized” language or narrative devices, suggesting a literary nature within theoretical discourse.

Influence of Interpretative Traditions: Kálmán emphasizes the role of readers’ expectations and scholarly conventions in defining a text’s status, arguing that sometimes “it is the history of their interpretation, the tradition of understanding” that grants theoretical value to certain literary texts.
Multiplicity of Reading Conventions: The paper examines the interpretative flexibility that allows texts like Nietzsche or Derrida’s works to be viewed through both literary and theoretical lenses. Kálmán highlights the “simultaneous function” of different reading conventions when engaging with such works.
Exploration of Genre and Stylistic Choices in Theory: Kálmán points out the presence of genre elements—such as “dialogue in Plato or Diderot” or “lyrical structures in Barthes”—in theoretical texts, underscoring how these choices affect their reception as either literary or academic works.

Challenges of Identifying Literariness: Kálmán notes the inherent challenges in categorizing a text as literary or theoretical, acknowledging that “we can never find the gist of literariness” due to the subjective nature of interpretation and the communicative context of each reading.
Educational and Scholarly Implications: Lastly, Kálmán reflects on how emphasizing the literary nature of theoretical texts in academic settings may lead students to adopt more “subjective accounts” or “literary intertextuality” in their analyses, impacting traditional literary studies.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán

Literary Term/Concept	Description	Significance in “Literariness of Theory”
Literariness (Literaturnost)	A concept from Russian Formalism referring to the qualities that make a text “literary” as opposed to other forms of writing.	Kálmán builds upon this concept to analyze theoretical texts for “literary” characteristics, suggesting that theory can adopt literary elements without becoming strictly “literature.” He critiques the disqualification of this term yet argues for its usefulness in understanding theoretical discourse.
Conceptual Essentialism	The philosophical tendency to define concepts like “literature” or “theory” with inherent, unchanging boundaries.	Kálmán argues that this tendency limits understanding, as these boundaries are often blurred in practice. He suggests that it is more productive to acknowledge the fluidity between literature and theory rather than adhering to strict definitions.
Textual Tropes	Figurative or rhetorical devices, such as metaphors or irony, that are typically associated with literary texts.	Kálmán explores how theoretical texts may employ these tropes, intentionally or otherwise, to engage readers, and argues that these tropes can lend a literary quality to theoretical writing, as seen in Barthes’s use of rhetorical style.
Intertextuality	The relationship between texts, where one text references or builds upon the ideas or style of another.	Kálmán notes the role of intertextuality in blending literature with theory, as theoretical texts often reference literary works (e.g., Derrida’s engagement with Nietzsche). He suggests that intertextual references can enrich theoretical texts, lending them layers traditionally associated with literature.
Genre Blurring	The merging or crossover of genres, such as the overlap between narrative, lyrical, and theoretical forms.	Kálmán highlights this concept by pointing to works like Gates’s “Loose Canons” and Barthes’s “Systeme de la Mode”, which incorporate narrative or poetic elements within theoretical arguments, challenging clear genre distinctions and enhancing the text’s complexity.
Narrative Structures	Traditional storytelling techniques, including plot, character, and temporality, typically found in literary texts.	Kálmán suggests that theoretical texts sometimes adopt narrative structures, making them more engaging and possibly literary. He examines whether historical narratives (like those of Tacitus) can be seen as literary due to their narrative qualities, despite being classified as non-literary by conventional standards.
Metaphorical Language	The use of metaphor to express ideas indirectly or symbolically, often found in poetic and literary language.	Kálmán identifies metaphor as a feature in theoretical texts that adds a literary dimension, citing examples where theorists, such as Hayden White, use metaphorical language, which shapes readers’ perceptions and interpretations in ways similar to literature.
Rhetorical Devices	Techniques of persuasion and emphasis, such as repetition, irony, and rhetorical questions, often used in literary writing.	Kálmán discusses how rhetorical devices can render theoretical texts literary in feel. Barthes’s use of “highly poetized and rhetorized paragraphs” exemplifies this, demonstrating how rhetorical style can make theoretical discourse appear literary.
Aestheticism of Theory	The notion that theoretical writing can be appreciated for its aesthetic or artistic qualities, not just its intellectual content.	Kálmán raises this concept to discuss how theoretical texts may be valued similarly to literature for their style, language, and presentation, citing examples of theorists like Barthes and Sontag, whose works are often seen as both intellectually and aesthetically enriching.
Reception Theory	A framework that focuses on the reader’s role in interpreting a text, based on their expectations and interpretive history.	Kálmán emphasizes that a text’s classification as literary or theoretical can be influenced by “the history of interpretation” and readers’ perceptions. He highlights how interpretive traditions shape our understanding of texts like Borges’s “Pierre Ménard”, demonstrating how reception can impact a text’s categorization.
Irony	A rhetorical device where meaning is conveyed through contradiction or contrast, often to highlight complexity or ambiguity.	Kálmán discusses irony as a tool in theoretical discourse that can blur the line between literature and theory. He mentions Berel Lang’s ironic take on reading a telephone book as literary, which illustrates how irony can challenge or subvert conventional classifications of texts.

Contribution of “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán to Literary Theory/Theories

Russian Formalism and Literariness
Kálmán revives and reinterprets the Russian Formalist concept of literariness (literaturnost’), arguing that theoretical texts can exhibit characteristics traditionally associated with literature. By suggesting that theoretical writing can be analyzed for “several levels of literariness”, Kálmán provides a framework where formalist concepts, such as textual structure and stylistic devices, can be applied to non-literary works, broadening the scope of Russian Formalism.
Structuralism and Semiotics
Through his discussion of Roland Barthes’s “Systeme de la Mode”, Kálmán contributes to structuralist and semiotic theories by showing how theoretical works can adopt structural literary forms. Barthes, a key figure in structuralism, is noted for his “long, sarmentose sentences” and “catalogues” that give his theoretical work a narrative-like flow. This suggests that structuralist approaches to meaning-making are themselves open to literary interpretation, expanding the way we view semiotic and structuralist texts as narrative-like constructs.
Deconstruction and Derridean Influence
Kálmán’s work echoes Derrida’s deconstruction by challenging the essentialist binary of literature vs. theory. He notes that theoretical texts often blur the “distinction between discourses,” suggesting an inherent “deconstructive” quality within certain theoretical works. This aligns with Derrida’s view that textual meaning is always deferred and context-dependent, implying that the boundary between literary and theoretical texts is fluid and interpretively constructed.

Reception Theory and Reader-Response
By highlighting the “history of interpretation” and “tradition of understanding” in how we classify texts, Kálmán’s work contributes to Reception Theory. He argues that our perception of a text as literary or theoretical is influenced by “reading conventions” and the interpretive history surrounding it. This aligns with Reception Theory, which asserts that meaning is created by the reader, not fixed within the text. Kálmán’s examples, such as Borges’s “Pierre Ménard”, reinforce the idea that reader perception plays a central role in determining a text’s classification.
Intertextuality and Dialogism
Kálmán’s notion that theoretical texts incorporate “intertextual references” resonates with Bakhtin’s dialogism, where all texts are viewed as interconnected dialogues with other texts. By examining how theoretical texts reference literary works and genres (e.g., Nietzsche and Derrida), Kálmán illustrates the dialogic nature of theory and its dependence on other texts for meaning, suggesting that theoretical texts are not isolated but part of a broader literary conversation.
Aesthetic Theory and the Essay Tradition
Kálmán explores the aesthetic dimension of theoretical writing, drawing on the essay tradition from Montaigne to Barthes. By examining the “artistic qualities” in theoretical texts, he contributes to Aesthetic Theory, positing that theory can be appreciated not only for intellectual content but also for form and beauty. This aligns theoretical discourse with the aesthetic focus of literature, allowing theoretical works to be seen as stylistically sophisticated artifacts.

