December 18, 2024 - English Studies

“Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique

“Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in 2006 in Comparative Critical Studies (Volume 3, Issue 1–2, pp. 85–97), published by Edinburgh University Press.

Introduction: “Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler

“Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in 2006 in Comparative Critical Studies (Volume 3, Issue 1–2, pp. 85–97), published by Edinburgh University Press. This seminal article critically examines the evolution and current state of comparative literature as an academic discipline. Culler traces its development from its origins in studying sources and influences to a broader engagement with intertextuality and theoretical discourse. He argues that comparative literature has historically challenged the boundaries of national literary studies by questioning the very units of literary analysis—genres, periods, or themes—that other disciplines often take for granted. Culler highlights the discipline’s dual role: a vanguard of literary theory and a space where transnational and interdisciplinary methodologies thrive. However, he also addresses the “crisis of identity” within comparative literature, as its once-unique methodologies have now permeated other fields. Culler critiques the global turn and the expansion into cultural studies, suggesting that while these shifts broaden the discipline’s scope, they also risk diluting its focus on literature. Ultimately, Culler envisions comparative literature as a space where literature remains central, approached as a transnational phenomenon and studied in diverse, theoretically innovative ways. The article remains influential for its reflections on the discipline’s triumphs, challenges, and its role in shaping the future of the humanities.

Summary of “Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler

1. Evolution of Comparative Literature
Initially, comparative literature focused on sources and influences, linking texts through direct transmission (Culler, 2006, p. 85). Over time, it evolved into intertextual studies, engaging broader but less defined methodologies. Comparative literature distinguished itself from national literature departments by questioning units of study—genres, periods, and themes—while becoming a hub for literary theory (p. 85-86).

2. The Triumph and Crisis of Identity
Culler identifies the paradox of comparative literature’s success: its methods have spread to other fields, leading to a loss of distinctiveness (p. 86). Despite its intellectual triumph, comparative literature faces institutional struggles, as academic positions still reside predominantly in national literature departments (p. 87).

3. Comparative Literature and the Global Turn
The 1993 ACLA report urged comparative literature to turn “global” and expand into cultural studies, justifying it as a reflection of contemporary realities (p. 87). However, Culler argues that the combined scope of global and cultural approaches risks overwhelming the discipline, diluting its focus and identity (p. 88).

4. Role of Literature in Comparative Literature
Culler critiques the Bernheimer Report (1993) for sidelining literature in favor of cultural studies. He defends literature’s centrality, proposing that comparative literature can distinguish itself as the site for the study of literature as a transnational phenomenon (p. 89-90).

5. World Literature and Comparability
The 2004 ACLA report highlights the challenge of “world literature” and its construction by hegemonic powers, risking cultural homogenization (p. 92). Culler explores the dilemma of comparability—either imposing restrictive norms or creating vacuous standards akin to the “University of Excellence” (p. 91-93).

6. Reconciling Comparability through Auerbach’s Ansatzpunkt
To address the problem of comparability, Culler suggests adopting specific intellectual norms like Auerbach’s Ansatzpunkt—a concrete and precise point of departure that avoids imposing universal standards (p. 93-94). This approach fosters meaningful comparisons without totalizing cultural values.

7. Comparative Literature as a Vanguard Discipline
Culler envisions comparative literature as a “test bed” for reconceiving knowledge, providing a space for critical, interdisciplinary projects. Despite its internal crises, the discipline’s ability to engage theoretical questions ensures its continued relevance in shaping literary and cultural studies (p. 96).

8. Teaching World Literature and Cosmopolitanism
Culler acknowledges world literature’s pedagogical value, emphasizing its role in fostering cultural awareness among students (p. 95). However, he stresses that comparative literature’s enduring appeal lies in its capacity to engage multiple languages, texts, and theoretical perspectives, driven by cosmopolitan ideals (p. 96).

9. Comparative Literature’s Identity: A Space of Crisis
Culler concludes that comparative literature’s nature as a site of intellectual crisis—where diverse approaches and ideas contend—ensures its vibrancy, even if it cannot claim institutional triumph (p. 96-97).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler

Theoretical Term/Concept	Explanation	Reference (Page)
Sources and Influence	The early focus of comparative literature, linking works through direct connections or transmission.	p. 85
Intertextual Studies	A broader, less defined approach that examines the relationships between texts beyond direct links.	p. 85
Crisis of Identity	The paradox where comparative literature’s success in spreading its methods results in a loss of uniqueness.	p. 86
Triumph without Triumph	The intellectual success of comparative literature that fails to translate into institutional benefits.	p. 86-87
Global Turn	The shift towards studying non-Eurocentric works, reflecting contemporary cultural realities.	p. 87-88
Cultural Studies	Expanding the study of literature to include broader discursive and cultural productions.	p. 87-88
World Literature	The challenge of constructing and teaching literature globally, often criticized for cultural homogenization.	p. 92-95
Comparability	The principle of measuring and comparing texts, which risks imposing norms or becoming vacuous.	p. 91-93
University of Excellence	Bill Readings’ concept where “excellence” is devoid of content, allowing bureaucratic control.	p. 91
Ansatzpunkt	Auerbach’s concept of a concrete and precise starting point for comparative analysis.	p. 93-94
Transnational Phenomenon	Literature studied beyond national boundaries, emphasizing its universal and comparative dimensions.	p. 90
Hegemonic Power	Dominant powers constructing “world literature” on their terms, often leading to cultural colonization.	p. 92-93
Cosmopolitanism	An ideal associated with comparative literature, promoting cultural awareness and multilingualism.	p. 96
Test Bed for Knowledge	Comparative literature as a space for experimentation and innovation in reconceiving humanistic study.	p. 96
Hypercanon	A newly emergent set of global Anglophone writers frequently studied in postcolonial studies.	p. 90

Contribution of “Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Contribution to Intertextuality Theory:

Culler emphasizes that comparative literature has moved beyond the study of “sources and influence” to broader intertextual studies, examining how texts generate meaning through relationships with other texts (Culler, 2006, p. 85).

