“Surprised by Joy” by William Wordsworth: A Critical Analysis

“Surprised by Joy” by William Wordsworth, first appeared in 1815 as part of his collection Poems of the Imagination, reflects Wordsworth’s profound grief over the loss of his daughter, Catherine, exploring themes of love, memory, and the anguish of fleeting joy amidst enduring sorrow.

"Surprised by Joy" by William Wordsworth: A Critical Analysis
Introduction: “Surprised by Joy” by William Wordsworth

“Surprised by Joy” by William Wordsworth, first appeared in 1815 as part of his collection Poems of the Imagination, reflects Wordsworth’s profound grief over the loss of his daughter, Catherine, exploring themes of love, memory, and the anguish of fleeting joy amidst enduring sorrow. The poem’s power lies in its poignant juxtaposition of momentary elation with the crushing realization of bereavement, capturing the complexity of human emotion. Its popularity stems from Wordsworth’s mastery of the sonnet form, his evocative language, and the universal resonance of its themes, which continue to connect deeply with readers experiencing personal loss.

Text: “Surprised by Joy” by William Wordsworth

Surprised by joy—impatient as the Wind

I turned to share the transport—Oh! with whom

But Thee, long buried in the silent Tomb,

That spot which no vicissitude can find?

Love, faithful love, recalled thee to my mind—

But how could I forget thee?—Through what power,

Even for the least division of an hour,

Have I been so beguiled as to be blind

To my most grievous loss!—That thought’s return

Was the worst pang that sorrow ever bore,

Save one, one only, when I stood forlorn,

Knowing my heart’s best treasure was no more;

That neither present time, nor years unborn

Could to my sight that heavenly face restore.

Annotations: “Surprised by Joy” by William Wordsworth
LineAnnotation
Surprised by joy—impatient as the WindThe speaker describes an unexpected moment of joy, emphasizing its intensity and spontaneity by comparing it to the wind. This sets the tone for the poem’s exploration of contrasting emotions.
I turned to share the transport—Oh! with whomThe instinctive impulse to share this joy highlights human connection and the desire to share happiness, but the abrupt realization introduces a tragic twist.
But Thee, long buried in the silent Tomb,The speaker remembers a loved one who has passed away, likely Wordsworth’s daughter Catherine, with “silent Tomb” evoking the finality and isolation of death.
That spot which no vicissitude can find?The permanence of death is underscored, contrasting with the impermanence of earthly changes (“vicissitude”), emphasizing the irrevocable loss.
Love, faithful love, recalled thee to my mind—The memory of the deceased is triggered by the speaker’s enduring love, showcasing the deep emotional connection that persists despite death.
But how could I forget thee?—Through what power,The speaker questions their brief lapse in memory, expressing guilt or disbelief that such an important bond could ever be momentarily forgotten.
Even for the least division of an hour,The short duration of forgetfulness is stressed, intensifying the speaker’s anguish and self-reproach.
Have I been so beguiled as to be blind“Beguiled” suggests being misled or deceived, indicating how fleeting joy distracted the speaker from the reality of loss.
To my most grievous loss!—That thought’s returnThe return to the awareness of loss marks a sharp transition from joy to sorrow, heightening the emotional impact.
Was the worst pang that sorrow ever bore,The speaker describes the renewed grief as an unparalleled pain, emphasizing its profound and enduring nature.
Save one, one only, when I stood forlorn,The “one, one only” refers to the moment of the loved one’s death, which remains the ultimate source of the speaker’s sorrow.
Knowing my heart’s best treasure was no more;The deceased is described as the “heart’s best treasure,” signifying the irreplaceable value of the relationship and the depth of the loss.
That neither present time, nor years unbornThe timelessness of grief is conveyed, as the speaker acknowledges that no amount of time can bring solace or restore the loved one.
Could to my sight that heavenly face restore.The poem concludes with a poignant acknowledgment of the irrevocable separation caused by death, with “heavenly face” reflecting the idealized memory of the deceased and the spiritual undertones of the loss.
Literary And Poetic Devices: “Surprised by Joy” by William Wordsworth
DeviceExampleExplanation
Allusion“That spot which no vicissitude can find”An indirect reference to death and the permanence of the grave.
Apostrophe“Oh! with whom / But Thee”The speaker directly addresses the deceased loved one, who cannot respond, creating an emotional connection with the reader.
Assonance“grievous loss”The repetition of vowel sounds in “grievous” and “loss” adds a musical quality and emphasizes the sorrowful tone.
Caesura“Oh! with whom / But Thee”The break in the middle of the line reflects the emotional pause as the speaker realizes the loss.
Contrast“Surprised by joy” vs. “my most grievous loss”Juxtaposition of joy and grief highlights the complexity of human emotions and the sudden shift in the speaker’s mood.
Direct Address“Oh! with whom / But Thee”The poem speaks directly to the deceased loved one, enhancing intimacy and emotional resonance.
Emotive Language“That thought’s return / Was the worst pang”Words like “worst pang” evoke a strong emotional response, emphasizing the intensity of grief.
Enjambment“To my most grievous loss!—That thought’s return / Was the worst pang”The continuation of the sentence across lines mirrors the uncontrollable flow of the speaker’s thoughts and emotions.
Hyperbole“That thought’s return / Was the worst pang”The exaggeration emphasizes the overwhelming pain of grief.
Imagery“That heavenly face”Evokes a vivid picture of the deceased, reflecting their idealized and cherished memory.
Interrogation“But how could I forget thee?”The rhetorical question expresses disbelief and self-reproach, deepening the emotional impact.
Juxtaposition“Surprised by joy—impatient as the Wind / I turned to share the transport” vs. “my most grievous loss”The stark contrast between joy and grief enhances the poem’s emotional depth.
Metaphor“That heavenly face”Refers to the loved one as divine or angelic, emphasizing their irreplaceable value.
MoodThe transition from joy to despairThe mood shifts from light and joyful to dark and sorrowful, reflecting the emotional journey of the speaker.
Personification“Love, faithful love, recalled thee to my mind”Love is personified as a force capable of summoning the memory of the deceased.
Repetition“One, one only”Repeating “one” emphasizes the singularity and intensity of the pain of loss.
Rhyme SchemeABBA ABBA CDC DCDThe Petrarchan sonnet form provides structure, reinforcing the poem’s reflective and contemplative nature.
Symbolism“The silent Tomb”Symbolizes death and the permanence of loss, as well as the barrier between the speaker and the loved one.
ToneReflective and mournfulThe tone reflects the speaker’s inner turmoil, combining fleeting joy with profound grief.
Themes: “Surprised by Joy” by William Wordsworth

1. Grief and Loss

At its core, “Surprised by Joy” explores the enduring pain of grief and the inescapable sense of loss that comes with the death of a loved one. The speaker’s fleeting moment of happiness is shattered by the realization that the person they instinctively wish to share it with is no longer alive. Lines such as “That thought’s return / Was the worst pang that sorrow ever bore” highlight the depth of the speaker’s anguish. The “silent Tomb” becomes a metaphor for the finality of death, reinforcing the permanence of separation. This theme resonates with readers as it captures the universal experience of mourning and the weight of memories that persist despite the passage of time.


2. The Conflict Between Joy and Sorrow

The poem delves into the contradictory emotions that arise in the wake of bereavement, particularly how moments of joy can unexpectedly amplify feelings of loss. The opening line, “Surprised by joy—impatient as the Wind”, introduces a rare, spontaneous experience of happiness. However, this joy is fleeting, as the speaker is quickly reminded of their “most grievous loss.” The juxtaposition of these emotions underscores the complexity of human experience, where joy and sorrow coexist, each intensifying the other. The poem poignantly illustrates how even happiness can serve as a painful reminder of what has been lost.


3. Memory and Love

Wordsworth portrays memory as a powerful force, intertwined with love, that keeps the departed alive in the speaker’s mind. The line “Love, faithful love, recalled thee to my mind” emphasizes the enduring nature of affection, which allows the deceased to remain an integral part of the speaker’s emotional world. Yet, memory also becomes a double-edged sword, as it brings both comfort and pain. The act of forgetting, even momentarily, feels like a betrayal to the speaker, evident in the rhetorical question, “But how could I forget thee?” Through this theme, the poem captures how love transcends time and death, keeping the bond with the lost loved one unbroken.


4. The Irreversibility of Death

A profound theme in the poem is the unalterable nature of death and the speaker’s painful acknowledgment of this truth. The line “That neither present time, nor years unborn / Could to my sight that heavenly face restore” reflects the finality of the loss and the speaker’s despair in knowing that no amount of time or longing can bridge the divide between the living and the dead. The “silent Tomb” symbolizes the irreversible separation, serving as a stark reminder that some absences are permanent. This theme underscores the inevitability of death and the human struggle to accept its permanence.

Literary Theories and “Surprised by Joy” by William Wordsworth
Literary TheoryApplication to “Surprised by Joy”References from the Poem
Psychoanalytic TheoryThis theory, derived from Freudian concepts, can be applied to explore the speaker’s subconscious struggle with grief and the repression of emotions. The fleeting moment of joy reveals an inner conflict between the desire to forget pain and the compulsion to remember.Lines like “But how could I forget thee?—Through what power” reflect the speaker’s guilt and emotional repression, as the unconscious mind betrays their effort to cope with loss.
Reader-Response TheoryThis theory examines how the poem evokes a deeply personal response from readers, as grief and the bittersweet interplay of joy and sorrow are universal experiences. Readers project their own emotions and experiences of loss onto the speaker’s journey.Phrases like “Love, faithful love, recalled thee to my mind” allow readers to empathize with the speaker’s enduring love and pain, making their interpretation deeply subjective and individual.
RomanticismAs a hallmark of the Romantic movement, this theory highlights Wordsworth’s focus on personal emotion, the natural interplay of joy and sorrow, and the spiritual connection to love and memory. The poem epitomizes Romantic ideals of introspection and emotional depth.The opening line, “Surprised by joy—impatient as the Wind,” reflects Romanticism’s emphasis on spontaneous feeling, while “That heavenly face” conveys the idealized memory of the deceased, blending emotion with transcendence.
Critical Questions about “Surprised by Joy” by William Wordsworth

1. How does Wordsworth convey the tension between joy and grief in the poem?

Wordsworth effectively conveys the tension between joy and grief through his sudden emotional shifts and the juxtaposition of contrasting imagery. The opening line, “Surprised by joy—impatient as the Wind,” captures an unanticipated moment of elation, yet the subsequent realization, “I turned to share the transport—Oh! with whom,” introduces a stark reminder of loss. This sharp contrast underscores the coexistence of joy and sorrow, where fleeting happiness only magnifies the absence of the loved one. The rhetorical question, “But how could I forget thee?” reflects the speaker’s inner turmoil as they grapple with guilt and the pain of remembrance. The tension arises from the unavoidable interplay of these emotions, portraying the complexity of grieving while living.