Postmodernism and Genre Blurring
Kálmán’s analysis aligns with postmodernism, especially its skepticism toward rigid genre classifications. By discussing how texts like Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s “Canon Confidential” can be both a “theoretical work” and a “pastime entertainment”, he supports a postmodern view that challenges the separation of high and low culture, theory and fiction, and narrative and exposition, encouraging a more integrated understanding of textual forms.

Examples of Critiques Through “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán

Literary Work	Critique through “Literariness of Theory”	Explanation of Kálmán’s Approach
Roland Barthes’s “Systeme de la Mode”	Kálmán argues that Barthes’s text exhibits literary qualities such as “long, sarmentose sentences,” use of colons and semi-colons, and cataloguing, which lend it a poetic, almost narrative structure.**	Kálmán’s critique highlights the blurred line between literature and theory, suggesting that Barthes’s theoretical writing incorporates stylistic and rhetorical elements that make it readable as a literary text. By examining Barthes’s language and structure, Kálmán shows that theoretical texts can adopt characteristics of narrative and poetic forms.
Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s “Canon Confidential”	Kálmán examines Gates’s work as a detective story that parodies academic canon debates. He notes the intertextual references to Raymond Chandler and the use of first-person narrative typical of detective fiction.	Through this example, Kálmán illustrates genre blending in theoretical texts. Gates’s text is both a reflection on canon formation and an engaging story, suggesting that theoretical arguments can be constructed within familiar literary genres, challenging the strict division between fiction and academic discourse.
Borges’s “Pierre Ménard, Author of the Quixote”	Kálmán uses Borges’s story to show how theoretical ideas can be embedded in fiction, arguing that the story explores interpretive history and intertextuality.	By examining Borges’s fictional engagement with literary theory, Kálmán demonstrates the dialogic relationship between literature and theory. The story’s focus on authorship and interpretation aligns with theoretical questions, revealing how fiction can serve as a medium for philosophical and theoretical reflection.
Susan Sontag’s “Against Interpretation”	Kálmán suggests that Sontag’s essay, while a piece of criticism, possesses an aesthetic and rhetorical style that makes it engaging as a literary text. The lyrical prose in her essay elevates it beyond standard criticism.	Through Sontag’s work, Kálmán explores the aesthetic potential in critical writing. He argues that Sontag’s style demonstrates how essays can be both intellectually rigorous and artistically compelling, thus challenging the boundaries of literary theory by framing criticism itself as an art form.

Criticism Against “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán

Ambiguity in Defining Literariness: Kálmán’s exploration relies on the concept of “literariness” from Russian Formalism, which he acknowledges as “disqualified.” Critics argue that this undefined and ambiguous concept weakens his analysis, making it difficult to establish a clear distinction between literary and theoretical elements.
Overextension of Literary Qualities to Theory: Kálmán’s attempt to find literary qualities in theoretical texts is sometimes seen as forced or overstretched. Some critics suggest that not all rhetorical or structural elements in theory equate to literariness and that his approach may exaggerate the artistic aspects of theoretical writing.

Lack of Practical Application or Typology: Although Kálmán proposes that theoretical texts can be systematically reviewed for their literary traits, he does not offer a concrete typology or framework to evaluate these traits consistently. This omission limits the practical applicability of his ideas, leaving readers without a clear method for analysis.
Potential Undermining of Theoretical Rigor: By emphasizing aesthetic and stylistic aspects in theoretical works, Kálmán risks downplaying the primary intellectual and logical functions of theory. Critics argue that this approach may lead to the perception that theory is judged more on style than on substantive content or argumentative rigor.
Subjectivity in Reader Reception: Kálmán’s argument heavily relies on reader-response perspectives, suggesting that reader interpretation determines whether a text is perceived as literary or theoretical. This subjective approach may undermine the objective analysis of texts, as it implies that categorization is more dependent on personal perception than textual qualities.

Challenges to Academic Boundaries: Kálmán’s blurring of literature and theory has faced criticism for potentially eroding academic boundaries. Some scholars argue that distinct disciplines serve important purposes, and merging them could dilute the unique methodologies and epistemological frameworks of both literary and theoretical studies.

Representative Quotations from “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The very terms literature and theory cannot avoid the conceptual essentialism or fundamentalism…”	Kálmán critiques the inherent essentialism in defining literature and theory as separate entities. This statement introduces his argument about the blurred boundaries and the complexity in distinguishing between literary and theoretical texts.
“There may be a systematic review of how a theoretical text is formed in order to be taken as a more or less literary one.”	Here, Kálmán proposes the possibility of systematically analyzing theoretical texts for literary qualities, suggesting a new approach to literary theory that considers aesthetics and style alongside intellectual content.
“The concept of literariness (literaturnost’) remains useful even if disqualified.”	Despite acknowledging its disqualification, Kálmán finds value in the Russian Formalist concept of literariness, using it to explore literary qualities in theoretical texts, thus reinterpreting an old concept for contemporary analysis.
“The reader… always has some theories of what he or she is up to with his or her reading activity.”	This reflects Kálmán’s engagement with reception theory, emphasizing that readers bring interpretive frameworks that influence their experience and understanding of texts, bridging literary and theoretical interpretations.
“Do not take this sentence too seriously; here I must make a number of qualifications.”	Kálmán’s ironic tone reveals his awareness of the complexity and limitations of his own argument, acknowledging that the boundaries between literature and theory are more nuanced and require qualifications.
“The idea rests on the disqualified concept of Russian Formalism of literariness.”	Kálmán reiterates the foundation of his argument, connecting his exploration to the Russian Formalist notion of literariness, which focuses on stylistic and structural elements that distinguish literary texts from other forms of writing.
“We could perhaps take Gates’s funny story as nothing more than a funny story, a pastime entertainment of an academic.”	This quotation highlights Kálmán’s perspective on genre blending, where even seemingly simple or humorous texts can hold theoretical significance, challenging the notion that theory must be serious or detached from literary techniques.
“All we can perhaps do is to give account of our own conventions.”	Here, Kálmán reflects on the subjective nature of literary analysis, suggesting that our interpretations are influenced by personal or cultural conventions rather than an objective evaluation of a text’s qualities.
“Theoretical texts can be literary in form without abandoning their intellectual rigor.”	Kálmán argues that theory does not lose its validity or depth by adopting literary characteristics, presenting a balanced view that values both form and substance in theoretical discourse.
“It may become apparent that Barthes’ sentences are extremely long… the terms written with capitals dangerously resemble the characters of a story.”	This description of Barthes’s style exemplifies Kálmán’s point that certain theoretical texts exhibit stylistic features of literary texts, illustrating the potential for narrative or character-like qualities in theoretical writing.

“Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli: Summary and Critique

“Literariness, Consensus, or ‘Something Else’?” by Angela Locatelli was first published in 2004 in the journal Tropismes by the Centre de Recherches Anglo-Américaines at Université Paris X Nanterre.

Introduction: “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli

“Literariness, Consensus, or ‘Something Else’?” by Angela Locatelli was first published in 2004 in the journal Tropismes by the Centre de Recherches Anglo-Américaines at Université Paris X Nanterre. This work delves into the complex nature of “literariness” and examines whether literature’s uniqueness stems from intrinsic characteristics, social consensus, or other dynamics. Locatelli challenges the reduction of literature to either a self-referential art or an escapist diversion, emphasizing its epistemic and political relevance in a modern globalized context. Through her analysis, she addresses Russian formalist views on “literariness” as a distinct discourse, while also acknowledging the role of Cultural Studies in unveiling the political and libidinal dimensions of literature. Locatelli argues that neither the rigid abstraction of “literariness” nor the fluctuating “canon” fully encapsulates the literary domain, proposing instead that literature exists in a dynamic state where theories and texts mutually influence each other. This piece contributes significantly to literary theory by urging scholars to recognize literature’s multifaceted nature, underscoring how it transcends simple categorization and continues to prompt ethical, political, and intellectual debate.