This highlights the theoretical foundation of intertextuality, where meaning is created in a network of textual connections rather than isolated works.

2. Crisis Theory and Comparative Literature’s Identity:

Culler introduces the concept of “crisis of identity”, highlighting the paradox of comparative literature’s intellectual success but institutional struggles (p. 86).

This aligns with broader Crisis Theory in the humanities, where fields undergo shifts in purpose and identity due to evolving methodologies.

**3. Globalization and Postcolonial Theory:

The global turn in comparative literature mirrors postcolonial theory, as it critiques Eurocentrism and expands to include non-Western literatures (p. 87).

Culler references postcolonial perspectives, such as the identification of a shared postcolonial context for generating comparabilities (p. 92).
This addresses how hegemonic powers shape “world literature,” contributing to discussions on cultural domination and resistance.

4. Contribution to Cultural Studies Theory:

Culler engages with the Bernheimer Report and its advocacy for expanding comparative literature into cultural studies, treating literature as one discourse among many (p. 88).
This reflects the interdisciplinary nature of Cultural Studies, as comparative literature incorporates cultural practices, political discourses, and media.

**5. World Literature and Hegemonic Structures:

Culler critiques the construction of world literature as a “hegemonic” and potentially imperialistic project (p. 92).
He highlights how dominant powers impose norms of comparability, aligning with theories of Cultural Imperialism and Global Literary Circulation.
Pascale Casanova’s World Republic of Letters is referenced to critique how literature engages in systems of power/knowledge (p. 95).

**6. Comparative Literature as a Space for Theory:

Comparative literature emerges as a vanguard of literary theory, serving as a site where questions about the nature of literature and its methods are addressed (p. 85-86).
The discipline has historically provided a home for theoretical texts and interdisciplinary experimentation, challenging traditional boundaries of national literatures.

7. University of Excellence and Bureaucratic Theory:

Drawing on Bill Readings’ University in Ruins, Culler critiques the bureaucratic standard of “excellence,” which lacks substantive content and imposes comparability (p. 91).
This connects comparative literature’s comparability crisis to broader critiques of neoliberalism and the corporatization of the academy.

**8. Contribution to Aesthetics and Poetics:

Culler argues for the continued centrality of literature in comparative literature, framing it as the site for poetics—the study of formal possibilities and discursive practices (p. 90-96).
He observes a renewed interest in aesthetics, once marginalized by cultural studies, signaling a theoretical return to literary form and structure.

**9. Comparability and Auerbach’s Ansatzpunkt:

Culler draws on Auerbach’s concept of Ansatzpunkt as a solution to the problem of comparability, emphasizing concrete and specific comparative approaches (p. 93-94).
This aligns with hermeneutic theory, as the Ansatzpunkt provides a starting point for analyzing texts across cultures without imposing external norms.

**10. Contribution to Cosmopolitan Theory:

Comparative literature promotes cosmopolitanism, fostering multilingualism, cultural awareness, and transnational engagement with literature (p. 96).
This connects to theories of world citizenship and cultural exchange, as students and scholars embrace literature as a global phenomenon.

Examples of Critiques Through “Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler

Literary Work	Critique Through Culler’s Concepts	Theoretical Basis/Concept
Erich Auerbach’s Mimesis	Auerbach’s idea of Ansatzpunkt serves as a model for comparative studies, emphasizing concrete, specific starting points to compare texts without universalizing norms (Culler, 2006, p. 93).	Comparability and Ansatzpunkt
Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude	Márquez’s novel highlights how world literature courses often universalize Latin American magical realism, potentially overlooking its cultural specificity (p. 92).	World Literature and Hegemony
Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart	Achebe’s text, often compared in world literature courses, risks becoming a tokenized example of African literature when taught without cultural specificity (p. 92).	Hegemony and World Literature
J. M. Coetzee’s Disgrace	Coetzee’s work represents a hypercanon of Anglophone writers studied symptomatically in comparative literature, reflecting global concerns and ethical conflicts (p. 90).	Hypercanon and Symptomatic Reading

Criticism Against “Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler

1. Ambiguity in Defining Comparative Literature’s Future

While Culler critiques the discipline’s “crisis of identity,” he does not provide a clear solution for comparative literature’s future direction. His suggestions, like a focus on “literature as a transnational phenomenon,” remain abstract and open-ended.

2. Overemphasis on Institutional Struggles

Critics argue that Culler’s focus on the institutional limitations (such as job scarcity and departmental struggles) overshadows more pressing theoretical and methodological challenges within the discipline.

3. Limited Engagement with Non-Western Theories

Culler critiques Eurocentrism but does not deeply engage with non-Western theoretical frameworks or methods, which undermines his call for a global comparative literature.