2. What role does memory play in the speaker’s experience of grief?

Memory acts as both a source of connection and a cause of anguish for the speaker. The line “Love, faithful love, recalled thee to my mind” suggests that love preserves the memory of the deceased, keeping them alive in the speaker’s heart. However, this act of remembrance also intensifies the pain, as forgetting even momentarily feels like a betrayal, evident in the question, “Through what power … Have I been so beguiled as to be blind / To my most grievous loss?” Memory binds the speaker to the past, making it impossible to escape the sorrow of their loss. It reflects the duality of memory as both a comfort and a burden, central to the grieving process.


3. How does Wordsworth use the sonnet form to structure the speaker’s emotional journey?

The Petrarchan sonnet form, with its octave and sestet division, mirrors the speaker’s emotional journey from an initial moment of joy to the eventual realization of grief. The octave introduces the fleeting happiness and abrupt remembrance of loss, as in the transition from “Surprised by joy” to “Oh! with whom.” The volta, or turn, occurs with the line “That thought’s return / Was the worst pang,” marking a shift from the memory of joy to the deeper contemplation of grief. The sestet reflects on the permanence of death, as seen in “That neither present time, nor years unborn / Could to my sight that heavenly face restore.” This structure reinforces the progression from momentary elation to the enduring reality of loss.


4. What does the poem suggest about the permanence of loss and the possibility of healing?

The poem emphasizes the unchangeable nature of loss and the struggle for healing. Lines like “That neither present time, nor years unborn / Could to my sight that heavenly face restore” highlight the permanence of death and the futility of longing for what is irretrievably gone. Healing seems elusive, as even a moment of joy is overshadowed by the sorrow of absence. Yet, the enduring presence of love, as suggested by “faithful love, recalled thee to my mind,” indicates that while the loss remains unhealed, the bond with the deceased offers a form of spiritual connection. The poem suggests that while time cannot undo loss, love and memory ensure that the departed remain a part of the speaker’s life.

Literary Works Similar to “Surprised by Joy” by William Wordsworth
  1. “When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom’d” by Walt Whitman
    Similar in its exploration of grief and mourning, Whitman’s elegy reflects on personal and collective loss, capturing the enduring pain of absence.
  2. Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night” by Dylan Thomas
    Like Wordsworth’s poem, this work grapples with the permanence of death and the tension between acceptance and resistance to loss.
  3. “Funeral Blues” by W.H. Auden
    This poem shares Wordsworth’s theme of overwhelming grief and the inability to reconcile with the absence of a loved one, expressed with vivid emotional intensity.
  4. “On My First Son” by Ben Jonson
    Jonson’s elegy mirrors Wordsworth’s lament for a deceased child, exploring themes of love, memory, and the permanence of loss.
  5. “To an Athlete Dying Young” by A.E. Housman
    Housman’s reflection on premature death resonates with Wordsworth’s meditation on the untimely loss of a loved one, blending sorrow with admiration for the deceased.
Representative Quotations of “Surprised by Joy” by William Wordsworth
QuotationContextTheoretical Perspective
“Surprised by joy—impatient as the Wind”The opening line introduces a spontaneous moment of joy, setting up the emotional shift toward grief that follows.Romanticism: Highlights Wordsworth’s emphasis on spontaneous emotion and nature’s influence on human feelings.
“I turned to share the transport—Oh! with whom”The speaker instinctively wishes to share their joy, only to realize the person they desire to share it with is gone.Psychoanalytic Theory: Reflects the subconscious desire for connection and the sudden confrontation with the reality of loss.
“But Thee, long buried in the silent Tomb”The speaker directly addresses the deceased, emphasizing their absence and the permanence of death.Reader-Response Theory: Encourages readers to reflect on their own experiences of loss and the inability to reconnect with the departed.
“Love, faithful love, recalled thee to my mind”Love becomes the force that triggers the memory of the lost loved one, demonstrating its enduring nature.Psychoanalytic Theory: Explores how love serves as a bridge between the conscious and subconscious, keeping memories alive.
“But how could I forget thee?”The speaker questions their brief lapse in memory, expressing guilt and self-reproach for forgetting even momentarily.Existentialism: Addresses the human struggle with memory, loss, and identity in the face of mortality.
“Have I been so beguiled as to be blind”The speaker reflects on how fleeting joy momentarily distracted them from the enduring sorrow of their loss.Romanticism: Examines the interplay of transient emotions and deeper truths about the human condition.
“That thought’s return / Was the worst pang”The speaker describes the renewed awareness of loss as a more intense pain than any other moment of grief.Reader-Response Theory: Resonates with readers’ experiences of grief reemerging unexpectedly, amplifying its emotional impact.
“Knowing my heart’s best treasure was no more”The speaker acknowledges the irreplaceable value of the lost loved one, emphasizing the depth of their sorrow.Psychoanalytic Theory: Examines how emotional bonds shape one’s psyche and the profound impact of their absence.
“That neither present time, nor years unborn”The speaker recognizes the permanence of their loss and the impossibility of regaining what has been taken by death.Existentialism: Highlights the inevitability of death and the unchanging nature of certain absences.
“Could to my sight that heavenly face restore.”The poem concludes with the speaker’s acknowledgment of the irretrievable nature of the loved one’s presence, cementing their grief.Romanticism: Suggests an idealized memory of the deceased, reflecting the Romantic focus on emotional and spiritual transcendence.
Suggested Readings: “Surprised by Joy” by William Wordsworth
  1. Thomas, Gordon K. “Surprised by Joy: Wordsworth and the Princes of Serendip.” The Wordsworth Circle 17.2 (1986): 80-87.
  2. Shokoff, James. “Wordsworth’s Duty as a Poet in ‘We Are Seven’ and ‘Surprised by Joy.’” The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, vol. 93, no. 2, 1994, pp. 228–39. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27710982. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
  3. Thomas, Gordon K. “Surprised by Joy: Wordsworth and the Princes of Serendip.” The Wordsworth Circle, vol. 17, no. 2, 1986, pp. 80–87. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24040518. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
  4. Carter, Margaret. “Joy and Memory: Wordsworth as Illuminated by C.S. Lewis.” Mythlore, vol. 17, no. 1 (63), 1990, pp. 9–19. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26812124. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
  5. Thron, E. Michael. “The Significance of Catherine Wordsworth’s Death to Thomas De Quincey and William Wordsworth.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, vol. 28, no. 4, 1988, pp. 559–67. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/450660. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.

“L’Allegro” by John Milton: A Critical Analysis

“L’Allegro” by John Milton, first appeared in 1645 as part of his Poems of Mr. John Milton, both English and Latin, is paired with its contrasting counterpart, Il Penseroso.

"L'Allegro" by John Milton: A Critical Analysis
Introduction: “L’Allegro” by John Milton

“L’Allegro” by John Milton, first appeared in 1645 as part of his Poems of Mr. John Milton, both English and Latin, is paired with its contrasting counterpart, Il Penseroso, explores the themes of joy and melancholy, presenting an idyllic celebration of mirth and the pleasures of a lively, pastoral life. Its vibrant imagery and melodic verse structure have cemented its status as a classic, often included in school syllabi for its literary richness and accessibility. The poem’s personification of abstract concepts like Mirth and Melancholy, alongside its vivid descriptions of rustic scenes, theatrical spectacles, and artistic beauty, contribute to its enduring popularity. As a school text, it introduces students to Milton’s mastery of language, his ability to blend classical references with natural imagery, and his philosophical exploration of human emotions and creativity.

Text: “L’Allegro” by John Milton

Hence loathed Melancholy,

Of Cerberus, and blackest Midnight born,

In Stygian cave forlorn,

      ‘Mongst horrid shapes, and shrieks, and sights unholy;

Find out some uncouth cell,

      Where brooding Darkness spreads his jealous wings,

And the night-raven sings;

      There under ebon shades, and low-brow’d rocks,

As ragged as thy locks,

      In dark Cimmerian desert ever dwell.

But come thou goddess fair and free,

In heav’n yclep’d Euphrosyne,

And by men, heart-easing Mirth,

Whom lovely Venus at a birth

With two sister Graces more

To Ivy-crowned Bacchus bore;

Or whether (as some sager sing)

The frolic wind that breathes the spring,

Zephyr, with Aurora playing,

As he met her once a-Maying,

There on beds of violets blue,

And fresh-blown roses wash’d in dew,

Fill’d her with thee, a daughter fair,

So buxom, blithe, and debonair.

Haste thee nymph, and bring with thee

Jest and youthful Jollity,

Quips and cranks, and wanton wiles,

Nods, and becks, and wreathed smiles,

Such as hang on Hebe’s cheek,

And love to live in dimple sleek;

Sport that wrinkled Care derides,

And Laughter holding both his sides.

Come, and trip it as ye go

On the light fantastic toe,

And in thy right hand lead with thee,

The mountain-nymph, sweet Liberty;

And if I give thee honour due,

Mirth, admit me of thy crew

To live with her, and live with thee,

In unreproved pleasures free;

To hear the lark begin his flight,

And singing startle the dull night,

From his watch-tower in the skies,

Till the dappled dawn doth rise;

Then to come in spite of sorrow,

And at my window bid good-morrow,

Through the sweet-briar, or the vine,

Or the twisted eglantine;

While the cock with lively din,

Scatters the rear of darkness thin,

And to the stack, or the barn door,

Stoutly struts his dames before;

Oft list’ning how the hounds and horn

Cheerly rouse the slumb’ring morn,

From the side of some hoar hill,

Through the high wood echoing shrill.

Sometime walking, not unseen,

By hedge-row elms, on hillocks green,

Right against the eastern gate,

Where the great Sun begins his state,

Rob’d in flames, and amber light,

The clouds in thousand liveries dight.

While the ploughman near at hand,

Whistles o’er the furrow’d land,

And the milkmaid singeth blithe,

And the mower whets his scythe,

And every shepherd tells his tale

Under the hawthorn in the dale.