Summary of “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli

Epistemic and Political Relevance of Literature: Locatelli argues that recognizing literature’s specific epistemic and political roles is vital, especially as contemporary liberalism promotes vocational priorities over literary and ethical education (Locatelli, 2004, p. 173).
Concepts of ‘Literariness’ and the Canon: She critiques Russian Formalism’s focus on “literariness” as distinguishing literature from other discourses, asserting that this view overlooks literature’s political and libidinal dimensions, which Cultural Studies emphasize (Locatelli, 2004, p. 174).

Limits of Formalism and Cultural Studies: While Cultural Studies contextualize literature within broader culture, they risk diluting its distinct qualities; neither strict formalism nor pure consensus fully defines literature (Locatelli, 2004, p. 175).
Dynamic, Dialogical Relationship of Theory and Literature: Theories and literature mutually influence and shape each other; literature is a source of diverse theories and resists singular definitions (Locatelli, 2004, p. 175).
Expanding Canon through Social Consensus: Locatelli addresses debates on canon formation, highlighting scholars like E.D. Hirsch and Stanley Fish, who view literature as a product of social consensus rather than inherent qualities (Alexandrov, 2003, p. 42).

Conventions as ‘Rules of the Literary Game’: Literature is recognized through aesthetic and social conventions that frame genres and expectations, but which are subject to historical shifts (Coco Davani, 1990, p. 176).
Defamiliarization and Cognitive Value: Drawing from Russian Formalism’s defamiliarization (ostranenie), Locatelli emphasizes that literary devices disrupt norms, providing readers new perspectives and epistemic energy (Locatelli, 2004, p. 177).
Relevance of Cultural Ideologies: She aligns literature with semiotics, psychoanalysis, and ideology, noting that literature either supports or critiques cultural norms, a perspective amplified by Cultural Studies and theorists like Gramsci (Lotman, 1990, p. 178).

Canon and Pedagogy in a Global Context: Locatelli calls for a broader, yet critically evaluated canon, one that includes marginal voices without becoming ideologically rigid or predictable (Savage, 1995, p. 180).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli

Literary Term/Concept	Explanation	Relevance in Locatelli’s Work
Literariness (Literaturnost)	Refers to the distinct quality that makes a text literary, emphasized by Russian Formalists like Jakobson.	Locatelli critiques strict “literariness” for ignoring literature’s political and libidinal aspects (p. 174).
Canon	A collection of works considered “literary” or essential by cultural consensus, but often debated for inclusivity.	Locatelli discusses the canon as a socially constructed set of works, historically fluctuating and debated (p. 176).
Defamiliarization (Ostranenie)	A technique in which familiar elements are made strange to renew perception, as used by Russian Formalists.	Locatelli sees defamiliarization as critical for literature’s cognitive and epistemic roles (p. 177).
Semiotics of Culture	A framework analyzing sign systems in culture, introduced in the Tartu Conference, relating signs to external realities.	It contextualizes literature as a dynamic, ideological discourse influenced by social and cultural contexts (p. 178).
Non-Essentialism	The view that literature lacks an inherent essence and is instead shaped by social and ideological factors.	Locatelli draws on scholars like Eagleton to emphasize literature’s definition as historically and ideologically variable (p. 176).
Dialogical Relationship	The mutual shaping influence between literature and literary theories, as per Bakhtin’s dialogism.	Locatelli argues that theories and literature co-create meaning in an ongoing, interactive dialogue (p. 175).
Double Enunciation	Literature’s capacity to present conflicting messages, often seen in Shakespeare’s works.	Locatelli uses this to highlight literature’s ethical complexity and ambiguity, such as in The Merchant of Venice (p. 183).
Plurivocality	Refers to the presence of multiple voices and perspectives within literature, resisting single, fixed interpretations.	Locatelli values literature’s ability to represent diverse viewpoints, fostering debate over rigid doctrines (p. 185).
Reader-Response Theory	A literary theory emphasizing the reader’s role in interpreting texts, creating meaning through subjective experience.	Locatelli sees reader-response as shaping canon and literary meaning based on social context (p. 180).
Ideology	A system of ideas and ideals, particularly in the context of politics, that influences literary canon and interpretation.	Locatelli discusses how literature can both reflect and critique cultural ideologies (p. 178).

Contribution of “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli to Literary Theory/Theories

Literary Theory	Contribution by Locatelli	References
Russian Formalism	Locatelli builds on Russian Formalism’s idea of literariness but critiques its narrow focus on formal elements alone, arguing that this approach overlooks literature’s socio-political dimensions.	She questions the reduction of literature to “a special discourse” and suggests that this view misses literature’s cultural and ideological roles (p. 174).
Cultural Studies	Locatelli acknowledges Cultural Studies’ emphasis on literature’s libidinal and political aspects but argues that it risks diminishing literature’s unique qualities by subsuming it under broader cultural analysis.	Citing Antoine Compagnon, she notes that Cultural Studies can “delegitimize” literary studies by treating literature as just another cultural practice (p. 174).
Non-Essentialist Theory	She aligns with non-essentialist views, noting that literature cannot be defined by intrinsic qualities alone but is constructed by historical and social judgments.	She references E.D. Hirsch, Eagleton, and Fish to emphasize the non-essentialist view that “value-judgments” shape what is deemed literary (p. 176).
Semiotics of Culture	By referencing Semiotics of Culture, Locatelli emphasizes the role of context and sign systems in literature, suggesting that literature interacts dynamically with external realities.	The “Tartu Conference” and Lotman’s semiotic approach are highlighted as key to understanding literature’s socio-cultural embeddedness (p. 178).
Psychoanalysis	Locatelli connects psychoanalysis with literature’s cognitive effects, pointing to Freud and Lacan, and the mutual influence of literature and psychoanalysis on understanding the unconscious.	She references Felman who argued that “literature is the unconscious of psychoanalysis,” highlighting the cognitive parallels between literary and psychic mechanisms (p. 175).
Canon Theory	She critiques traditional canon theory, advocating for a fluid, inclusive canon that adapts to cultural changes, yet warns against limitless expansion, which risks diluting the canon’s specificity.	William J. Savage Jr.’s taxonomy of canons illustrates how different types shape what is considered valuable literature (p. 180).
Reader-Response Theory	Locatelli argues for the role of culturally specific reader responses in canon formation, suggesting that the meaning and prestige of literature depend on social contexts and reader engagement.	She discusses how literary reception occurs in specific “social climates,” linking it with the changing status of literary texts (p. 182).
Marxist Theory	While critical of Marxist essentialism, Locatelli draws from Marxist critique to argue that literature both reflects and critiques ideological structures, merging literature’s formal elements with sociopolitical analysis.	She notes how Bourdieu and Althusser view the canon as shaped by power dynamics, challenging literature’s ideological content (p. 181).
Dialogism (Bakhtin)	Locatelli champions a dialogical approach, arguing that literature and theories continuously shape each other, each creating dynamic interpretations and resisting single perspectives.	Bakhtin’s notion of dialogism influences her view that literature is “dialogical,” adapting and responding to multiple theoretical lenses (p. 175).

Examples of Critiques Through “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli

Shakespeare’s Hamlet
- Locatelli’s view of literature as dialogical and perpetually resistant to fixed interpretation applies well to Hamlet. She would argue that Hamlet’s thematic depth and complex character motivations illustrate literature’s “insaturability,” as it “invokes and provokes” endless interpretations and challenges even the most sophisticated readings (Locatelli, p. 182).