4. Neglect of New Media and Digital Literature

The article primarily focuses on traditional literary texts, ignoring how comparative literature might adapt to digital texts, new media, and emerging forms of global storytelling in the 21st century.

5. Insufficient Practical Solutions for World Literature

While Culler raises valid concerns about the construction of world literature, he does not propose practical strategies for avoiding the homogenization and tokenization of diverse literatures.

6. Critique of Cultural Studies Lacks Nuance

Culler’s argument that cultural studies diluted the centrality of literature in comparative literature is seen as too reductive, as cultural studies has enriched literary analysis with interdisciplinary approaches.

7. Ambivalence Toward the Global Turn

Critics suggest that Culler’s stance on the global turn is contradictory. While he acknowledges its necessity, he simultaneously critiques it for diluting the discipline, failing to offer a balanced perspective.

8. Overgeneralization of Hypercanon Formation

Culler’s observation of a “new hypercanon” of Anglophone writers (Achebe, Coetzee, Walcott) overlooks regional literary diversity and the continued marginalization of lesser-known global authors.

9. Lack of Concrete Methodological Innovation

Culler’s focus on comparative literature as a site of theoretical debate fails to propose new methodologies or tools for comparative analysis, leaving the field without a concrete path forward.

Representative Quotations from “Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation	Reference (Page)
“Once upon a time, the story goes, comparative literature focused on the study of sources and influence…”	Culler introduces the evolution of comparative literature, emphasizing its liberation from direct textual transmission to broader intertextual studies.	p. 85
“Comparative literature frequently became the site of literary theory…”	This highlights comparative literature’s central role in developing and housing literary theory, unlike national literature departments.	p. 85-86
“Comparative literature has triumphed. But of course, institutionally, comparatists do not feel at all triumphant.”	Culler underscores the paradox: while comparative literature’s ideas have spread, its institutional status remains fragile.	p. 86
“The result of both moves together, going global and going cultural, is a discipline of such overwhelming scope…”	Culler critiques the expansive scope of comparative literature, arguing it risks losing coherence as an academic discipline.	p. 88
“Theory has triumphed, in that it is everywhere these days…”	He compares the success of literary theory to feminism and comparative literature, noting how mainstream success leads to a sense of crisis.	p. 86
“What, in this newly globalized space, justifies bringing texts together?”	Culler questions the validity of comparisons in “world literature,” addressing the problem of comparability and cultural homogenization.	p. 91
“The idea of excellence enables us to make comparable various entities that have little in common…”	Referencing Bill Readings’ “University of Excellence,” Culler critiques the vacuity of institutional standards like “excellence.”	p. 91-92
“The virtue of a comparability based on specific intellectual norms or models… is that they are subject to investigation and argument.”	Culler advocates for concrete criteria, such as Auerbach’s Ansatzpunkt, as a solution to the problems of comparability.	p. 93-94
“Comparative literature should also be defined by those features that draw people to the field.”	He emphasizes that the appeal of comparative literature lies in its cosmopolitanism, multilingualism, and theoretical openness.	p. 96
“Comparative literature, as Haun Saussy puts it, is the ‘test bed for the reconceiving of the order of knowledge.'”	Culler highlights comparative literature’s unique role as a space for experimentation, theoretical innovation, and interdisciplinary study.	p. 96

“In Defence Of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique

“In Defence of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in 1992 as part of the volume Interpretation and Overinterpretation, edited by Stefan Collini and published by Cambridge University Press.

Introduction: “In Defence Of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler

“In Defence of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in 1992 as part of the volume Interpretation and Overinterpretation, edited by Stefan Collini and published by Cambridge University Press. The essay critically engages with Umberto Eco’s lectures on the boundaries of interpretation and Richard Rorty’s commentary, offering a robust defence of “overinterpretation” as a valuable intellectual exercise. Culler argues that interpretation becomes meaningful and insightful when it pushes beyond moderation and conventional readings, often uncovering previously unnoticed connections and implications within a text. He introduces the idea of “overstanding” (a term borrowed from Wayne Booth), which entails asking questions that a text does not directly invite, thereby deepening our understanding of literature and its broader cultural and semiotic mechanisms. Culler’s work is significant in literary theory as it challenges the limits imposed by moderate interpretation and defends the role of critical inquiry, even when it risks being labeled excessive. By advocating for rigorous and imaginative readings, Culler underscores the importance of interpretation in revealing the dynamic and often ambiguous interplay of meaning in literary texts, thus fostering continued intellectual engagement with literature.

Summary of “In Defence Of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler

Introduction and Context
Jonathan Culler’s essay “In Defence of Overinterpretation” appeared in the volume Interpretation and Overinterpretation (1992), edited by Stefan Collini. It responds to Umberto Eco’s lectures on the limits of interpretation and Richard Rorty’s critique. Culler defends “overinterpretation” as a legitimate and productive aspect of literary criticism, rejecting simplistic pragmatist positions that dismiss critical inquiry into texts’ structures and functions (Culler, 1992).
Extreme Interpretations vs. Moderate Interpretations
Culler argues that interpretation gains intellectual value when it is “extreme,” rather than moderate. While consensus-driven interpretations may have merit, they lack the potential to uncover new insights or connections. He states, “if critics are going to spend their time working out and proposing interpretations, then they should apply as much interpretive pressure as they can” (Culler, 1992, p. 110).