Straight mine eye hath caught new pleasures

Whilst the landskip round it measures,

Russet lawns, and fallows gray,

Where the nibbling flocks do stray;

Mountains on whose barren breast

The labouring clouds do often rest;

Meadows trim with daisies pied,

Shallow brooks, and rivers wide.

Towers, and battlements it sees

Bosom’d high in tufted trees,

Where perhaps some beauty lies,

The cynosure of neighbouring eyes.

Hard by, a cottage chimney smokes,

From betwixt two aged oaks,

Where Corydon and Thyrsis met,

Are at their savoury dinner set

Of herbs, and other country messes,

Which the neat-handed Phyllis dresses;

And then in haste her bow’r she leaves,

With Thestylis to bind the sheaves;

Or if the earlier season lead

To the tann’d haycock in the mead.

Sometimes with secure delight

The upland hamlets will invite,

When the merry bells ring round,

And the jocund rebecks sound

To many a youth, and many a maid,

Dancing in the chequer’d shade;

And young and old come forth to play

On a sunshine holiday,

Till the live-long daylight fail;

Then to the spicy nut-brown ale,

With stories told of many a feat,

How Faery Mab the junkets eat,

She was pinch’d and pull’d she said,

And he by friar’s lanthorn led,

Tells how the drudging goblin sweat,

To earn his cream-bowl duly set,

When in one night, ere glimpse of morn,

His shadowy flail hath thresh’d the corn

That ten day-labourers could not end;

Then lies him down, the lubber fiend,

And stretch’d out all the chimney’s length,

Basks at the fire his hairy strength;

And crop-full out of doors he flings,

Ere the first cock his matin rings.

Thus done the tales, to bed they creep,

By whispering winds soon lull’d asleep.

Tower’d cities please us then,

And the busy hum of men,

Where throngs of knights and barons bold,

In weeds of peace high triumphs hold,

With store of ladies, whose bright eyes

Rain influence, and judge the prize

Of wit, or arms, while both contend

To win her grace, whom all commend.

There let Hymen oft appear

In saffron robe, with taper clear,

And pomp, and feast, and revelry,

With mask, and antique pageantry;

Such sights as youthful poets dream

On summer eves by haunted stream.

Then to the well-trod stage anon,

If Jonson’s learned sock be on,

Or sweetest Shakespeare, Fancy’s child,

Warble his native wood-notes wild.

And ever against eating cares,

Lap me in soft Lydian airs,

Married to immortal verse,

Such as the meeting soul may pierce

In notes with many a winding bout

Of linked sweetness long drawn out,

With wanton heed, and giddy cunning,

The melting voice through mazes running,

Untwisting all the chains that tie

The hidden soul of harmony;

That Orpheus’ self may heave his head

From golden slumber on a bed

Of heap’d Elysian flow’rs, and hear

Such strains as would have won the ear

Of Pluto, to have quite set free

His half-regain’d Eurydice.

These delights if thou canst give,

Mirth, with thee I mean to live.