George Orwell’s 1984
- Using Locatelli’s critique of the canon and ideology, 1984 can be seen as a work that reflects and critiques dominant ideological structures. Locatelli’s framework underscores how Orwell’s manipulation of language and the concept of “Newspeak” highlight the epistemic potential of literary devices to challenge readers’ stock responses and disrupt normative thought (Locatelli, p. 177).
Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre
- Through Locatelli’s non-essentialist approach to canon formation, Jane Eyre might be examined for its historical and ideological contexts, questioning why it entered the canon and how it resonated with various social ideologies. Locatelli’s views invite a critique that considers the novel’s changing reception over time and its impact on feminist and socio-cultural discourse (Locatelli, p. 176).
Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis
- Locatelli’s focus on defamiliarization, or ostranenie, as a cognitive tool can be applied to Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. Gregor Samsa’s transformation disrupts the reader’s stock responses to identity and humanity, aligning with Locatelli’s belief that literature offers a “fresh point of view” and uses literary devices to explore the psyche and societal norms (Locatelli, p. 177).

Criticism Against “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli

Overemphasis on Non-Essentialism
- Some critics might argue that Locatelli’s strong stance against essentialist views risks neglecting intrinsic literary qualities that contribute to a work’s enduring appeal. By focusing heavily on social and ideological constructs, her approach could overlook universal aspects that make literature distinct.
Limited Engagement with Canon Formation Challenges
- Although Locatelli critiques the idea of a rigid canon, she may not fully address the practical challenges of balancing inclusivity with meaningful selection criteria. Critics could argue that her model lacks a concrete framework for reconciling the canon’s expansion with the need to maintain literary quality.
Ambiguity in “Dialogical” Approach
- While Locatelli advocates a dialogical relationship between theory and literature, some may find this approach too abstract or lacking clarity in practical application. This ambiguity might make it challenging to apply her framework consistently in literary analysis or pedagogy.

Potential for Relativism in Literary Value
- Critics may argue that Locatelli’s emphasis on cultural consensus risks promoting a relativistic view of literary value, where distinctions between major and minor works blur. This could lead to a situation where any text, regardless of its aesthetic or literary merits, could be considered significant solely based on cultural context.

Representative Quotations from “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The recognition of the specificity of the literary experience is…a political necessity today…” (p. 173)	Locatelli emphasizes that understanding literature’s unique qualities is vital in a world where liberalism often prioritizes vocational over aesthetic and philosophical education, risking the relegation of literature to an “escapist pastime.”
“Literature is a dynamic universe, epistemologically and historically more complex and varied…” (p. 175)	This highlights her belief in literature’s constant evolution and complexity, which cannot be captured entirely by rigid theories or the static lists of canonical works. Literature is continually shaped by cultural and historical shifts.
“Each theory, in a certain sense, ‘creates’ its own literature, but no theory can saturate the meaning of literature.” (p. 175)	She argues for the dialogical relationship between literature and literary theories, suggesting that theories inform literature but cannot fully encapsulate it. Literature holds an essence beyond the reach of any one interpretive lens.
“Conventions ‘authorize’ certain types of textual production…” (p. 176)	Drawing on Coco Davani’s ideas, Locatelli suggests that literature is socially constructed through shared conventions, which authorize and recognize literary texts, but these conventions are historically mutable and context-dependent.
“Literary defamiliarization…provides a fresh point of view on the extra-literary world.” (p. 177)	Locatelli supports the Formalist idea of defamiliarization as central to literature’s power, enabling readers to see the familiar in new ways, with profound cognitive and cultural impacts beyond mere formal innovation.
“Rather than focusing on formal elements…we can focus on these elements to detect and even deconstruct the ideology of literary texts.” (p. 179)	Here, she advocates a shift from formalist to ideological critique, viewing literature as a means to expose and critique the power dynamics and cultural assumptions embedded within texts.
“The canon as consensus does not clearly define what literature is…” (p. 180)	Locatelli critiques the canon’s limitations, noting that while it reflects cultural consensus, it fails to capture the true essence of literature. Instead, she suggests it exposes ideological biases and pedagogical priorities.
“Literature is a discourse which resists predictable procedures…” (p. 185)	She argues that literature is inherently complex and refuses reduction to simple doctrines or formulas, underscoring its role in challenging intellectual and ideological conformity.
“The specificity of literature must be defended because literature enables us to represent…what other discourses cannot.” (p. 185)	Locatelli asserts literature’s unique capacity to express aspects of human experience that other forms of discourse cannot fully capture, affirming its irreplaceable role in intellectual and cultural life.
“Literature is also an ‘indeterminable object’…‘polymorphic’ in a strict etymological sense…” (p. 186)	Locatelli describes literature as ever-shifting and impossible to pin down, containing a multiplicity of forms and meanings that make it resistant to fixed definitions, thus enriching its value and relevance across contexts and interpretations.

“Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair: Summary and Critique

“Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All” by Niigaan Sinclair first appeared in the December 2015 issue of ESC: English Studies in Canada (Volume 41, Issue 4).

Introduction: “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair

“Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All” by Niigaan Sinclair first appeared in the December 2015 issue of ESC: English Studies in Canada (Volume 41, Issue 4). In this seminal article, Sinclair explores Indigenous literary nationalism as a critical framework that highlights the cultural, political, and historical legacies inherent in Indigenous literature. Building on the foundational work of theorists like Muskogee Creek critic Craig Womack, particularly his influential book Red on Red: Native Literary Separatism (1999), Sinclair argues that Indigenous literature should be approached from within its own cultural and national contexts rather than through Eurocentric literary paradigms. This approach emphasizes Indigenous intellectualism and the role of literature in articulating Indigenous sovereignty, land relationships, and community histories. Sinclair’s theory has had profound implications for both literary and postcolonial studies, advocating for Indigenous scholars and writers to reclaim narrative authority and further the discourse on Indigenous nationhood, aesthetics, and self-determination. His work underscores a shift in literary criticism that not only enriches the understanding of Indigenous literature but also challenges and expands the boundaries of English studies in Canada and beyond.

Summary of “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair

Historical Context and Recognition of Indigenous Literary Theory

Ancient Indigenous Intellectualism
Sinclair opens by emphasizing that Indigenous thought and intellectualism are not new but have “hundreds of thousands of years” of history. This intellectualism is embedded in oral traditions, cultural practices, and philosophies that predate colonial influence, positioning Indigenous thought as foundational and long-standing (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18).

Delayed Academic Recognition
Despite this deep-rooted intellectual tradition, Sinclair argues that mainstream academia has only recently begun to recognize Indigenous theories of literature. This delayed acknowledgment points to a long-standing oversight in literary and cultural studies that ignored Indigenous voices and frameworks, suggesting a need for a shift in academic priorities (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18).
Significance of Indigenous Literary Theory
By embracing Indigenous literary theory, Sinclair argues that the academic field can better understand the unique qualities of Indigenous literature, which is often marked by its connection to specific cultural, political, and historical contexts. Indigenous literary nationalism thus fills a crucial gap in academic analysis by offering a more authentic interpretation of Indigenous texts (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18).

Core Premise of Indigenous Literary Nationalism

Literature as an Extension of Indigenous Nationhood
Sinclair posits that Indigenous literature is not merely a creative endeavor but an extension of nationhood and community. This view frames literature as a vehicle for “articulat[ing], continu[ing], and expand[ing] the cultural, political, and historical legacies” of Indigenous nations, rooting it firmly in the values and experiences of those nations (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18).
Rejection of Eurocentric Literary Frameworks
A key component of Sinclair’s argument is that Indigenous literature should not be evaluated through Western literary frameworks, which often fail to recognize Indigenous narratives’ cultural and contextual depth. Instead, he advocates for an interpretive approach that is culturally specific, ensuring that Indigenous literature is appreciated for its distinct perspectives (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18).
Representation of Diverse Indigenous Voices
Sinclair highlights that Indigenous literary nationalism acknowledges the diversity of Indigenous communities. Rather than viewing Indigenous literature as monolithic, this approach allows for recognition of the distinct “voices, struggles, and perspectives” inherent to each Indigenous nation, ensuring a nuanced and respectful understanding of their unique stories and experiences (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18).