Eco’s Lectures and Rossetti’s Dante Interpretation
Culler critiques Eco’s examples of “overinterpretation” and clarifies that certain flawed interpretations, like Rossetti’s Rosicrucian analysis of Dante, are instances of underinterpretation rather than overextension. Rossetti failed to sufficiently interpret all textual elements or establish valid connections (Culler, 1992, p. 111).
Defending Overstanding
Culler borrows Wayne Booth’s concept of “overstanding,” which entails asking questions that the text does not explicitly encourage. Such inquiries — for example, analyzing the ideological or cultural implications of stories like The Three Little Pigs — can reveal latent meanings or overlooked structures (Culler, 1992, p. 113).
Criticism of Pragmatist Views (Rorty)
Culler critiques Richard Rorty’s pragmatist stance, which reduces all textual engagement to “use.” Rorty suggests we abandon structural analysis and “simply enjoy” texts, much like using software without understanding its code. Culler counters that academic inquiry into how texts function is essential, just as linguistics studies language systems (Culler, 1992, p. 117).

The Role of Deconstruction
Addressing Eco and Rorty’s shared dismissal of deconstruction, Culler clarifies that deconstruction reveals textual structures and undermines rigid limits to meaning. It demonstrates that meaning is context-dependent and endlessly generative, not a reader’s arbitrary creation (Culler, 1992, p. 120).
Overinterpretation as Discovery
Culler embraces the “excess of wonder” that comes with overinterpretation, defending it as a vital tool for literary criticism. He invokes Roland Barthes’ idea that systematic re-reading and puzzling over textual elements often lead to discoveries about the text and the systems enabling meaning production (Culler, 1992, p. 122).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “In Defence Of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition/Description	Role in Culler’s Argument
Overinterpretation	An interpretative practice that pushes beyond consensus and explores unconventional meanings in a text.	Culler defends overinterpretation as intellectually valuable, fostering discoveries about texts and systems.
Moderate Interpretation	Interpretations that align with established readings and consensus, often lacking new insights.	Criticized for being uninteresting and failing to push interpretive boundaries.
Extreme Interpretation	Interpretations that challenge norms and apply maximum interpretive pressure to reveal new connections.	Praised for its ability to generate insights and uncover hidden implications.
Overstanding	A concept introduced by Wayne Booth, referring to asking questions the text does not explicitly encourage.	Used to support the importance of asking unconventional, critical questions about texts.
Pragmatism	A philosophical approach (espoused by Rorty) that advocates practical use of texts rather than understanding their structures.	Critiqued as reductive, as it dismisses structural understanding in favor of practical “use.”
Model Reader	Umberto Eco’s idea of the ideal reader who asks the questions a text inherently suggests.	Represents Eco’s boundary for “proper” interpretation, which Culler challenges.
Paranoid Interpretation	An interpretative approach where insignificant elements are excessively analyzed for hidden meanings.	Linked to Eco’s criticism; Culler acknowledges its role but defends paranoia as sometimes productive.
Deconstruction	A critical approach that reveals textual structures and undermines rigid categories of meaning.	Clarifies its role as exploring textual structures and their disruptions in meaning.
Excess of Wonder	A state of curiosity or wonder that motivates critics to explore even seemingly trivial elements in texts.	Advocated as a positive trait, encouraging critical inquiry and exploration.
Semiotics	The study of signs, codes, and systems of meaning, central to understanding how texts generate meaning.	Highlighted as a crucial method for understanding how meaning is produced in literature.

Contribution of “In Defence Of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

Defence of Overinterpretation as Intellectual Exploration
- Culler argues that extreme interpretations push the boundaries of textual meaning, revealing connections and implications that moderate readings might miss. This stance challenges the traditional limits of interpretative theory.
- “Interpretation itself needs no defence… but like most intellectual activities, interpretation is interesting only when it is extreme” (Culler, 1992, p. 110).
Challenging Eco’s Limits of Interpretation
- Culler critiques Umberto Eco’s model of a “sound” interpretation and pushes back against Eco’s dismissal of extreme readings, suggesting that overinterpretation uncovers textual complexities and cultural implications.
- “The idea of ‘overinterpretation’… fails to capture the problems Professor Eco himself wishes to address” (Culler, 1992, p. 111).
Introduction of Booth’s Overstanding
- Culler incorporates Wayne Booth’s concept of “overstanding,” where critics ask questions the text does not explicitly pose. This expands literary theory by valuing inquiries about ideology, culture, and suppressed meanings.
- “Overstanding… consists of pursuing questions that the text does not pose to its model reader” (Culler, 1992, p. 113).
Critique of Pragmatism and Rorty’s ‘Use’ Theory
- Culler challenges Richard Rorty’s pragmatist claim that texts should merely be used for practical purposes. He insists that literary studies require an analysis of how texts function structurally and semiotically.
- “To tell people they should give up attempting to identify underlying structures… is to attempt to block other people from doing work” (Culler, 1992, p. 118).
Reaffirming Deconstruction’s Role
- Culler clarifies the contribution of deconstruction, which emphasizes the endless generation of meaning and challenges fixed interpretive limits. This reaffirms deconstruction’s value in literary theory.
- “Deconstruction… stresses that meaning is context bound… but that context itself is boundless” (Culler, 1992, p. 120).
Highlighting Semiotics as Critical Inquiry
- Culler underscores semiotics (the science of signs) as central to literary theory, advocating for the analysis of meaning-making systems within texts and broader cultural practices.
- “Semiotics… is precisely the attempt to identify the codes and mechanisms through which meaning is produced” (Culler, 1992, p. 116).
Rejection of Moderate Criticism in Favor of Textual Pressure
- By advocating for interpretive extremes, Culler contributes to literary theories that value intellectual risk and deep inquiry, rejecting consensus-driven, moderate criticism.
- “If critics… propose interpretations, then they should apply as much interpretive pressure as they can” (Culler, 1992, p. 110).
Rediscovery of Wonder in Interpretation
- Culler promotes the “excess of wonder” in literary analysis, encouraging critics to puzzle over seemingly insignificant elements of texts as a pathway to deeper understanding.
- “This deformation professionnelle… seems to me the best source of insights into language and literature that we seek” (Culler, 1992, p. 122).