Annotations: “L’Allegro” by John Milton
LinesAnnotation
Hence loathed Melancholy, Of Cerberus, and blackest Midnight born, In Stygian cave forlorn, ‘Mongst horrid shapes, and shrieks, and sights unholy;The poem begins with a rejection of melancholy, personified as a dreadful figure associated with darkness, the Underworld (Stygian cave), and mythological horror (Cerberus, the hound of Hades). This sets a contrast to Mirth.
Find out some uncouth cell, Where brooding Darkness spreads his jealous wings, And the night-raven sings; There under ebon shades, and low-brow’d rocks, As ragged as thy locks, In dark Cimmerian desert ever dwell.Milton dismisses Melancholy to a remote, gloomy place. The imagery of “ebon shades” and “Cimmerian desert” evokes desolation and perpetual darkness, reflecting the poet’s disdain for sorrow.
But come thou goddess fair and free, In heav’n yclep’d Euphrosyne, And by men, heart-easing Mirth, Whom lovely Venus at a birth With two sister Graces more To Ivy-crowned Bacchus bore;The poet shifts to invite Mirth, personified as Euphrosyne, a goddess associated with joy. Her divine lineage, linked to Venus and Bacchus, connects her to love and revelry, enhancing her appeal as a bringer of pleasure.
Or whether (as some sager sing) The frolic wind that breathes the spring, Zephyr, with Aurora playing, As he met her once a-Maying, There on beds of violets blue, And fresh-blown roses wash’d in dew, Fill’d her with thee, a daughter fair, So buxom, blithe, and debonair.An alternative origin myth for Mirth, tied to nature. Zephyr (the west wind) and Aurora (the dawn) are said to have conceived her in spring, associating Mirth with vitality, beauty, and charm, encapsulated in “buxom, blithe, debonair.”
Haste thee nymph, and bring with thee Jest and youthful Jollity, Quips and cranks, and wanton wiles, Nods, and becks, and wreathed smiles, Such as hang on Hebe’s cheek, And love to live in dimple sleek; Sport that wrinkled Care derides, And Laughter holding both his sides.A lively call for Mirth to bring various forms of joy, including humor, playfulness, and laughter. The reference to Hebe (goddess of youth) underscores the youthful vitality and carefree essence of Mirth.
Come, and trip it as ye go On the light fantastic toe, And in thy right hand lead with thee, The mountain-nymph, sweet Liberty;The poet invites Mirth to dance gracefully (“light fantastic toe”) and to accompany Liberty, symbolizing freedom and the unrestrained pleasures of life. The imagery evokes a joyous and liberated existence.
To hear the lark begin his flight, And singing startle the dull night, From his watch-tower in the skies, Till the dappled dawn doth rise;Morning imagery highlights nature’s vitality. The lark, a symbol of dawn and renewal, represents joy dispelling the darkness of night, echoing Mirth’s role in overcoming sorrow.
While the cock with lively din, Scatters the rear of darkness thin, And to the stack, or the barn door, Stoutly struts his dames before;The cock’s crow, a symbol of awakening, metaphorically scatters the remnants of darkness, aligning with the poem’s celebration of a lively, pastoral morning.
Sometimes with secure delight The upland hamlets will invite, When the merry bells ring round, And the jocund rebecks soundThe countryside is depicted as a haven of happiness and community. The “merry bells” and “jocund rebecks” (fiddle) evoke celebratory scenes of rural festivity and harmony.
These delights if thou canst give, Mirth, with thee I mean to live.The closing lines affirm the poet’s devotion to Mirth, seeking a life filled with joy and the pleasures described throughout the poem.
Literary And Poetic Devices: “L’Allegro” by John Milton
Literary DeviceExampleExplanation
Alliteration“Stoutly struts his dames before”Repetition of consonant sounds (e.g., “s” in stoutly, struts) creates a rhythmic and emphatic effect in the description of the rooster’s confident movement.
Allusion“Of Cerberus, and blackest Midnight born”Reference to Cerberus, the mythological guardian of the Underworld, enriches the theme of melancholy’s darkness.
Anaphora“And every shepherd tells his tale… And young and old come forth to play”Repetition of “And” at the beginning of successive clauses emphasizes continuity and abundance in the joyous pastoral scene.
Apostrophe“Haste thee nymph, and bring with thee Jest and youthful Jollity”Direct address to Mirth (personified as a nymph) creates a conversational and intimate tone.
Assonance“Through the sweet-briar, or the vine, Or the twisted eglantine”Repetition of vowel sounds (“i” in vine and eglantine) creates a melodic effect.
Consonance“Then to the well-trod stage anon, If Jonson’s learned sock be on”Repetition of consonant sounds in “n” and “t” creates a harmonious effect.
Enjambment“Till the dappled dawn doth rise; Then to come in spite of sorrow, And at my window bid good-morrow”Lines flow without punctuation, creating a seamless, flowing rhythm that mirrors the rising dawn.
Hyperbole“That ten day-labourers could not end”Exaggeration emphasizes the supernatural strength of the goblin.
Imagery“Russet lawns, and fallows gray, Where the nibbling flocks do stray”Vivid visual descriptions evoke the tranquil rural landscape, appealing to the senses.
Inversion“Find out some uncouth cell”Reversal of normal word order (“Find out” instead of “Find”) emphasizes the phrase poetically.
Metaphor“Brooding Darkness spreads his jealous wings”Darkness is metaphorically described as a brooding creature with wings, emphasizing its ominous nature.
Onomatopoeia“Cheerly rouse the slumb’ring morn, From the side of some hoar hill”The word “cheerly” mimics the sound of morning activities, enhancing the auditory imagery.
Oxymoron“Unreproved pleasures”Combines seemingly contradictory terms (pleasures that are beyond reproach), emphasizing the purity of joy.
Personification“Mirth, with thee I mean to live”Abstract concepts like Mirth and Melancholy are personified as living beings, making them relatable and tangible.
Repetition“Come, and trip it as ye go… Come thou goddess fair and free”Repeated use of “come” reinforces the invocation and urgency for Mirth’s arrival.
Simile“Such as hang on Hebe’s cheek”Compares Mirth’s attributes to the youthful beauty of Hebe, emphasizing grace and vitality.
Symbolism“The mountain-nymph, sweet Liberty”Liberty symbolizes freedom and uninhibited joy, a central theme of the poem.
Synecdoche“The busy hum of men”Refers to human activity through a single sensory aspect (the hum), representing the bustling nature of city life.
Tone“Sport that wrinkled Care derides, And Laughter holding both his sides”The tone is light-hearted and celebratory, aligning with the poem’s theme of joy.
Visual Imagery“Rob’d in flames, and amber light, The clouds in thousand liveries dight”Detailed description of the sunrise creates a vivid visual image, adding to the poem’s vibrant setting.
Themes: “L’Allegro” by John Milton
  • Celebration of Joy and Mirth
  • The central theme of “L’Allegro” is the celebration of joy and mirth as essential components of a fulfilling life. Milton personifies Mirth as a goddess, “In heav’n yclep’d Euphrosyne,” who is invoked to bring “Jest and youthful Jollity.” The poet envisions a life filled with laughter, music, and cheer, describing how Mirth drives away “wrinkled Care” and brings “Laughter holding both his sides.” The poem emphasizes the uplifting power of joy, illustrating its role in creating a vibrant and harmonious existence.
  • The Beauty of Nature
  • Milton vividly captures the pastoral beauty of the countryside, portraying it as a source of inspiration and delight. He describes a landscape filled with “Russet lawns, and fallows gray, Where the nibbling flocks do stray,” and the morning sounds of the lark and the cock that “Scatters the rear of darkness thin.” The natural world is depicted not only as a backdrop to joy but as an active participant in the celebration of life, with imagery of dawn, flowers, and lively rural activities underscoring the interconnectedness of joy and nature.
  • The Pleasures of Rural Life
  • Milton contrasts the simplicity and charm of rural life with the bustling activity of the city, presenting the countryside as a sanctuary of happiness and tranquility. Scenes of milkmaids singing, shepherds sharing tales “Under the hawthorn in the dale,” and the sound of “merry bells” ringing in the hamlets evoke a sense of community and contentment. This romanticized vision of rural life emphasizes the poet’s belief in the purity and peace found in pastoral settings, which are conducive to mirth and creativity.
  • The Value of Artistic and Intellectual Pursuits
  • In addition to physical joy, Milton highlights the intellectual and artistic pleasures that contribute to human happiness. He refers to cultural icons like Shakespeare, “Warble his native wood-notes wild,” and Ben Jonson, “If Jonson’s learned sock be on,” to emphasize the transformative power of art and literature. Music also plays a significant role, with the poet desiring to be “Lap[ped] in soft Lydian airs, Married to immortal verse.” This theme reflects Milton’s broader view that art and culture are integral to a joyous and meaningful life.
Literary Theories and “L’Allegro” by John Milton
Literary TheoryApplication to “L’Allegro”References from the Poem
RomanticismWhile predating the Romantic period, “L’Allegro” reflects Romantic ideals with its emphasis on nature’s beauty, individual emotion, and imaginative vision.The vivid descriptions of the natural world, such as “Russet lawns, and fallows gray,” and the “lark begin his flight,” evoke a deep connection between human emotions and the pastoral setting.
PastoralismMilton employs pastoral elements to idealize rural life as a source of happiness, contrasting it with the urban complexities of civilization.Imagery of shepherds under the hawthorn, “milkmaid singeth blithe,” and scenes of rustic leisure highlight the poem’s celebration of the simplicity of rural existence.
Classical HumanismThe poem integrates classical mythology and highlights the value of intellect, creativity, and human potential, resonating with Classical Humanist ideals.References to Euphrosyne, Bacchus, and the Muses, alongside cultural tributes to Shakespeare and Jonson, underscore the intellectual and artistic aspirations celebrated in the poem.
Critical Questions about “L’Allegro” by John Milton
  • How does Milton use personification in “L’Allegro” to explore abstract concepts like joy and melancholy?
  • Milton employs personification to vividly depict abstract concepts, making them accessible and relatable. Mirth is personified as a goddess, “In heav’n yclep’d Euphrosyne,” whose divine attributes embody joy and liveliness. Conversely, Melancholy is described with dark and eerie imagery as a sinister being born “Of Cerberus, and blackest Midnight,” residing in a “Stygian cave forlorn.” By attributing human characteristics and mythological origins to these concepts, Milton creates a dramatic contrast that underscores the emotional and philosophical divide between joy and sorrow.
  • How does “L’Allegro” reflect Milton’s views on the relationship between humanity and nature?
  • Milton portrays nature as an integral source of joy and inspiration, deeply intertwined with human happiness. The poem features idyllic pastoral imagery, such as “Meadows trim with daisies pied” and “Shallow brooks, and rivers wide,” which symbolize harmony and tranquility. The morning lark and the vibrant sunrise, “Till the dappled dawn doth rise,” illustrate nature’s role in dispelling darkness and sorrow, mirroring the poet’s belief in nature’s restorative power. This perspective aligns with the pastoral tradition, celebrating the interconnectedness of humanity and the natural world.
  • What role does artistic and intellectual engagement play in the joy celebrated in “L’Allegro”?
  • Milton emphasizes the transformative power of art and intellect as essential components of joy. References to theatrical performances, such as “If Jonson’s learned sock be on” and “Warble his native wood-notes wild” for Shakespeare, showcase the cultural and emotional fulfillment derived from art. Additionally, the desire to be “Lap[ped] in soft Lydian airs, Married to immortal verse” highlights the elevation of the soul through music and poetry. These artistic pursuits underscore Milton’s belief in the intellectual enrichment and spiritual resonance that contribute to a joyful life.
  • 4. How does Milton contrast rural and urban life in “L’Allegro”?
  • Milton contrasts the simplicity and purity of rural life with the structured vibrancy of urban settings, presenting both as sources of joy. Rural life is depicted as harmonious and tranquil, with images of “milkmaid singeth blithe” and shepherds sharing tales “Under the hawthorn in the dale.” Urban life, while more dynamic, is celebrated for its cultural and social delights, such as the “busy hum of men” and the grandeur of “Tower’d cities.” This duality reflects Milton’s appreciation for both the simplicity of nature and the intellectual stimulation of civilization.
Literary Works Similar to “L’Allegro” by John Milton
  1. “Il Penseroso” by John Milton: This companion poem contrasts “L’Allegro” by celebrating the contemplative, melancholic mood, mirroring the dichotomy between mirth and thoughtfulness.
  2. “To Autumn” by John Keats: Keats’ poem shares a similar pastoral focus, capturing the beauty of rural life and the harmonious relationship between nature and human emotion.
  3. “Ode to Joy” by Friedrich Schiller: Though later set to music by Beethoven, this poem celebrates the unifying and elevating power of joy, akin to the thematic essence of “L’Allegro.”
  4. “The Solitary Reaper” by William Wordsworth: This poem reflects on the transformative power of rural life and music, much like Milton’s vivid depiction of nature and mirth.
Representative Quotations of “L’Allegro” by John Milton
QuotationContextTheoretical Perspective
“Hence loathed Melancholy, Of Cerberus, and blackest Midnight born”The poem opens with a rejection of Melancholy, associating it with darkness and mythological dread.Psychoanalytic: Represents a conscious distancing from negative emotions and the embrace of joy.
“But come thou goddess fair and free, In heav’n yclep’d Euphrosyne”Invocation of Mirth as a goddess, symbolizing joy and freedom.Classical Humanism: Draws on Greco-Roman mythology to represent abstract emotions as divine and aspirational.
“Haste thee nymph, and bring with thee Jest and youthful Jollity”A call for Mirth to bring light-heartedness and the vitality of youth.Romanticism: Highlights the imaginative and emotional appeal of joy through idealized imagery.
“To hear the lark begin his flight, And singing startle the dull night”Description of the morning lark as a symbol of awakening and renewal.Ecocriticism: Reflects humanity’s deep connection with and inspiration from the natural world.
“Russet lawns, and fallows gray, Where the nibbling flocks do stray”A pastoral depiction of the countryside as tranquil and idyllic.Pastoralism: Idealizes rural life, emphasizing its simplicity and harmony with nature.
“Come, and trip it as ye go On the light fantastic toe”A lively invitation to dance and revel in mirth.Aestheticism: Focuses on the beauty of motion and the artistic expression of joy.
“If Jonson’s learned sock be on, Or sweetest Shakespeare, Fancy’s child”Reference to theatrical art, celebrating Jonson’s wit and Shakespeare’s natural creativity.New Historicism: Reflects cultural and literary influences of Milton’s time, particularly the English Renaissance.
“The mountain-nymph, sweet Liberty”Liberty is personified as a companion to Mirth, symbolizing freedom and uninhibited joy.Political Philosophy: Connects personal joy with the concept of freedom, a key Enlightenment ideal.
“With stories told of many a feat, How Faery Mab the junkets eat”Recounts folklore and fantastical tales shared in the evening.Mythological Criticism: Engages with cultural myths and fairy tales to enrich the narrative with universal motifs.
“These delights if thou canst give, Mirth, with thee I mean to live”Concluding lines affirm the poet’s devotion to a life filled with mirth and pleasure.Existentialism: Suggests a conscious choice to embrace joy and create a fulfilling life.
Suggested Readings: “L’Allegro” by John Milton
  1. STRINGER, GARY. “The Unity of ‘L’Allegro’ and ‘Ll Penseroso.'” Texas Studies in Literature and Language, vol. 12, no. 2, 1970, pp. 221–29. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40754095. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
  2. HERMAN, PETER C. “Milton and the Muse-Haters: ‘Ad Patrem, L’Allegro/Il Penseroso’, and the Ambivalences of Poetry.” Criticism, vol. 37, no. 1, 1995, pp. 37–56. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23116576. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
  3. Miller, David M. “From Delusion to Illumination: A Larger Structure for L’Allegro-Il Penseroso.” PMLA, vol. 86, no. 1, 1971, pp. 32–39. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/460999. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
  4. Bates, Brian. “‘Welcome Joy, and Welcome Sorrow’: Fancy, Imagination, and Keats’s Re-Visioning of ‘L’Allegro’ and ‘Il Penseroso.'” CEA Critic, vol. 67, no. 3, 2005, pp. 15–27. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44377602. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
  5. JOHNSON, RICHARD M. “The Politics of Publication: Misrepresentation in Milton’s 1645 ‘Poems.'” Criticism, vol. 36, no. 1, 1994, pp. 45–71. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23116624. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.

“Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique

“Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in MLN: Modern Language Notes, Volume 91, No. 6, in December 1976.

"Presupposition and Intertextuality" by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler

“Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in MLN: Modern Language Notes, Volume 91, No. 6, in December 1976, under the Comparative Literature section, published by The Johns Hopkins University Press. This seminal essay explores the intricate relationship between presupposition and intertextuality, arguing that every text exists within a discursive space shaped by prior texts, conventions, and cultural codes. Culler emphasizes that understanding literary works involves recognizing their dependence on pre-existing discourse rather than treating them as isolated artifacts. The essay advances literary theory by reorienting the study of texts toward their intertextual dimensions, proposing that texts derive meaning not only from explicit references to earlier works but also from the implicit presuppositions they embed. This framework underscores the interconnectedness of literature, its historical and cultural sedimentations, and the interpretive practices that sustain it. By doing so, Culler’s work provides critical insights into the institutional nature of literature and challenges traditional notions of originality and influence, making it a cornerstone in modern literary and critical theory.