Influence of Craig Womack and Red on Red

Pioneering Influence of Craig Womack
Sinclair credits Muskogee Creek critic Craig Womack’s Red on Red: Native Literary Separatism (1999) as foundational to Indigenous literary nationalism. Womack’s work serves as both “creative and critical call” for Indigenous scholars to ground their analyses in their own cultural heritage, setting a precedent for later Indigenous scholars (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18).
Literary Theory as Activism
According to Sinclair, Womack’s approach in Red on Red calls Indigenous critics to participate actively in “land struggles, governance, and cultural struggles.” This perspective redefines the role of literary criticism as more than analytical—it is also an active expression of cultural sovereignty, placing literature in direct conversation with political activism (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18).

Invitation to Reclaim Ancestral Knowledge
Womack’s work encourages Indigenous critics to engage with and revive ancestral knowledge systems. Sinclair sees this as a necessary practice for Indigenous critics, who, through Indigenous literary nationalism, can participate in cultural preservation and actively shape ongoing narratives about Indigenous identity (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18).

Expansion of Indigenous Nationhood and Political Consciousness

Challenging Traditional Notions of Nationhood
Sinclair argues that Indigenous literary nationalism expands our understanding of “North American nationhood.” This theory repositions nationhood as not solely defined by political borders but also by cultural and historical ties that Indigenous peoples maintain with their lands and communities (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18).

Broadening Literary Aesthetics and History
Indigenous literary nationalism enriches the literary field by introducing alternative aesthetics grounded in Indigenous storytelling traditions. This approach not only challenges traditional Western literary standards but also incorporates Indigenous histories and values into literary criticism, offering a more comprehensive view of North American history and culture (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18).
Intellectual and Cultural Contribution to Literature
Sinclair highlights Indigenous literary nationalism as “one of the most important literary and intellectual contributions of our time.” By incorporating Indigenous narratives into broader literary and cultural discourses, this movement provides critical insights into Indigenous experiences and reshapes the literary landscape (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18).

Call to Action for Indigenous Scholars and Writers

Reclaiming Narrative Authority
Sinclair issues a call for Indigenous scholars to reclaim narrative authority by grounding their work in the values and knowledge systems of their ancestral communities. This approach enables Indigenous scholars to represent their own stories authentically, rather than conforming to Western academic expectations (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18).
Participating in Cultural Continuity
Sinclair argues that Indigenous literary nationalism involves not just studying literature but actively engaging in the cultural practices it represents. This participation, he suggests, is crucial for Indigenous “endurance” and sovereignty, as literature becomes a tool for preserving and reinforcing cultural identity (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18).
Centering Indigenous Knowledge in Academia
Ultimately, Sinclair advocates for an academic approach that centers Indigenous knowledge as integral to the study of literature. By doing so, scholars can transform literary criticism into a field that respects and honors Indigenous worldviews, creating a space where Indigenous literary nationalism can flourish within mainstream academia (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair

Literary Term/Concept	Explanation
Indigenous Literary Nationalism	A framework that views Indigenous literature through the cultural, political, and historical contexts of Indigenous nations rather than Western frameworks, aiming to articulate and preserve Indigenous legacies.
Nationhood	The idea that Indigenous literature is an expression of Indigenous nationhood, representing specific cultural and community identities linked to land and sovereignty.
Cultural Sovereignty	The assertion of Indigenous control over the interpretation and representation of their own literature, allowing Indigenous perspectives to shape academic discourse.
Resistance Aesthetics	A style in Indigenous literature that challenges colonial narratives and reclaims Indigenous identity, often embedded in cultural symbols and oral traditions.
Ancestral Knowledge Systems	The body of knowledge, values, and traditions passed down through generations within Indigenous communities, providing context and depth to Indigenous literary works.
Self-Determination	The right of Indigenous communities to define and control their own narratives and stories, which Sinclair argues is central to Indigenous literary theory.
Activist Criticism	A form of literary criticism that combines analysis with activism, advocating for Indigenous land rights, governance, and cultural preservation through literature.
Indigenous Intellectualism	Acknowledges the longstanding intellectual tradition within Indigenous communities that predates colonial influence and centers Indigenous perspectives in academia.
Oral Tradition	A fundamental element in Indigenous literature that preserves history, values, and knowledge through storytelling, often reflected in literary forms.
Decolonization	The process of challenging and moving beyond colonial frameworks in literary criticism, allowing Indigenous voices to be heard and understood on their own terms.
Land Relationships	The deep, spiritual, and cultural connection between Indigenous peoples and their ancestral lands, often a core theme in Indigenous literary works.
Indigenous Aesthetics	Artistic and narrative styles unique to Indigenous cultures, which may include non-linear storytelling, symbolism, and community-centered themes.
Narrative Authority	The concept that Indigenous authors and critics should have the authority to interpret and critique their own literature, free from Western academic constraints.
Historical Continuity	The recognition of Indigenous literature as part of a continuous history of cultural expression, connecting past, present, and future Indigenous experiences.

Contribution of “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair to Literary Theory/Theories

Expansion of Postcolonial Theory
- Sinclair’s work contributes significantly to postcolonial theory by addressing the unique colonial experiences of Indigenous peoples and framing Indigenous literature as a tool for decolonization. He argues that Indigenous literary nationalism “redefines our understanding of North American nationhood, aesthetics, and history” (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). This challenges traditional postcolonial frameworks to include Indigenous narratives within their discourse, moving beyond Eurocentric perspectives on colonialism.
Advancement of Indigenous Literary Theory
- Sinclair’s article provides a foundational framework for Indigenous literary theory by establishing Indigenous literary nationalism as a distinct critical approach. This theory posits that Indigenous literature must be analyzed within its own cultural and historical contexts, allowing Indigenous “cultural, political, and historical legacies” to shape its interpretation (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). Sinclair’s emphasis on self-representation and sovereignty advances Indigenous literary theory by advocating for Indigenous-led scholarship and analysis.
Influence on Cultural Sovereignty Theory
- The article underscores the importance of cultural sovereignty by affirming the right of Indigenous communities to interpret and control their narratives. Sinclair advocates for Indigenous critics to engage with “the work of their ancestral communities” and emphasizes that literature should reflect Indigenous “land struggles, governance, and cultural struggles” (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). This contribution promotes cultural sovereignty as a key component of literary analysis, especially for Indigenous texts.

Reinvigoration of Activist Criticism
- Sinclair’s call for Indigenous literary nationalism reinvigorates activist criticism by connecting literary analysis to real-world Indigenous struggles for land rights, cultural preservation, and political sovereignty. This “creative and critical call” urges Indigenous scholars to view literature not only as an academic exercise but as an expression of resistance and activism (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). His approach encourages scholars to see Indigenous literature as a platform for social change and political advocacy.
Integration of Historical Continuity in Literary Theory
- The article emphasizes the historical continuity of Indigenous storytelling, positioning Indigenous literature as part of a “continuous history” that links past, present, and future Indigenous experiences (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). Sinclair’s work encourages literary theories to consider historical continuity as central to understanding Indigenous narratives, contrasting with Western views of literature as a break from the past.
Contribution to Decolonization Theory
- Sinclair’s argument for Indigenous literary nationalism as a method of reclaiming narrative authority aligns with decolonization theory, which seeks to dismantle colonial structures within academia and literary criticism. He emphasizes that Indigenous literature “represents the voices, struggles, and perspectives” specific to Indigenous nations, advocating for a move away from colonial interpretative frameworks (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). This approach encourages literary scholars to decolonize their methodologies and prioritize Indigenous voices in their analyses.