Examples of Critiques Through “In Defence Of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler

Literary Work	Interpretation Example	Culler’s Position
*Dante’s Divine Comedy* (Rossetti’s Interpretation)**	Rossetti attempted to impose a Rosicrucian thematic on the poem by drawing from unrelated motifs, such as the pelican, which rarely appear. The failure lies in underinterpretation, not overinterpretation.	Culler argues this is a failure of interpretation as Rossetti neglected crucial elements and failed to connect them convincingly (Culler, 1992, p. 111).
Wordsworth’s A Slumber Did My Spirit Seal	Geoffrey Hartman interprets diurnal as evoking a funeral motif and suggests echoes of tears through rhyming words like fears and years. Culler defends the value of extending such readings further.	Culler asserts that pushing such interpretations further might illuminate hidden meanings, even if ultimately rejected (Culler, 1992, p. 112).
The Three Little Pigs (Folk Tale)	Wayne Booth proposes asking unconventional questions like cultural implications, unconscious dreams, or triadic patterns. These questions move beyond surface interpretation into overstanding.	Culler supports overstanding as a way to generate insights into ideological, cultural, and historical dimensions of a text (Culler, 1992, p. 113).
Casual Greeting “Lovely Day, Isn’t It?”	Eco criticizes paranoid interpretations of casual phrases. Culler defends the exploration of why such phrases exist culturally and socially, highlighting hidden systems of communication.	Culler emphasizes that overinterpretation of such phrases reflects cultural functions and mechanisms worth analyzing (Culler, 1992, p. 115).

Criticism Against “In Defence Of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler

Ambiguity of Overinterpretation
- Critics argue that Culler does not clearly define where overinterpretation becomes unproductive or nonsensical. The boundary between valuable inquiry and frivolous excess remains blurred.
Neglect of Authorial Intention
- Culler’s defense of extreme interpretations sidelines the importance of authorial intention, which remains central to traditional literary studies and reader-focused approaches.

Overreliance on Overstanding
- While Culler praises Wayne Booth’s concept of “overstanding,” critics argue that asking questions the text does not propose risks irrelevance and distracts from the text’s inherent meanings.
Dismissal of Moderate Interpretation
- Culler’s critique of moderate interpretations as “uninteresting” is seen as overly dismissive. Moderate readings often establish foundational understandings necessary for deeper inquiry.
Potential for Misreading
- By advocating for interpretative extremes, Culler risks encouraging arbitrary or misguided readings that may distort rather than illuminate the text.

Undermining Pragmatism’s Practicality
- Critics of Culler suggest that his rejection of Richard Rorty’s pragmatic approach overlooks the practical value of engaging with texts for immediate understanding rather than academic analysis.
Lack of Clear Methodology
- Culler’s argument for “interpretive pressure” lacks a structured method for applying overinterpretation effectively, leaving its application open-ended and subjective.
Excessive Emphasis on Semiotics
- While semiotics plays a central role in Culler’s argument, critics claim it prioritizes theoretical frameworks over the literary experience, potentially alienating readers and scholars less inclined to theoretical analysis.

Risk of Paranoia in Interpretation
- Culler’s defense of paranoid or excessive interpretation risks legitimizing unsubstantiated claims, creating unnecessary complexity in literary studies.