Summary of “Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler
  1. Intertextuality as a Theoretical Construct
    Culler posits that all texts exist within a “discursive space,” relying on previous texts, conventions, and codes for meaning. The concept of intertextuality challenges the autonomy of literary works by emphasizing their connections to prior discourse, making meaning contingent on shared cultural and textual practices. As he explains, “utterances or texts are never moments of origin because they depend on the prior existence of codes and conventions” (Culler, 1976, p. 1382).
  2. Presupposition and Textual Significance
    Presupposition, both logical and rhetorical, is central to Culler’s argument. Logical presupposition refers to the necessary truths implied by a sentence, while rhetorical presupposition involves broader interpretive contexts. For example, Baudelaire’s poetry presupposes a poetic tradition, treating it as a pre-existing discourse, which frames the reader’s interpretation (Culler, 1976, p. 1390). This highlights how literary texts depend on implicit references to prior works.
  3. Literature as an Intertextual Dialogue
    Culler’s essay underscores that literature is not a standalone creation but an “absorption, parody, and criticism” of prior texts. Writing and reading are acts that position texts within the larger context of cultural and historical discourse, aligning with Julia Kristeva’s view of intertextuality: “the notion of intersubjectivity is replaced by that of intertextuality” (Culler, 1976, p. 1383).
  4. The Challenges of Intertextual Analysis
    The vastness of intertextual connections makes it difficult to pinpoint specific influences, often leading critics to narrow their focus. For instance, while Harold Bloom compresses intertextuality into a poet’s struggle with a single precursor, Culler critiques this as reductive, favoring broader considerations of genre, conventions, and implicit discourse (Culler, 1976, pp. 1387-1388).
  5. Practical Implications of Intertextuality
    Intertextuality reshapes how literature is interpreted. Culler suggests that instead of tracing direct sources, critics should study the conventions and assumptions underlying a work’s intelligibility. This shifts focus from “source-hunting” to understanding the implicit codes that make texts meaningful (Culler, 1976, p. 1384).
  6. Presupposition in Linguistics and Literature
    Drawing on linguistic models, Culler distinguishes between logical presuppositions (e.g., grammatical structures) and pragmatic presuppositions (e.g., genre conventions). This dual approach reveals how presuppositions create intertextual spaces by embedding prior discourse within a text (Culler, 1976, pp. 1389-1390).
  7. The Role of Rhetorical Presupposition
    Rhetorical presupposition opens intertextual spaces where texts interact with prior assumptions and conventions. Culler uses examples from Baudelaire and Blake to illustrate how poems presuppose traditions or attitudes, shaping the interpretive process (Culler, 1976, p. 1391).
  8. Avoiding Source Study and Canonical Limitations
    Culler cautions against reducing intertextuality to direct influences or canonical relationships, as in Bloom’s model. Instead, he advocates for exploring the broader systems of conventions and practices that constitute literary production and interpretation (Culler, 1976, p. 1395).
  9. Intertextuality’s Contribution to Poetics
    Culler concludes that intertextuality contributes to the study of literature by focusing on conventions, genres, and the implicit assumptions underlying texts. It offers a framework for understanding literature as an institution shaped by cultural and historical discourse (Culler, 1976, pp. 1395-1396).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler
Term/ConceptDefinition/ExplanationSignificance
IntertextualityThe idea that texts derive meaning through their relationship to prior texts, discourses, and conventions.Emphasizes the non-autonomous nature of texts and situates them within broader cultural systems.
PresuppositionAssumptions or implicit truths embedded within a text, which contribute to its meaning.Highlights how texts rely on shared knowledge or prior discourse to be intelligible and significant.
Logical PresuppositionPropositions that must be true for a sentence to have meaning, based on linguistic structure.Connects individual sentences to implicit assumptions, creating a foundational intertextual layer.
Rhetorical PresuppositionThe broader interpretive contexts, such as genre or cultural assumptions, that shape how a text is understood.Reflects the interaction between a text and its cultural and interpretive frameworks.
Discursive SpaceThe cultural and textual environment in which a text exists, encompassing shared codes and conventions.Situates texts within a broader system of meaning, linking them to historical and cultural practices.
Genre ConventionsRules and norms associated with specific literary forms or genres that influence interpretation.Shows how genre provides a framework for both creating and interpreting texts.
Pragmatic PresuppositionAssumptions about the situational context that enable a text to function as a particular kind of discourse.Explains the functional relationship between text, context, and reader expectations.
Deja LuA term by Roland Barthes referring to the sense that textual elements are already read, part of a shared cultural lexicon.Reinforces the idea that texts are inherently intertextual and refer to pre-existing codes.
Intertextual CodesThe implicit conventions and references that make a text intelligible within its cultural context.Identifies the underlying structures that connect texts to their intertextual networks.
ApplicationThe act of interpreting one text by applying the framework or discourse of another.Explores the dynamic interaction between texts in the interpretive process.
Antithetical CriticismHarold Bloom’s concept of reading texts as engaged in a psychological struggle with their precursors.Narrows intertextuality to a competitive relationship, contrasting with broader views like Culler’s.
Institution of LiteratureThe idea that literature operates within established systems of norms, practices, and expectations.Positions literary texts as products and participants of cultural and institutional frameworks.
Contribution of “Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Contribution to Intertextuality

  • Definition Expansion: Culler refines Julia Kristeva’s concept of intertextuality by emphasizing its dependence not only on prior texts but also on shared conventions and discursive codes.
    Reference: “The notion of intertextuality names the paradox… that utterances or texts are never moments of origin because they depend on the prior existence of codes and conventions” (Culler, 1382).

2. Relationship with Structuralism

  • Text as a System: Aligning with structuralist theory, Culler asserts that texts derive meaning through their place in a larger system of conventions and codes.
    Reference: “Writing itself is a similar activity: a taking up of a position in a discursive space” (Culler, 1383).

3. Pragmatic and Logical Presuppositions

  • Integration with Linguistics: Culler borrows from linguistic theories, distinguishing between logical presuppositions (required for a sentence’s truth) and pragmatic presuppositions (contextual appropriateness).
    Reference: “Logical presuppositions relate sentences of a text to another set of sentences… pragmatic presuppositions concern relations between utterance and the situation of utterance” (Culler, 1390-1391).

4. Development of Genre Theory

  • Conventions as Key: Culler situates texts within the framework of genre, asserting that conventions govern interpretation.
    Reference: “A poetics… relates a literary work to a whole series of other works, treating them not as sources but as constituents of a genre” (Culler, 1395).

5. Critical Engagement with Influence Theory

  • Critique of Harold Bloom: Culler critiques Bloom’s “anxiety of influence,” arguing that it overly narrows intertextuality to relationships between individual authors. Instead, Culler emphasizes the role of anonymous and diffuse codes.
    Reference: “Intertextuality is less a relationship between individuals… and more the anonymous discursive practices, codes whose origins are lost” (Culler, 1386).

6. Shift from Source Study to Discursive Practices

  • Beyond Sources: Culler advocates moving past traditional source studies, focusing instead on the systemic conditions enabling textual production and interpretation.
    Reference: “The study of intertextuality is not the investigation of sources and influences… it casts its net wider to include anonymous discursive practices” (Culler, 1384).

7. Application to Poetics

  • Presupposition in Literature: Culler identifies presupposition as a key mechanism in literature, shaping how texts implicitly position themselves in relation to prior discourse.
    Reference: “Logical presupposition is an intertextual operator which implies a discursive context” (Culler, 1391).

8. Reader-Response Implications

  • Role of the Reader: Culler’s exploration of intertextuality and presupposition underscores the role of the reader in bringing shared codes to interpretation.
    Reference: “Readers, in whom these conventions dwell, are the representatives of a general intertextuality” (Culler, 1382).

9. Contribution to Poststructuralism

  • Decentralization of Meaning: By emphasizing the lost origins of conventions, Culler contributes to poststructuralist ideas about the instability and multiplicity of textual meaning.
    Reference: “Conventions… have a lost origin… the intertextuality of texts evades description” (Culler, 1382).