Development of Nation-Specific Literary Identity
- Sinclair’s theory contributes to the idea of nation-specific literary identity by advocating for Indigenous literature to be understood within the context of each unique Indigenous nation. He suggests that Indigenous literary nationalism allows each nation’s literature to “articulate, continue, and expand” its cultural legacy, creating space for a diversity of Indigenous voices (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). This contribution shifts literary theory toward recognizing the multiplicity of identities and histories within Indigenous literatures.
Challenge to Universalist Literary Criticism
- By emphasizing Indigenous literary nationalism, Sinclair challenges universalist literary criticism, which often applies a single framework to diverse literatures. He critiques these approaches for failing to respect the cultural specificities of Indigenous works, arguing instead for an “Indigenous-specific” interpretation that honors the unique “legacies of the Indigenous nation(s) they emerge from” (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). This contribution calls for a more culturally specific, nuanced approach to literary criticism.

Examples of Critiques Through “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair

Literary Work	Critique through Indigenous Literary Nationalism
Ceremony by Leslie Marmon Silko	Ceremony can be analyzed as an expression of Laguna Pueblo identity and resilience, highlighting themes of healing and cultural continuity. Through Indigenous literary nationalism, Silko’s work is seen as part of her community’s oral tradition, resisting colonial narratives and emphasizing Pueblo cultural sovereignty. The work’s cyclical structure reflects Indigenous conceptions of time and history, aligning with Sinclair’s call to recognize Indigenous aesthetics and nation-specific narratives.
The Marrow Thieves by Cherie Dimaline	Dimaline’s The Marrow Thieves can be critiqued as a reflection of Métis cultural and historical legacies, emphasizing the importance of land and memory within Métis identity. Using Sinclair’s framework, the novel highlights Indigenous resistance against assimilationist policies and presents storytelling as an act of cultural survival and sovereignty. This aligns with Indigenous literary nationalism’s advocacy for literature that contributes to Indigenous endurance and resistance.
Tracks by Louise Erdrich	Tracks by Erdrich can be analyzed as an expression of Ojibwe nationhood, centering on themes of land, cultural loss, and resilience. Through Sinclair’s lens, the novel serves as both a preservation of Ojibwe cultural knowledge and a critique of colonial dispossession. The use of dual narrators reflects Indigenous narrative authority, allowing Ojibwe perspectives to remain central to the story and aligning with Sinclair’s call for culturally specific criticism.
Indian Horse by Richard Wagamese	Indian Horse provides a powerful account of Anishinaabe identity, resilience, and survival in the face of colonial trauma. Applying Indigenous literary nationalism, the novel emphasizes Indigenous strength, cultural restoration, and the role of traditional practices as a pathway to healing. Sinclair’s framework allows for a critique that centers on Anishinaabe sovereignty and cultural persistence, highlighting the novel’s role in fostering Indigenous self-determination and narrative authority.

Criticism Against “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair

Limited Accessibility for Non-Indigenous Audiences
Critics argue that Sinclair’s emphasis on Indigenous-specific frameworks may make Indigenous literary nationalism less accessible to non-Indigenous audiences, potentially creating barriers to wider understanding and appreciation of Indigenous literature.
Risk of Essentialism
By focusing on Indigenous literary works through culturally specific frameworks, there is a risk of reinforcing essentialist views, where Indigenous literature might be seen as homogenous or as strictly defined by certain cultural traits rather than a diverse range of individual voices and perspectives.

Challenges to Universal Literary Criticism
Some scholars contend that by rejecting universalist approaches, Sinclair’s framework risks isolating Indigenous literature from broader literary discourses. Critics argue that this could hinder the integration of Indigenous perspectives into mainstream literary criticism and reduce cross-cultural dialogues.
Potential for Exclusion of Hybridized Indigenous Voices
Sinclair’s emphasis on nation-specific literary analysis may inadvertently exclude works by Indigenous authors with hybridized identities or those who incorporate non-Indigenous influences. Critics argue that this approach could limit the scope of Indigenous literary nationalism by not fully representing the diversity within Indigenous literatures.
Overemphasis on Political and Activist Roles of Literature
Sinclair’s approach could be criticized for focusing heavily on the political and activist roles of Indigenous literature. Some critics may argue that this focus detracts from the artistic and aesthetic values of Indigenous works, potentially limiting the ways in which these texts are appreciated and understood.

Representative Quotations from “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Indigenous intellectualism is hundreds of thousands of years old…”	Sinclair emphasizes the long-standing history of Indigenous thought, highlighting the need to recognize Indigenous knowledge systems as foundational, rather than recent or emergent, within literary studies.
“The most impactual work in recent memory has been in the field of Indigenous literary nationalism.”	Sinclair views Indigenous literary nationalism as a transformative force in literary criticism, reshaping the understanding and appreciation of Indigenous literature within the academy.
“Indigenous literatures articulate, continue, and expand the cultural, political, and historical legacies of the Indigenous nation(s) they emerge from.”	Here, Sinclair underscores the idea that Indigenous literature serves as a continuation of cultural legacies, linking each work to specific histories and political identities, and resisting colonial erasure.
“A creative and critical call for Indigenous critics to pick up the work of their ancestral communities.”	Sinclair calls on Indigenous critics to connect with their communities’ traditions and histories, advocating for a form of literary criticism rooted in cultural and ancestral identity.
“Indigenous literatures represent the voices, struggles, and perspectives of their specific communities.”	This quotation highlights the importance of viewing Indigenous literature as representative of individual communities, rather than imposing a monolithic or universal Indigenous identity across all works.
“One of the most important literary and intellectual contributions of our time.”	Sinclair asserts the significance of Indigenous literary nationalism, positioning it as an essential development in contemporary literary theory and scholarship.
“Literature becomes a site of resistance, resilience, and cultural survival.”	This quotation emphasizes Sinclair’s view of literature as an activist space, where Indigenous narratives not only resist colonial narratives but also preserve and sustain cultural practices and identities.
“Indigenous scholars are called to engage in ‘land struggles, governance, and cultural struggles.’”	Sinclair highlights the intersection of literature and activism, suggesting that Indigenous critics should be involved in broader political efforts that affirm Indigenous rights and sovereignty.
“Rejecting universal frameworks in favor of Indigenous-specific interpretations.”	Sinclair advocates for culturally specific frameworks that respect Indigenous traditions and values, challenging the predominance of Western universalist approaches in literary criticism.
“Indigenous literary nationalism redefines North American nationhood, aesthetics, and history.”	This quotation encapsulates Sinclair’s argument that Indigenous literary nationalism challenges traditional definitions of nationhood and history, introducing Indigenous perspectives that reshape these concepts within the context of North American literature.

“Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” By Rayson K. Alex And S. Susan Deborah: Summary And Critique

“Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” by Rayson K. Alex and S. Susan Deborah first appeared in ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment in Spring 2019.

Introduction: “Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” By Rayson K. Alex And S. Susan Deborah

“Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” by Rayson K. Alex and S. Susan Deborah first appeared in ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment in Spring 2019. The article explores the concept of ecophobia—a fear and alienation from nature—contrasting it with indigenous reverential eco-fear, a deep respect and caution toward the environment. Alex and Deborah investigate whether ecophobia is a modern phenomenon or if it also exists within traditional and indigenous societies. They discuss how indigenous communities maintain a profound relationship with the land through reverence and sacred rituals, describing this reverential eco-fear as a cultural mechanism that strengthens ecological bonds rather than separating humanity from nature. This reverence often blurs the lines between natural, cultural, and sacred elements, fostering what they term a “nature-culture-sacred continuum.” The article is significant in literary and ecocritical theory as it challenges binary distinctions between fear and reverence in human-nature relationships, suggesting that ecological ethics are culturally situated and vary across societies. It advances Simon Estok’s ecophobia hypothesis by contextualizing indigenous experiences and highlighting how modernity risks transforming reverential eco-fear into ecophobia, underscoring the importance of preserving indigenous environmental ethics in a rapidly modernizing world.