Representative Quotations from “In Defence Of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
1. “Interpretation itself needs no defence; it is with us always, but like most intellectual activities, interpretation is interesting only when it is extreme.” (Culler, 1992, p. 110)	Culler argues that interpretations gain significance when they challenge conventions and push intellectual boundaries rather than remain moderate or predictable.
2. “Moderate interpretation, which articulates a consensus, though it may have value in some circumstances, is of little interest.” (Culler, 1992, p. 110)	This highlights Culler’s critique of consensus-driven interpretations, which fail to reveal new insights or push interpretive thinking forward.
3. “If critics are going to spend their time working out and proposing interpretations, then they should apply as much interpretive pressure as they can, should carry their thinking as far as it can go.” (Culler, 1992, p. 110)	Culler calls for rigorous, extreme interpretations to uncover deeper, previously unnoticed meanings in literary texts.
4. “Overinterpretation may in fact be a practice of asking precisely those questions which are not necessary for normal communication but which enable us to reflect on its functioning.” (Culler, 1992, p. 115)	Overinterpretation, according to Culler, serves as a critical tool to interrogate the cultural and linguistic mechanisms underlying seemingly simple textual elements.
5. “One advantage of Booth’s opposition over Eco’s is that it makes it easier to see the role and importance of overstanding than when this sort of practice is tendentiously called overinterpretation.” (Culler, 1992, p. 113)	Culler prefers Booth’s concept of “overstanding” as a positive critical practice that explores questions outside the text’s immediate scope.
6. “To tell people they should give up attempting to identify underlying structures and systems but just use texts for their own purposes is to attempt to block other people from doing work like that for which he gained recognition.” (Culler, 1992, p. 118)	Culler criticizes Rorty’s pragmatist view, arguing that abandoning structural analysis limits scholarly exploration and critical knowledge.
7. “Deconstruction, on the contrary, stresses that meaning is context bound – a function of relations within or between texts – but that context itself is boundless.” (Culler, 1992, p. 120)	Culler defends deconstruction, emphasizing its focus on the endless contextual possibilities of meaning-making in texts.
8. “It would be sad indeed if fear of ‘overinterpretation’ should lead us to avoid or repress the state of wonder at the play of texts and interpretation.” (Culler, 1992, p. 122)	Culler celebrates “wonder” as an essential quality for critical exploration, encouraging openness to imaginative and unexpected interpretations.
9. “The idea of ‘overinterpretation’ not only begs the question of which is to be preferred, but it also, I believe, fails to capture the problems Professor Eco himself wishes to address.” (Culler, 1992, p. 111)	Culler challenges Eco’s dismissal of overinterpretation, arguing that it simplifies the complexity of interpretive challenges.
10. “A method that compels people to puzzle over not just those elements which might seem to resist the totalization of meaning… has a better chance of producing discoveries.” (Culler, 1992, p. 122)	Culler advocates for interpretative methods that challenge readers to analyze seemingly trivial details, fostering discoveries about texts.

“Between Author And Text” By Umberto Eco: Summary and Critique

“Between Author and Text” by Umberto Eco first appeared in 1990 as part of a series of lectures delivered at Cambridge University and was subsequently included in his collection Interpretation and Overinterpretation.

Introduction: “Between Author And Text” By Umberto Eco

“Between Author and Text” by Umberto Eco first appeared in 1990 as part of a series of lectures delivered at Cambridge University and was subsequently included in his collection Interpretation and Overinterpretation. In this seminal essay, Eco explores the nuanced relationship between the author’s intention, the text itself, and the reader’s interpretation. He critically engages with post-structuralist theories, particularly those of Jacques Derrida, while advocating for a balance between respecting the historical and cultural context of a text and acknowledging the role of the reader’s interpretative freedom. Eco introduces concepts such as the “Model Author” and the “Liminal Author,” emphasizing that while the empirical author’s intention may be inaccessible or irrelevant, the text’s internal structure and strategy guide interpretation. He warns against overinterpretation, highlighting the importance of “economy” in reading, whereby plausible interpretations align with the textual evidence. The essay is significant in literary theory as it bridges structuralist rigor and reader-response theory, offering a pragmatic approach to understanding texts as dynamic yet bounded entities. Eco’s work remains a crucial contribution to debates about textual meaning, interpretation, and the interplay between authorial intent and reader response.

Summary of “Between Author And Text” By Umberto Eco

Empirical Author vs. Textual Intentions
- Eco questions the relevance of the empirical author—the actual person who wrote the text—arguing that meaning is constructed through the text itself and its interaction with readers (Eco, 2010, p. 67). He references Derrida’s deconstructionist approach, which downplays the author’s intended meaning in favor of the text’s independence.

The “Bottle Message” and Social Treasury
- Eco compares texts to messages placed in a bottle, emphasizing that once written, texts are open to diverse interpretations. Readers decode texts not solely by the author’s intention but through shared cultural conventions and the “social treasury” of language and history (Eco, 2010, p. 67-68).
Model Author and Liminal Author
- Eco introduces the concept of the Model Author as the textual strategy that guides the reader’s interpretation. Additionally, he discusses the Liminal Author, a “ghostly” figure that bridges the empirical author’s subconscious influences and the text’s intentionality (Eco, 2010, p. 69-70).
Interpretation vs. Use of Texts
- Eco differentiates between interpreting and using texts. Interpretation respects the text’s historical and cultural background, while use adapts texts for parody or personal purposes (Eco, 2010, p. 68).

Economic Interpretation and Overinterpretation
- Eco argues for economy in interpretation, where plausible meanings are derived from textual evidence without unnecessary overreading. He warns against “grasshopper-criticism”, where readers impose hidden meanings disconnected from the text’s logic (Eco, 2010, p. 71).
Historical and Cultural Context
- The reader’s role is to engage with the text’s cultural and historical context, ensuring interpretations are consistent with linguistic norms at the time of writing. Eco cites Wordsworth’s use of the word “gay” as an example of how modern misreadings can arise without this awareness (Eco, 2010, p. 68-69).
The Text’s Transparent Intention
- Eco discusses instances where textual meaning is clear and independent of the author’s intent. For example, the line “happiness lies in having what you have” gains meaning from its textual context rather than Eco’s conscious input (Eco, 2010, p. 78).