10. Foundations for Interpretive Theories

  • Strong Readings and Application: Culler’s discussion of “application”—the interaction of one discourse with another—provides a framework for robust interpretive strategies.
    Reference: “The interpretive uses of the notion of intertextuality… contribute to that poetics of reading” (Culler, 1396).
Examples of Critiques Through “Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler
Literary WorkCritique Through PresuppositionCritique Through Intertextuality
Baudelaire’s “Bénédiction”Presupposes the poet’s divine role by beginning with “Lorsque par un décret des puissances suprêmes,” placing this as a prior discourse.Frames the poem as engaging with a mythical tradition about the poet, transforming and questioning these inherited narratives.
Blake’s “The Tyger”Questions presuppose an immortal creator and the fearful symmetry of the tiger, referencing an implicit prior discourse.Interacts with religious texts and Enlightenment ideals, positioning the tiger as a symbolic critique of divine creation.
T.S. Eliot’s The Waste LandPresupposes familiarity with myths, historical events, and literary allusions to create a fragmented but coherent narrative.Intertextually dialogues with works like Dante’s Inferno, the Bible, and fertility myths, constructing a layered text.
Joyce’s UlyssesPresupposes knowledge of Homer’s Odyssey and Irish cultural identity, embedding its structure within prior epic narratives.Rewrites and parodies the epic tradition, transforming classical themes into modernist explorations of everyday life.
Criticism Against “Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler
  • Ambiguity of Intertextual Boundaries
    Culler’s concept of intertextuality is criticized for its vagueness in defining the scope of intertextual references, as it can potentially encompass an infinite range of texts and discourses.
  • Overemphasis on Textual Networks
    Critics argue that Culler’s focus on textual interrelations underplays the role of historical, cultural, and socio-political contexts in shaping literary meaning.
  • Neglect of Authorial Intention
    Culler’s framework dismisses authorial intent as irrelevant, which some critics see as a limitation in understanding the nuanced motivations and creative decisions of writers.
  • Dependence on Reader Competence
    The theory heavily relies on readers’ ability to recognize and engage with presuppositions and intertextual codes, which may not be universally accessible or evident.
  • Risk of Reductionism
    By framing texts as primarily intertextual constructs, the theory risks reducing literature to a closed system of texts, ignoring the experiential and emotional aspects of literary engagement.
  • Challenges in Practical Application
    Applying Culler’s theory to specific texts can lead to reductive source-hunting or speculative connections, undermining its broader theoretical claims.
  • Limited Consideration of Non-Canonical Texts
    The focus on canonical works and their intertextual dialogues may marginalize non-canonical or culturally diverse literatures, which may not engage with established “codes” or conventions.
Representative Quotations from “Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“A piece of writing presupposes … what must it assume to take on significance?”Culler emphasizes that texts inherently rely on pre-existing knowledge or assumptions (presuppositions), without which their meaning cannot be constructed. This connects to intertextuality by rooting texts in broader discursive frameworks.
“The notion of intertextuality names the paradox of linguistic and discursive systems.”Intertextuality, as per Culler, refers to the inevitable dependence of texts on prior conventions and codes, highlighting that no text is original in a vacuum. It exists as part of an ongoing system of textual relationships.
“Texts are never moments of origin because they depend on the prior existence of codes and conventions.”This reflects the central idea that texts are constructed within a network of intertextuality, where meaning emerges through engagement with already established discourses and systems, not as standalone entities.
“To read is to place a work in a discursive space, relating it to other texts and to the codes of that space.”Reading is seen as an act of contextualization, where the significance of a text is derived by positioning it within a broader literary and cultural system, emphasizing intertextuality as the lens for interpretation.
“A text refers to or cites bits of discourse which are ‘anonymes, irreperables, et cependant deja lus’.”Borrowing from Roland Barthes, Culler notes that intertextual references in texts are often anonymous and irretrievable, yet they operate as if they have been previously read, creating a complex web of implicit connections.
“Logical presuppositions are what must be true for a proposition to be either true or false.”Culler connects linguistic presuppositions to literature, where logical premises are embedded in the text, influencing its interpretation. This analytical tool helps unpack how texts signal prior knowledge without overt articulation.
“Presuppositions are what allow a work to identify itself with the already-read.”Here, Culler underscores the role of presuppositions in connecting texts to prior literary or cultural knowledge, positioning them within a broader network of understanding, which is central to intertextuality.
“Intertextuality designates the domain common to writing and reading.”Intertextuality bridges the act of writing and reading, emphasizing their shared dependence on existing texts, codes, and conventions. This challenges the notion of textual originality or autonomy.
“By presupposing sentences, works treat them as prior discourse.”This statement shows how authors position certain ideas as already established, situating their work in relation to prior texts or discourses and relying on readers to recognize these implicit references.
“A poetics of this kind finds its raison d’être in the intertextual nature of literary works.”Culler suggests that understanding the conventions and frameworks underpinning texts is crucial to literary theory, as intertextuality is fundamental to how literature functions as an institution and practice.
Suggested Readings: “Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler
  1. Culler, Jonathan. “Presupposition and Intertextuality.” MLN, vol. 91, no. 6, 1976, pp. 1380–96. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2907142. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
  2. Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
  3. Landwehr, Margarete. “Introduction: Literature and the Visual Arts; Questions of Influence and Intertextuality.” College Literature, vol. 29, no. 3, 2002, pp. 1–16. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25112655. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
  4. Alfaro, María Jesús Martínez. “INTERTEXTUALITY: ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT.” Atlantis, vol. 18, no. 1/2, 1996, pp. 268–85. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41054827. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
  5. Toyama, Jean Yamasaki. “Intertextuality and the Question of Origins: A Japanese Perspective.” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 27, no. 4, 1990, pp. 313–23. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40246769. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.

“Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi: Summary and Critique

“Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi, first appeared in 1992 in the Journal of Gender Studies, explores the concept of femininity through the lens of feminist literary theory.

"Femininity Revisited" by Toril Moi: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi

“Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi, first appeared in 1992 in the Journal of Gender Studies, explores the concept of femininity through the lens of feminist literary theory, engaging with thinkers like Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva, and Jacques Lacan. Moi critiques the essentialist and sometimes ahistorical tendencies of feminist theories that align femininity with particular biological or cultural markers, emphasizing the importance of analyzing femininity as a construct shaped by patriarchal systems. She evaluates competing feminist approaches, such as Irigaray’s advocacy for a distinct feminine signification system versus Kristeva’s psychoanalytic interpretations, and underscores the necessity of situating such theories within broader socio-political contexts. The article’s significance lies in its rigorous critique and its call for a feminism that transcends restrictive notions of femininity, making it a landmark contribution to feminist theory and literary criticism.