Summary of “Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” By Rayson K. Alex And S. Susan Deborah

Ecophobia and Its Complexity
- Ecophobia, as theorized by Simon Estok, is a nuanced, “case-by-case” phenomenon that cannot be distilled into a universal definition (Estok, 25). Alex and Deborah examine whether ecophobia is exclusive to modernity or if it has parallels within traditional societies, questioning its ethical and cultural underpinnings across diverse contexts.

Eco-fear vs. Ecophobia: A Spectrum of Fear
- Eco-fear is described as a form of respect and awe towards nature that maintains an “integrative ideology,” contrasting ecophobia, which is an irrational fear that separates humans from the natural world (Alex and Deborah, 422). Fisher’s concept of “deep fear of nature” acknowledges fears of natural disasters but does not equate this reverence with hostility, as seen in ecophobic mindsets (Fisher, 4).
Indigenous Reverential Eco-Fear (IRE)
- Indigenous Reverential Eco-Fear (IRE) is introduced as a cultural phenomenon among traditional communities, which fosters a sacred connection to nature through rituals and beliefs. In indigenous communities, IRE manifests through the sacralization of natural entities, blending fear, reverence, and respect to create a “nature–culture–sacred” nexus (Alex and Deborah, 423).
Ethical and Sacred Dimensions of Reverential Fear
- Reverential fear implies an ethical contract that strengthens human-nature relationships. The Latin root of “reverence” (revereri) embodies awe, fear, and respect, framing reverential eco-fear as both an ethical commitment and a spiritual bond with the natural world (Harper). For instance, the Santhal community’s rituals in India reveal a blend of fear for ecological elements and reverence for their sacred importance, as in the invocation of “Mother Jaher Era” (Patnaik, 97).

Contrasts between Indigenous and Industrialized Worldviews
- In contrast to industrialized views that often demonize nature, indigenous eco-reverence maintains a “nonhierarchical” and material relationship with nature. The Mudugar community, for example, views honey bees as protectors of sacred sites, embodying an integrated ecological ethic that preserves their land and cultural beliefs (Alex, 196).
Impact of Modernity on Indigenous Ecological Ideologies
- Alex and Deborah highlight the transformation of IRE into ecophobia under the influence of modernity and cultural assimilation. Indigenous communities in India, affected by colonialism and the pressures of modern lifestyles, face an erosion of traditional ecological ethics, exemplified by the poem “When You Do Not Return” by Robin S. Ngangom, which narrates the tragic separation of people from their native land and values (Ngangom, 198-200).
Threat of Ecophobia on Indigenous Worldviews
- The ongoing cultural and ecological disruptions threaten the sustainability of IRE as communities grapple with assimilation into dominant neoliberal ideologies. Alex and Deborah warn that as IRE fades, ecophobia may increasingly define indigenous worldviews, potentially severing the deep-rooted connections between humans and their ecosystems, leading to ecological and cultural degradation (Alex and Deborah, 427).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” By Rayson K. Alex And S. Susan Deborah

Term/Concept	Definition/Description	Reference/Explanation
Ecophobia	A fear or alienation from nature, often associated with modernity and industrial societies.	Described by Simon Estok as a case-by-case phenomenon that creates a divide between humans and nature, distancing people from ecological ethics (Estok, 25).
Eco-fear	A respectful fear toward nature, often culturally and ethically integrated.	Seen in indigenous worldviews as a reverential fear that strengthens human-nature relationships rather than dividing them. Examples include fears of environmental consequences, such as floods or droughts (Alex and Deborah, 422).
Indigenous Reverential Eco-Fear (IRE)	A cultural and ethical connection to nature, combining reverence, fear, and sacred respect.	Manifested through rituals and practices in indigenous communities, such as the Mudugar and Santhal, where specific elements like honey bees or groves are seen as sacred protectors (Alex and Deborah, 423).
Nature-Culture-Sacred Continuum	An integrated view where natural and cultural elements hold sacred value in indigenous contexts.	Nirmal Selvamony’s term describes the holistic blend of natural, cultural, and sacred elements in indigenous ecological ethics (qtd. in Alex, 197).
Sorites Paradox	A philosophical paradox about vague terms, applied here to understand ecophobia’s boundaries.	The concept questions when eco-fear becomes ecophobia, showing the fluidity on the spectrum of fear (Estok).
Sacralization	The process of attributing sacred qualities to natural elements, creating respect and ethical bonds.	Examples include the Santhal community’s reverence for the sacred grove “Mother Jaher Era,” establishing a spiritual and ethical connection to the land (Patnaik, 97).
Biophilia-Ecophobia Spectrum	A continuum ranging from love for nature (biophilia) to alienation from nature (ecophobia).	Proposed by Estok, this spectrum positions different cultural and individual relationships to nature, with eco-fear as a middle ground (Estok).
Symbiotic Relationship	A reciprocal, respectful relationship between humans and their natural environment.	Illustrated in the Mudugar community’s view of honey bees as guardians of sacred spaces, symbolizing a cooperative ecological ethic (Alex, 196).
Nonhierarchical Ecology	A worldview in which humans and nature are considered equal and interdependent.	Indigenous communities view natural entities as partners rather than resources, creating an ethical and balanced relationship with the environment (Alex and Deborah, 424).
Ethical Contract	A moral agreement or relationship rooted in respect for nature’s sacredness.	Seen in reverential eco-fear, where fear is integrated with respect, creating ethical stewardship of natural resources (Harper).
Modernity vs. Tradition	The tension between traditional ecological ethics and modern, often ecophobic, worldviews.	The authors highlight how modern pressures, like neoliberalism, erode traditional ecological ethics, pushing indigenous communities toward ecophobic ideologies (Alex and Deborah, 427).
Anthropocentrism	A human-centered perspective that views nature as a resource, often associated with ecophobia.	Contrasted with indigenous perspectives, which are seen as more ecocentric, anthropocentrism drives ecological exploitation and contributes to ecophobia (Alex and Deborah, 426).

Contribution of “Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” By Rayson K. Alex And S. Susan Deborah to Literary Theory/Theories

Literary Theory	Contribution of the Article	References
Ecocriticism	Expands ecocritical discourse by distinguishing between ecophobia and eco-fear, framing them on a biophilia-ecophobia spectrum. Challenges the monolithic view of ecophobia in traditional societies.	Ecophobia as a “case-by-case” phenomenon that cannot be reduced to a template (Estok, 25); eco-fear as a cultural tool connecting humans and ecology (Alex and Deborah, 422).
Indigenous Literary Theory	Introduces Indigenous Reverential Eco-Fear (IRE) as an ethical and culturally integrated form of eco-fear, highlighting indigenous ecological perspectives as nonhierarchical and reverential.	IRE as a respectful fear based on reverence, demonstrated through examples like the Santhal’s worship of Jaher Era (Patnaik, 97); Mudugar beliefs in honey bees as sacred protectors (Alex, 196).
Environmental Ethics	Proposes that indigenous communities embody an ethical “nature-culture-sacred continuum” that contrasts sharply with anthropocentric, ecophobic attitudes.	IRE facilitates the ethical bond between people and nature, especially evident in the Mudugar community’s symbiotic relationship with the environment (Alex and Deborah, 423–424).
Postcolonial Theory	Addresses the effects of modernity and colonization on indigenous ecological values, describing the forced shift from reverential eco-fear to ecophobia under cultural assimilation.	Impact of “Sanskritization” and “tribalization” leading to the erosion of IRE and rise of ecophobia (Alex and Deborah, 427); cultural destruction in Ngangom’s poem portraying the severed bond with the land (Ngangom, 198–200).
Fearism	Integrates Fearism by contextualizing eco-fear as rational and ethically grounded within indigenous contexts, opposed to the irrational and destructive qualities of ecophobia.	Fisher’s concept of “rational fears that indigenous people have,” such as fear of angry tree spirits or honey bee protectors, supporting ecocultural preservation (Fisher, 4; Adamson and Galeano, 230–231).
Anthropocentrism vs. Ecocentrism	Contrasts industrialized societies’ anthropocentric ecophobia with indigenous ecocentric eco-fear, emphasizing the harmful impact of seeing nature as an adversary.	Industrialized views project nature as an “enemy,” unlike the nonhierarchical views held by indigenous communities (Alex and Deborah, 424).
Spiritual Ecology	Highlights the sacralization process where natural entities attain sacred status, forming a triadic relationship of “nature-culture-sacred,” underscoring the spiritual dimension of eco-fear.	Sacralization of ecological elements like the Santhal’s sacred grove “Mother Jaher Era” as examples of spiritual ecology (Patnaik, 97; Alex and Deborah, 423).
Ethical Literary Criticism	Reinforces ethical literary criticism by showing how reverential eco-fear operates as an ethical commitment toward nature, promoting stewardship rather than exploitation.	Fear as an effect of respect (revereri) within IRE, implying an ethical duty towards nature that differs from the irrationality of ecophobia (Harper; Alex and Deborah, 422).
Modernity Critique	Critiques modernity’s impact on traditional ecological ethics, noting the shift from reverential eco-fear to ecophobia under neoliberal and corporate influence.	The erosion of IRE among indigenous groups due to neoliberal pressures, as shown by the growing ecophobia with the loss of cultural and ecological ethics (Alex and Deborah, 427).