Empirical Author’s Limits in Interpretation
- The empirical author, Eco argues, cannot control all interpretations of their work. While some interpretations align with the text’s strategy, others (e.g., overinterpretations) lack textual economy and coherence (Eco, 2010, p. 79-83).
Creative Process and Serendipity
- Eco acknowledges the role of serendipity and unconscious processes in textual creation. He shares personal anecdotes, such as discovering a book that unconsciously inspired his description of a poisoned manuscript in The Name of the Rose (Eco, 2010, p. 86-88).
The Rights of the Text
- Eco concludes by affirming the “rights of the text” over the empirical author, emphasizing that texts exist independently and generate meaning through their structure and interaction with readers (Eco, 2010, p. 88).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Between Author And Text” By Umberto Eco

Concept	Definition	Example/Reference
Empirical Author	The real, historical individual who wrote the text, often irrelevant to textual meaning.	Eco dismisses the importance of the author’s personal intent in understanding meaning.
Model Author	The author implied by the text, guiding readers to interpret the work through textual strategy.	Readers recognize strategies embedded in Wordsworth’s text, not his personal intent (p. 68).
Liminal Author	The ‘ghostly’ figure between the empirical author and the Model Author, influenced unconsciously.	Eco introduces Mauro Ferraresi’s idea of the Liminal Author as a threshold figure (p. 69).
Social Treasury	A shared cultural and linguistic background that enables interpretation of texts.	The word ‘gay’ in Wordsworth’s time had no sexual connotation due to shared lexical norms (p. 68).
Interpretation vs. Use	Interpretation seeks to respect the text’s cultural and linguistic background; use adapts the text for other purposes.	Using Wordsworth’s text for parody contrasts with interpreting it in its historical context (p. 68).
Overinterpretation	Reading too much into a text, finding hidden meanings that lack textual support.	Grasshopper-criticism seeks irrelevant, hidden meanings such as acrostics in Leopardi’s poetry (p. 71).
Textual Strategy	The deliberate structure and intention of a text, guiding reader understanding.	Eco shows how readers identify meaningful connections within the structure of the text.
Economic Interpretation	The principle that interpretation should align with textual evidence and avoid unnecessary complexity.	Readers should focus on plausible meanings, avoiding overly convoluted interpretations (p. 71).
Transparent Intention	The clear, independent meaning of a text, discernible without reference to the author’s intention.	Happiness lies in ‘having what you have’ is clear in context, regardless of Eco’s intent (p. 78).
Message in a Bottle	A metaphor describing how texts, once written, are interpreted independently of the author’s intent.	A text intended for a community of readers will not align with the author’s exact intention (p. 67).

Contribution of “Between Author And Text” By Umberto Eco to Literary Theory/Theories

Reader-Response Theory
- Eco acknowledges the role of the reader in constructing meaning, aligning with reader-response theory. He argues that readers interact with the text based on their “competence in language” and shared cultural norms, emphasizing that the text is a dialogue between itself and the reader (Eco, 2010, p. 67).
- Reference: The metaphor of the “message in a bottle” highlights that the author cannot dictate the text’s meaning for a community of readers.

Post-Structuralism
- Eco engages with post-structuralist ideas, particularly those of Jacques Derrida, by challenging the notion of stable meaning. He critiques overinterpretation but concedes that meaning emerges from the interplay of the reader, text, and cultural conventions, not the empirical author (Eco, 2010, p. 67-70).
- Reference: Eco critiques Derrida’s jeu de massacre on John Searle’s text while acknowledging the importance of textual independence from the author (p. 67).

Intentional Fallacy
- Eco supports the intentional fallacy, arguing that the empirical author’s intentions are irrelevant to textual interpretation. He asserts that meaning is derived from the Model Author, which represents the textual strategy embedded in the work (Eco, 2010, p. 69-70).
- Reference: Eco’s example of Wordsworth’s use of “gay” emphasizes the need to respect linguistic norms rather than speculate on authorial intent.

Structuralism
- Eco aligns with structuralism through his focus on textual strategies, which provide a framework for interpretation. He suggests that meaning is inherent in the structure and language of the text, enabling readers to identify plausible interpretations (Eco, 2010, p. 71-78).
- Reference: Eco’s critique of Leopardi’s “Silvia” poem highlights the importance of textual structure and economy in meaning-making (p. 71).

Semiotics
- Eco, as a semiotician, contributes to semiotic theory by exploring how texts operate as systems of signs. He introduces the concepts of the “Model Author” and the “Liminal Author,” demonstrating how texts generate meaning through their internal strategies and connections (Eco, 2010, p. 69-70).
- Reference: Eco’s analysis of Leopardi’s anagrams and Petrarch’s poetry illustrates how readers uncover patterns in texts (p. 70-72).

Hermeneutics
- Eco’s exploration of the relationship between text and reader aligns with hermeneutics, the theory of interpretation. He emphasizes that understanding requires engagement with the text’s cultural and historical background, not subjective speculation (Eco, 2010, p. 68-69).
- Reference: Eco’s discussion of Lorenzo Valla’s philological analysis of Constitutum Constantini exemplifies responsible hermeneutic practices (p. 69).

Deconstruction
- While Eco critiques radical deconstruction, he acknowledges the unconscious and multiple layers of meaning within a text. The “Liminal Author” reflects a deconstructionist view that meaning may escape the empirical author’s control (Eco, 2010, p. 69-70).
- Reference: Eco’s reflections on unintended meanings in his novels (The Name of the Rose and Foucault’s Pendulum) illustrate how texts can produce unforeseen effects (p. 78-83).

Textual Autonomy
- Eco emphasizes the autonomy of the text, asserting that the text exists independently of the author and produces its own meanings. Readers must interact with the text on its terms rather than rely on the author’s personal life or intent (Eco, 2010, p. 78).
- Reference: Eco’s anecdote about the unintended connection between William and Bernard’s “haste” dialogue demonstrates how the text generates meaning on its own (p. 73-74).