Summary of “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi
  • Critique of Essentialist Feminism:
    Toril Moi critiques essentialist feminist theories that align femininity with fixed biological or symbolic characteristics. She challenges Luce Irigaray and Elizabeth Grosz’s proposal of an autonomous feminine signification system, arguing that such ideas are inherently restrictive and risk becoming “ahistorical” frameworks (Moi, 326). Moi emphasizes that femininity must be understood as a construct shaped by patriarchal systems and historical contexts rather than an intrinsic or essential quality.
  • Comparison of Theoretical Perspectives:
    Moi contrasts Luce Irigaray’s assertion that language is fundamentally “phallocentric” and thus necessitates a separate feminine economy of signification with Julia Kristeva’s psychoanalytic perspective, which sees Lacan’s theory of the phallus as a non-gendered, structural absence. According to Moi, Irigaray’s interpretation assumes the phallus “represents the penis,” while Kristeva and others argue it signifies a “transcendental” concept of difference that both genders relate to but cannot fully embody (Moi, 326-327). Moi critiques Grosz for presenting feminism almost exclusively through an Irigarayan lens, a move that risks “closing down debates that need to be opened up” (Moi, 326).
  • Rejection of Restrictive Feminine Ideals:
    Moi strongly critiques Irigaray and Hélène Cixous for advancing notions of femininity that impose restrictive frameworks. She finds Irigaray’s biologically influenced metaphors, such as the “two lips,” to be reductive and argues that they force femininity into rigid forms (Moi, 329). Similarly, she critiques écriture féminine for advocating an aesthetic ideal rooted in specific cultural and historical contexts, questioning its accessibility and relevance. Moi asserts that such frameworks risk reinforcing patriarchal ideas rather than dismantling them, stating that “femininity is a patriarchal problem” and should not become a feminist question (Moi, 334).
  • Femininity as a Patriarchal Problem:
    The article emphasizes that femininity is a construct designed to perpetuate patriarchal systems rather than an inherent identity. Moi calls for feminist theory to move beyond debates over femininity, focusing instead on dismantling the structural inequalities that shape women’s lives. She argues, “Feminists must therefore be able to analyse the phenomenon more persuasively than any patriarch could ever do” (Moi, 334). For Moi, the feminist project should prioritize inclusivity and equity rather than adhering to prescriptive ideals of femininity.
  • Interdisciplinary Approach to Feminism:
    Moi concludes by advocating for an integration of psychoanalytic theories with socio-political analysis, critiquing écriture féminine for failing to engage with the material realities of women’s lives. She states, “Such analyses must be integrated with the study of the specific social, political and economic determinants of women’s lives and texts” (Moi, 333). While acknowledging the insights psychoanalysis offers, Moi urges feminists to ground their theories in historical and social contexts to create a more inclusive and impactful feminist praxis.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi
Term/ConceptDefinition/ExplanationContext in the Article
FemininityA construct shaped by patriarchal systems, historically and socially contingent, rather than an inherent or essential quality.Critiqued as a patriarchal problem; Moi calls for its analysis rather than its acceptance as a feminist category (Moi, 334).
PhallocentrismThe idea that language and culture are centered around the phallus as a symbol of difference and authority.Irigaray critiques it as inherently oppressive; Moi explores alternative feminist engagements with this concept (Moi, 326).
The PhallusA Lacanian concept signifying the primary marker of sexual difference, transcendent and unattainable by either sex.Differently interpreted by feminists like Irigaray (as the penis) and Kristeva (as a structural absence) (Moi, 326-327).
Écriture FéminineA style of writing emphasizing fluidity, openness, and embodied experience, often associated with Hélène Cixous.Moi critiques it for being idealistic and ahistorical, limiting its relevance to broader feminist praxis (Moi, 329-333).
Autonomous SignificationIrigaray’s proposal for a feminine system of meaning that exists independently of the phallocentric symbolic order.Moi critiques this as biologically reductive and reliant on essentialist assumptions (Moi, 327-329).
Empty vs. Full DifferenceLacan’s notion of sexual difference as structurally “empty” (without fixed meaning) vs. Irigaray’s “full” (biological) view.Moi advocates for the former as more adaptable to feminist critiques of sexual difference (Moi, 328).
Strategic EssentialismThe deliberate use of essentialist arguments to achieve political aims, particularly in feminist theory.Irigaray’s approach is discussed as strategically essentialist; Moi critiques its limitations (Moi, 326-327).
Psychoanalysis in FeminismThe application of psychoanalytic theories to understand sexual difference and subjectivity.Moi urges integrating psychoanalysis with socio-political analysis for feminist theory (Moi, 333).
Patriarchal ConstructA system of values and meanings imposed by patriarchal authority to sustain gender hierarchies.Femininity is framed as a patriarchal construct, not inherently feminist (Moi, 334).
Gender and Symbolic OrderThe organization of social and cultural meaning based on binary gender roles and phallocentric language.Moi critiques Irigaray’s approach for failing to engage with broader social and political implications (Moi, 327-329).
Contribution of “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi to Literary Theory/Theories
  • Deconstruction of Essentialist Feminist Theories:
    Moi critiques the essentialist underpinnings of theories like those of Luce Irigaray, emphasizing that femininity is a socially constructed concept rather than an innate quality. This challenges essentialist feminist interpretations in literary and cultural theory, pushing for a historically grounded understanding of gender constructs (Moi, 326-328).
  • Critique of Phallocentrism and Psychoanalytic Feminism:
    Moi engages with Lacan’s concept of the phallus and feminist critiques of psychoanalysis. By differentiating between Lacan’s “empty” and “full” signification of sexual difference, Moi highlights the importance of understanding gender in terms of structural absence rather than biological determinism, contributing to feminist psychoanalytic approaches (Moi, 326-327).
  • Analysis of Écriture Féminine:
    Moi critiques Hélène Cixous’s concept of écriture féminine as overly idealistic and tied to specific aesthetic and cultural contexts. Her argument that feminine writing risks perpetuating exclusionary ideals expands literary theory’s understanding of gendered textual practices (Moi, 329-333).
  • Interdisciplinary Integration in Feminist Theory:
    The article calls for integrating psychoanalytic insights with socio-political and historical analyses to address the broader determinants of women’s lives and texts. This interdisciplinary approach contributes to feminist literary theory by bridging gaps between psychoanalysis, history, and politics (Moi, 333).
  • Challenging the Canonization of Feminist Thinkers:
    Moi critiques the tendency to valorize certain feminist theorists (e.g., Irigaray) while dismissing others (e.g., Kristeva). This challenges literary theory to adopt more inclusive and balanced evaluations of feminist contributions (Moi, 326).
  • Reframing Femininity as a Patriarchal Construct:
    Moi positions femininity not as a feminist question but as a patriarchal problem requiring critical analysis. This reframing influences literary theory by encouraging scholars to deconstruct gendered constructs in texts and cultural representations (Moi, 334).
  • Feminism Beyond Textual Practices:
    By critiquing the focus on textual and aesthetic ideals (e.g., écriture féminine), Moi advocates for feminist theories that prioritize broader social and political transformations, enriching feminist literary criticism with a focus on structural change (Moi, 334).
Examples of Critiques Through “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi
Literary WorkKey Themes in the WorkCritique Through “Femininity Revisited”
Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second SexExistentialist feminism; equality between sexes; critique of gender roles.Moi aligns more with Beauvoir’s approach, advocating for social, political, and economic equality over restrictive ideals of femininity (Moi, 334).
Hélène Cixous’s The Laugh of the MedusaAdvocacy for écriture féminine; celebration of feminine writing and difference.Moi critiques Cixous’s idealization of feminine writing as overly romantic and rooted in a specific cultural aesthetic, limiting its universal applicability (Moi, 329-333).
Julia Kristeva’s Revolution in Poetic LanguagePsychoanalytic theory of the semiotic; maternal influences on language and creativity.Moi defends Kristeva’s view of sexual difference as structurally empty and critiques Grosz’s reduction of Kristeva’s work to patriarchal compliance (Moi, 326-328).
Elizabeth Grosz’s Jacques Lacan: A Feminist IntroductionFeminist critique of Lacanian psychoanalysis; alignment with Irigaray.Moi criticizes Grosz’s uncritical reliance on Irigarayan feminism, arguing that it oversimplifies Lacan’s theories and stifles debates by conflating feminism with one perspective (Moi, 326-327).
Criticism Against “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi
  • Lack of Practical Solutions for Feminist Praxis:
    Critics argue that while Moi deconstructs essentialist feminist theories and critiques concepts like écriture féminine, she offers limited guidance on how to integrate her proposed interdisciplinary approach into practical feminist activism.
  • Potential Undermining of Feminist Solidarity:
    Moi’s critique of influential feminist theorists like Luce Irigaray and Hélène Cixous has been seen as divisive. Some argue that her focus on exposing flaws in their theories may detract from the broader feminist goal of collective action against patriarchy.
  • Insufficient Engagement with Marginalized Perspectives:
    Moi’s focus on psychoanalytic and Western feminist theories has been critiqued for marginalizing non-Western and intersectional feminist perspectives, which could provide richer and more diverse analyses of femininity.
  • Overemphasis on Psychoanalysis:
    Some critics believe Moi places excessive emphasis on psychoanalytic theories, which may alienate feminists who question the relevance or utility of psychoanalysis in addressing contemporary feminist concerns.
  • Abstract and Theoretical Approach:
    Moi’s critique of concepts like phallocentrism and écriture féminine has been described as overly theoretical, making it difficult for readers without a background in psychoanalysis or literary theory to fully engage with her arguments.
  • Dismissal of Écriture Féminine as Ahistorical:
    Moi’s characterization of écriture féminine as overly idealistic and rooted in specific cultural contexts has been critiqued for underestimating its potential to inspire new forms of feminist expression and creativity.
  • Rejection of Feminine Writing as a Political Tool:
    Moi’s critique of Cixous’s écriture féminine has been seen as dismissive of its potential as a strategic tool for subverting patriarchal language and power structures.
Representative Quotations from “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi with Explanation
QuotationExplanationTheoretical Perspective
“Femininity is a patriarchal problem. Feminists must therefore be able to analyse the phenomenon more persuasively than any patriarch could ever do.” (Moi, 334)Moi argues that femininity is not a feminist issue but a construct of patriarchy, needing deconstruction rather than adoption.Feminist critique of essentialism and patriarchal constructs.
“Irigaray’s call for equality between the sexes presupposes the establishment of what one might call ‘full’ difference, as opposed to the ’empty’ difference advocated by a Juliet Mitchell or a Julia Kristeva.” (Moi, 327)Moi contrasts Irigaray’s biologically grounded view of sexual difference with Kristeva’s more abstract and structural approach.Psychoanalytic feminism; critique of essentialist theories of difference.
“Irigaray’s vision of a feminine structure of signification risks reducing femininity to an anatomical metaphor, such as substituting the two lips for the penis.” (Moi, 329)Moi critiques Irigaray’s reliance on biological metaphors, arguing that it limits feminist theory to essentialist frameworks.Feminist literary theory critique; rejection of biologically essentialist metaphors.
“Écriture féminine… shows no interest at all in the specific social, political, and economic determinants of women’s lives.” (Moi, 333)Moi critiques Cixous’s feminine writing as overly idealistic and disconnected from material realities.Critique of écriture féminine; integration of socio-political and materialist feminist analysis.
“Feminists like Julia Kristeva argue that Lacan’s theory of the phallus implies that neither sex can ever fully possess or embody the phallus.” (Moi, 326)Moi highlights Kristeva’s non-essentialist interpretation of the phallus as an abstract signifier, challenging phallocentric ideas.Psychoanalytic feminism; structural interpretation of sexual difference.
“Why should feminism remain faithful to the patriarchal project of gendering the world?” (Moi, 332)Moi questions the binary constructions of masculinity and femininity and their imposition in feminist theory.Feminist critique of binary gender constructs.
“Grosz’s unspoken reliance on Irigaray’s authority conceals the gaps separating various strands of contemporary feminism and ultimately closes down debates that need to be opened up.” (Moi, 326)Moi critiques Elizabeth Grosz’s approach as overly reliant on Irigarayan feminism, limiting critical debate within the field.Critique of feminist exclusivity; call for broader, interdisciplinary feminist dialogue.
“No specific ‘meaning’ of difference can be posited a priori; in different historical and social situations, the ’empty’ category of difference will be filled with vastly different material.” (Moi, 328)Moi argues for a historically and contextually grounded understanding of sexual difference, rejecting fixed or universal meanings.Historical materialism in feminist theory; critique of ahistoricism.
“The notion of femininity, as an ideal, risks excluding women who do not or cannot conform to its aesthetic or cultural expectations.” (Moi, 329)Moi critiques the exclusivity inherent in concepts like écriture féminine, which may marginalize women outside specific contexts.Feminist inclusivity; critique of restrictive ideals of femininity.
“In my view, Simone de Beauvoir’s vision of a society in which every woman and every man has equal access… provides a better starting point for the liberation of all women than Cixous’s libidinal economies.” (Moi, 333)Moi contrasts Beauvoir’s practical approach to liberation with Cixous’s aesthetic idealism, favoring the former for feminist progress.Existential feminism versus écriture féminine; prioritizing socio-political over aesthetic strategies.
Suggested Readings: “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi
  1. Soussloff, Catherine M., and Bill Nichols. “Leni Riefenstahl: The Power of the Image.” Discourse, vol. 18, no. 3, 1996, pp. 20–44. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41389418. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
  2. Moi, Toril. “Femininity revisited.” Journal of Gender Studies 1.3 (1992): 324-334.
  3. Moi, Toril. “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style: Recent Feminist Criticism in the United States.” Cultural Critique, no. 9, 1988, pp. 3–22. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1354232. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
  4. Moi, Toril. “Representation of Patriarchy: Sexuality and Epistemology in Freud’s ‘Dora.’” Feminist Review, no. 9, 1981, pp. 60–74. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1394915. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.

“Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique

“Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in the New Literary History journal, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Winter, 2007), published by the Johns Hopkins University Press.

"Commentary: What Is Literature Now?" by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler

“Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in the New Literary History journal, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Winter, 2007), published by the Johns Hopkins University Press. In this seminal essay, Culler explores the perennial question of “What is literature?” and its evolving significance in contemporary literary theory. He critiques the varied theoretical approaches that attempt to define literature, including functionalist and structuralist perspectives, while emphasizing the cultural and interpretive frameworks that assign literary status to texts. Culler posits that the essence of literature is not bound to objective properties but is shaped by how texts are read and contextualized within cultural discourses. The essay also reflects on the historical and philosophical dimensions of literature, challenging reductive views that restrict its transformative and imaginative potential. By engaging with other critical voices, such as Tzvetan Todorov and Charles Altieri, Culler’s work underscores literature’s role as a dynamic medium for cultural dialogue, aesthetic exploration, and self-construction, making it a cornerstone for understanding the fluid boundaries of literariness in the 21st century.