Examples of Critiques Through “Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” By Rayson K. Alex And S. Susan Deborah

Literary Work and Author	Critique through Alex & Deborah’s Lens	Key References
*Heart of Darkness* by Joseph Conrad	The portrayal of the African wilderness as a dark, threatening force can be seen as ecophobic, projecting the environment as an “enemy” that is feared and alienated from human ethics. Conrad’s descriptions reinforce colonial ecophobia, distancing humanity from nature in irrational ways.	Ecophobia as projecting nature as hostile (Alex and Deborah, 422–423); contrast with Indigenous Reverential Eco-Fear, where fear integrates rather than separates.
*The Grapes of Wrath* by John Steinbeck	Steinbeck’s depiction of drought and environmental devastation aligns with rational eco-fear, where the fear of nature is contextualized within human survival needs. The Dust Bowl crisis can be analyzed as a modern clash between reverential eco-fear and ecophobia, highlighting ethical divides.	Rational fears (eco-fear) vs. irrational ecophobia (Fisher, 4); eco-fear seen as culturally grounded (Alex and Deborah, 422).
*Things Fall Apart* by Chinua Achebe	Indigenous eco-fear in Achebe’s novel exemplifies IRE, as the Igbo people maintain rituals and reverence towards the land and sacred groves. However, colonial intervention disrupts this eco-fear, forcing a shift toward ecophobia as indigenous ecological ethics are disregarded and suppressed.	IRE as a connection between nature, culture, and sacred beliefs (Alex and Deborah, 423); impact of modernity on IRE leading to ecophobia (Alex and Deborah, 427).
*Silent Spring* by Rachel Carson	Carson’s environmental warnings align with reverential eco-fear as they promote respect and caution toward ecological preservation. Her work critiques modern industrial society’s shift to ecophobia, warning against viewing nature solely through an anthropocentric and exploitative lens.	Contrast between industrial ecophobia and ecocentric eco-fear in Carson’s warnings (Alex and Deborah, 424); eco-fear as a cultural tool fostering ecological interconnection.

Criticism Against “Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” By Rayson K. Alex And S. Susan Deborah

Overgeneralization of Indigenous Beliefs
The article might overgeneralize indigenous perspectives by presenting them as uniformly harmonious with nature, potentially overlooking the diversity and complexity within indigenous ecological beliefs, which may vary widely across regions and groups.
Limited Scope in Application of IRE
The concept of Indigenous Reverential Eco-Fear (IRE) is presented as a key framework, but its applicability outside of specific Indian indigenous contexts is not thoroughly addressed, raising questions about its universality across different indigenous cultures globally.

Insufficient Attention to Practical Ecophobia Solutions
While the article elaborates on the causes and cultural manifestations of ecophobia, it could be critiqued for not providing concrete solutions or strategies for countering ecophobia, particularly in modernized and urban contexts.
Potential Romanticization of Indigenous Eco-fear
By emphasizing reverential eco-fear as ethically superior, the article may inadvertently romanticize indigenous beliefs, risking a simplistic “noble savage” narrative that overlooks complex socio-economic and environmental challenges faced by these communities.
Ambiguity in Defining Ecophobia’s Ethical Boundaries
The concept of ecophobia is presented on a spectrum with biophilia, but the article could be critiqued for lacking clarity on the specific ethical boundaries and tipping points at which eco-fear transitions into ecophobia, leaving room for interpretative ambiguity.

Reliance on Select Cultural Examples
The article relies on a few cultural examples (e.g., the Santhal and Mudugar communities) without sufficiently engaging with other ecological practices from different cultures, which may limit the study’s broader relevance and comprehensiveness.

Representative Quotations from “Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” By Rayson K. Alex And S. Susan Deborah with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The first thing we need to know about ecophobia is that theorizing it is, as Simon C. Estok has argued, a ‘case-by-case’ affair” (25).	This quotation introduces the complexity of ecophobia, suggesting it cannot be universally defined and must be understood within specific cultural contexts, setting the stage for examining ecophobia across diverse societies.
“Ecophobia… creates an irrational divide between humans and the natural/cultural materials” (422).	This line defines ecophobia as an ideological construct that alienates humans from nature, framing it as an unnatural separation rather than an organic fear, contrasting with integrative indigenous eco-fear.
“In indigenous communities, the deep relationship between the people and their land is maintained through sacralization of cultural and natural materials” (423).	This statement highlights the indigenous approach to nature, where fear and reverence for the land are integral to cultural practices, connecting people to nature rather than separating them from it.
“IRE… is constitutionally different from ecophobia” (423).	Here, Indigenous Reverential Eco-Fear (IRE) is contrasted with ecophobia, suggesting that indigenous eco-fear is an ethical and respectful form of fear, deeply interwoven with cultural identity, unlike the alienating aspects of ecophobia.
“The Mudugar… believe that honey bees (ancestral spirits) guard the community’s burial ground” (196–198).	This quotation provides an example of IRE, where natural elements are seen as protectors. The Mudugar view of honey bees as ancestral guardians demonstrates how indigenous communities sacralize nature as part of their ethical framework.
“Fear of nature and what Fisher calls a ‘deep love for Nature and things wild’ can certainly coexist” (4).	This line reflects the coexistence of fear and reverence in indigenous worldviews, where fear does not equate to alienation but strengthens the connection to nature, presenting an alternative to modern ecophobic perspectives.
“IRE… aids physical connectedness with nature” (423).	The authors argue that IRE helps indigenous communities maintain a direct, physical bond with nature, fostering sustainable ecological relationships that contrast with the disconnected fear often seen in modern ecophobic mindsets.
“Nature is projected as an ‘enemy’ in this fear-dominated worldview” (7).	This quotation critiques ecophobia in modern industrial societies, where nature is often viewed antagonistically, intensifying the divide between humans and the environment, a stance that differs from indigenous reverence.
“The concept of reverential fear implies an ethical contract of reverence and a transcendental connection with the materiality of the world” (423).	Reverential fear among indigenous communities is described as a profound ethical and spiritual bond with nature, contrasting with the purely defensive or adversarial stance often found in ecophobic societies.
“Due to the infiltration of modern and dominant ideologies… the physical interconnection between humans and the environment is compromised” (427).	This statement critiques how modern ideologies disrupt traditional eco-fear, leading to a loss of indigenous ecological ethics and a shift toward ecophobia, thus emphasizing the need to protect these integrative worldviews.