Economy of Interpretation
- Eco introduces the concept of “economic interpretation”, encouraging readers to avoid excessive or implausible interpretations. He warns against “grasshopper-criticism” that imposes hidden, irrelevant meanings on texts (Eco, 2010, p. 71).
- Reference: Eco critiques students’ attempts to find improbable acrostics in Leopardi’s poetry as uneconomical and unproductive (p. 71-72).

Examples of Critiques Through “Between Author And Text” By Umberto Eco

Literary Work	Critique Through Eco’s Framework	Key Concept Referenced
Wordsworth’s “I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud”	Eco critiques overinterpretation by discussing the word “gay,” showing how meanings must respect the historical and lexical context of the text.	Social Treasury, Model Author (Eco, 2010, p. 68-69).
Leopardi’s “A Silvia”	Eco argues that searching for excessive anagrams and hidden meanings, like “melancholy,” in Leopardi’s poem is uneconomical and unnecessary.	Economic Interpretation, Overinterpretation (p. 71).
The Name of the Rose	Eco examines unintended meanings created through textual strategies, such as the juxtaposition of “haste” in different dialogues.	Textual Autonomy, Transparent Intention (p. 73-74).
Lorenzo Valla’s Constitutum Constantini	Eco highlights responsible interpretation through Valla’s textual analysis, which disproved the Donation of Constantine based on linguistic anachronisms.	Hermeneutics, Textual Strategy (p. 69).

Criticism Against “Between Author And Text” By Umberto Eco

Limited Role of the Author
- Critics argue that Eco excessively diminishes the role of the empirical author in determining meaning, which may disregard the author’s creative intent and context.
- The dismissal of the author’s voice may undervalue their role in shaping textual meaning.

Overemphasis on Textual Strategy
- Eco’s focus on the Model Author and textual strategy can be criticized for being overly formalistic and structuralist, neglecting the emotional, personal, or historical aspects of authorship.
- Some scholars argue this approach prioritizes the text’s structure over the creative process.

Ambiguity of the “Liminal Author”
- The introduction of the Liminal Author—a ghostly figure bridging authorial intent and textual strategy—has been criticized for being conceptually vague and lacking clear boundaries.
- This complicates Eco’s framework and may blur the line between text and author.

Conflict with Reader-Response Theory
- While Eco acknowledges the role of the reader, critics claim he limits interpretive freedom by emphasizing economic interpretation.
- This conflicts with reader-response theory, which supports a broader spectrum of subjective readings.

Dismissal of Deconstructionist Potential
- Eco criticizes overinterpretation and aligns with economic interpretations but dismisses deconstructionist readings that explore multiple layers of meaning.
- Some critics argue this stance restricts interpretive possibilities and ignores valuable insights into language’s instability.

Selective Engagement with Historical Context
- Eco stresses the importance of historical and cultural background but does not provide clear guidelines for its application, leading to inconsistencies in interpretation.
- Critics argue this can oversimplify the hermeneutic process.

Practicality of “Economic Interpretation”
- The notion of “economic interpretation”—avoiding unnecessary complexity—has been criticized as subjective and difficult to quantify.
- What is considered “plausible” or “uneconomical” may vary greatly among readers and critics.

Potential for Authorial Bias
- Eco’s examples often draw from his own novels, leading critics to argue that his framework may reflect biases or self-validation rather than universally applicable principles.
Undermining Creative Reading
- By cautioning against overinterpretation, Eco’s theories risk discouraging innovative, imaginative, or unconventional readings of texts that can offer new insights.

Representative Quotations from “Between Author And Text” By Umberto Eco with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Can we still be concerned with the empirical author of a text?”	Eco raises the central question of authorial intention versus textual interpretation, challenging its relevance.
“A sensitive and responsible reader… has the duty to take into account the state of the lexical system at the time of Wordsworth.”	Eco emphasizes the importance of historical and cultural context in interpreting texts, avoiding anachronistic errors.
“Every act of reading is a difficult transaction between the competence of the reader… and the kind of competence that a given text postulates.”	The act of reading, according to Eco, is a negotiation between the reader’s knowledge and the text’s expectations.
“Between the empirical author and the Model Author… there is a third, rather ghostly, figure… the Liminal Author.”	Eco introduces the concept of the Liminal Author as a threshold figure between the author’s intention and textual strategy.
“To interpret Wordsworth’s text I must respect his cultural and linguistic background.”	Eco differentiates between using and interpreting texts, arguing that true interpretation requires contextual fidelity.
“The text is there, and it produces its own effects. Whether I wanted it this way or not, we are now faced with a question.”	The text’s autonomy creates meanings independent of the author’s intention, supporting the primacy of textual effects.
“The rose is a figure so rich in meanings that by now it hasn’t any meaning.”	Eco highlights the polysemy of symbols like the rose, which accumulate layers of meaning to the point of ambiguity.
“There is the transparent intention of the text, which disproves an untenable interpretation.”	Eco argues that the text has its own inherent logic, which can counter extreme misreadings or overinterpretations.
“It is not economical to think that Leopardi acted as a character of John Le Carré when he could say what he said in a better way.”	Eco critiques excessive overinterpretation, urging readers to balance interpretative freedom with textual economy.
“The text qua text still represents a comfortable presence, the point to which we can stick.”	Eco underscores the stability of the text itself amid debates over authorial intent and reader-driven meanings.

Day: December 18, 2024