Summary of “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler
  1. The Question of “What is Literature?”: Culler examines how defining literature often involves either exploring its societal functions or identifying intrinsic features. Neither approach yields a definitive or universal answer (Culler, 2007, p. 229).
  2. Societal Role of Literature: Literature can establish or challenge cultural norms, moral values, and societal ideologies, but these functions are not exclusive to literature, as other cultural forms can perform similar roles (p. 230).
  3. Defining Literary Characteristics: Features like fictionality, non-instrumental language, and intertextuality are often cited as defining traits, but these qualities are not unique to literature (p. 230).
  4. Literariness as a Cultural Construct: Culler emphasizes that literature gains its status through cultural and interpretive frames, likening it to how weeds are defined by social contexts rather than objective properties (p. 231).
  5. Theoretical Debates on Literariness: Referencing Tzvetan Todorov, Culler notes the inability of structural approaches to define literature, highlighting the absence of a single essential feature that distinguishes it (p. 231).
  6. Interpretive Approaches to Literature: Culler points out that the question “What is literature?” is often used to promote specific critical methodologies, such as mimesis (focusing on representation) or the foregrounding of language (p. 232).
  7. The Contemporary Lens: The addition of “now” in the question reflects shifts in critical theory and media. Scholars like Charles Altieri and Terry Cochran argue for attention to sensuousness and invention in literary experiences, countering institutionalized approaches (pp. 233-234).
  8. Temporal and Transformative Nature: Laurent Dubreuil highlights literature’s unique temporality, interacting with past, present, and future while continuously being reinvented (p. 234).
  9. Globalization and Media’s Impact: Phillip Wegner and Katherine Hayles explore how globalization and new media have transformed literature’s role, with Hayles discussing electronic literature as a continuation and expansion of traditional literary functions (pp. 236-237).
  10. Literature and Selfhood: Despite changes, Culler reaffirms literature’s enduring role in shaping selfhood and cultural dialogues, even as its forms evolve (p. 237).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler
Theoretical Term/ConceptExplanationReference/Context
LiterarinessThe quality that makes a text “literary,” often linked to cultural and interpretive frameworks.Literature is defined not by intrinsic properties but by how it is culturally and historically framed (p. 230).
MimesisThe representation of reality in literature, focusing on human actions and fictionalization.Often cited as a defining aspect of literature, emphasizing its capacity for representation (p. 232).
Foregrounding of LanguageA focus on language’s structure and aesthetics rather than its utilitarian function.Critics advocating for this view prioritize the linguistic patterns and artistic features of texts (p. 232).
IntertextualityThe dependent and transformative relationship between a text and other literary works.Literary works are seen as existing within a network of references to and transformations of other texts (p. 230).
Functional ApproachExamines what literature does in a society, such as shaping culture, ideology, or moral values.Literature’s societal roles include nation-building and challenging ideology but overlap with other forms (p. 229).
Structural ApproachAttempts to identify intrinsic, defining features of literature.Tzvetan Todorov critiques this approach, arguing it fails to identify a unique literary essence (p. 231).
Cultural ConstructivismThe idea that literature is defined by cultural and historical contexts rather than inherent traits.Culler compares literature to weeds, emphasizing its context-dependent classification (p. 231).
Temporal ComplexityLiterature interacts with multiple temporalities (past, present, future) in its creation and reception.Laurent Dubreuil’s concept of literature’s “now” emphasizes its temporal and interpretive dimensions (p. 234).
Relational Aesthetic ExperienceThe role of literature in shaping selfhood through imaginative and interpretive acts.Garry Hagberg sees literature as instrumental in constructing individual identity (p. 231).
Globalization and Media ShiftsLiterature’s role is transformed by globalization and new media technologies.Phillip Wegner and Katherine Hayles explore how new media redefine literature’s form and cultural functions (pp. 236-237).
DeconstructionA critical approach questioning stable meanings and highlighting textual self-reflexivity.Culler discusses critiques of deconstruction for allegedly reducing literature to incoherence (p. 233).
Dynamic HeterarchiesInteractions between different levels of textual engagement in electronic literature.Katherine Hayles examines how computational texts interact with readers and devices (p. 236).
Rhetorical TransactionLiterature as a communicative act between text and reader, emphasizing engagement.Jan Swearingen critiques cultural approaches that ignore the reader’s role (p. 233).
Contribution of “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories
  • Expanding the Concept of Literariness:
    • Culler highlights that literariness is not confined to inherent textual features but emerges from cultural and interpretive practices (p. 230).
    • This challenges essentialist notions of literature and aligns with post-structuralist approaches, emphasizing the role of reader and cultural context.
  • Critique of Functionalist and Structuralist Approaches:
    • Functional approaches (literature’s societal roles) and structural approaches (identifying intrinsic qualities) are insufficient to define literature (p. 229).
    • Echoing critiques by theorists like Tzvetan Todorov, Culler questions the utility of seeking definitive features (p. 231).
  • Integration of Intertextuality:
    • Culler underscores intertextuality as central to understanding literature, as texts transform and depend on other texts (p. 230).
    • This supports theories by Roland Barthes and Julia Kristeva on the relational nature of texts within cultural systems.
  • Temporal Dimensions in Literature:
    • Inspired by Laurent Dubreuil, the essay explores how literature operates across temporalities (past, present, future), complicating historical or teleological definitions (p. 234).
    • This aligns with phenomenological approaches, highlighting literature’s dynamic and ongoing creation through interpretation.
  • Revisiting Rhetorical Theory:
    • Culler, through Jan Swearingen’s perspective, revives rhetoric as a lens for understanding literature as a transaction between text and reader (p. 233).
    • This counters cultural materialist views that reduce literature to historical or ideological artifacts.
  • Critique of Deconstruction’s Impact:
    • The essay discusses deconstruction’s influence, critiquing its perceived focus on incoherence while acknowledging its role in uncovering textual reflexivity (p. 233).
    • This aligns with broader debates on the limits and potentials of deconstructive readings in literary studies.
  • Literature in the Age of Globalization:
    • Contributions by Phillip Wegner and Katherine Hayles explore literature’s transformation in response to new media and globalization (pp. 236-237).
    • This expands the scope of literary theory to include digital and global cultural production, bridging traditional and contemporary texts.
  • Reinforcing Literature’s Role in Selfhood:
    • Literature is presented as pivotal in constructing selfhood, drawing on relational aesthetic theories by thinkers like Garry Hagberg (p. 231).
    • This supports humanistic perspectives in literary theory, emphasizing literature’s transformative impact on identity.
  • Challenging Nationalistic and Canonical Perspectives:
    • Culler critiques the historical linkage of literature to nationalism, suggesting its evolution towards transnational forms in globalized contexts (p. 236).
    • This aligns with postcolonial and global literary theories that critique Eurocentric and nationalistic biases.
  • Affirmation of Literature’s Unpredictable Knowledge:
    • Culler endorses the view that literature generates unpredictable and transformative knowledge, contributing to theories of creativity and innovation (p. 232).
    • This affirms literature as a site of epistemological exploration rather than static representation.
Examples of Critiques Through “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler
Literary WorkCritique/AnalysisReference/Context
Tzvetan Todorov’s “The Notion of Literature”Critiques the failure of structural approaches to identify defining features of literature, leading to the provocative question: “Does literature exist?”Culler discusses Todorov’s skepticism about essentialist definitions of literature (p. 231).
George Sand’s WritingsAppreciated for capturing the “innocent pleasure of living for the sake of living,” highlighting literature’s potential for ethical and emotional enrichment.Discussed as a counterpoint to deconstructive readings that deny literature’s ability to affirm truths (p. 233).
William Gibson’s Pattern RecognitionExplored as an example of how new media and globalization have shifted literature’s cultural and narrative role, emphasizing the persistence of older literary forms.Culler references Wegner’s analysis of Gibson’s work to examine literature’s interaction with media (p. 236).
Proust’s In Search of Lost TimePortrayed as anticipating modern forms of expression like blogs, blending personal narrative with artistic reflection, exemplifying a transnational and non-linear temporality.Gans compares Proust’s narrative style to contemporary blogging, linking it to shifts in literature’s role (p. 237).
Criticism Against “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler
  1. Lack of Concrete Definition:
    Despite addressing the complexities of defining literature, the essay does not offer a definitive answer, leaving readers with an open-ended and potentially unsatisfying conclusion about what constitutes literature.
  2. Overreliance on Cultural Relativism:
    The argument that literature is defined by cultural and interpretive contexts risks reducing its essence to subjective societal constructs, neglecting universal qualities or enduring aesthetic values.
  3. Minimal Engagement with Specific Texts:
    While theoretical, the essay often critiques literary frameworks without providing detailed analyses of specific literary works, which might weaken its practical applicability.
  4. Underdeveloped Critique of Functionalism and Structuralism:
    The critique of functional and structural approaches does not explore their potential merits or contributions in depth, leading to a dismissal that might seem overly reductive.
  5. Complexity in Language and Theoretical Jargon:
    The essay’s dense language and reliance on theoretical terminology may alienate readers not well-versed in literary theory, limiting accessibility to a broader audience.
  6. Insufficient Exploration of Global and Non-Western Perspectives:
    While globalization is briefly discussed, the essay focuses predominantly on Western literary traditions, missing opportunities to incorporate diverse global or non-Western viewpoints.
  7. Overemphasis on Temporality:
    The discussion on the temporal complexities of literature, while insightful, may overshadow other critical aspects of literary analysis, such as genre or narrative structure.
  8. Inadequate Address of Digital Literature’s Distinctiveness:
    The analysis of electronic literature (e.g., Katherine Hayles’s contributions) downplays its potential to redefine literary norms, treating it more as an extension of traditional literature.
Representative Quotations from “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“The question ‘What is literature?’ is not, like ‘What is hematite?’ asked out of ignorance.”Culler highlights that this question arises from a deeper intellectual curiosity rather than a lack of knowledge (p. 229).
“Literariness is not confined to literature but can be studied in historical narratives, philosophical texts, and cultural practices.”Culler broadens the scope of what can be studied under the umbrella of literary analysis (p. 230).
“Literature is whatever is treated as literature by a given society.”Emphasizes the cultural constructivist view that literature’s identity is determined by societal norms (p. 231).
“Whether or not the functional notion of literature is legitimate, the structural notion definitely is not.”Quoting Todorov, Culler critiques structural approaches for failing to define what makes literature unique (p. 231).
“Within the world of literary experience we accomplish acts of comparison that are both interpretive and self-interpretive.”Literature is seen as a tool for self-construction and relational aesthetic experiences (p. 231).
“The addition of ‘now’ to the question—’What is literature now?’—can encourage responses designed to critique current approaches.”The temporal framing of the question shifts its focus to contemporary theoretical trends and critiques (p. 232).
“Literature may be the name of a variable cultural function rather than a class defined by distinctive properties of language.”Culler argues for a dynamic view of literature that resists rigid categorization based on intrinsic features (p. 231).
“Focus on the sensuousness of aesthetic experience is necessary to explain how literature can build intense imaginative engagements.”Literary value lies in its ability to evoke imaginative and sensuous experiences, countering reductive analyses (p. 233).
“The impossibility of a definition of literature can be seen as one of its characteristics, as it always comes after.”Laurent Dubreuil’s idea, referenced by Culler, that literature continuously reinvents itself and defies definition (p. 234).
“Electronic literature, like literature tout court, will end up being about the construction of meaning and thus about literature.”Katherine Hayles’s argument that digital and traditional literature share fundamental goals of meaning-making (p. 236).
Suggested Readings: “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler
  1. Culler, Jonathan. “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” New Literary History, vol. 38, no. 1, 2007, pp. 229–37. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20057997. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
  2. Culler, Jonathan. “Commentary.” New Literary History, vol. 6, no. 1, 1974, pp. 219–29. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468350. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
  3. Culler, Jonathan. “In Pursuit of Signs.” Daedalus, vol. 106, no. 4, 1977, pp. 95–111. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024510. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.