Day: December 18, 2024

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

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

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

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

Criticism Against “Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler

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

Suggested Readings: “Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler

1. Hutcheon, Linda. “Productive Comparative Angst: Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism.” World Literature Today, vol. 69, no. 2, 1995, pp. 299–303. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/40151140. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
2. Yu, Pauline. “Comparative Literature in Question.” Daedalus, vol. 135, no. 2, 2006, pp. 38–53. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20028031. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
3. Strickland, Geoffrey R. “‘The Literary Competence’ of Jonathan Culler.” The Cambridge Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 2, 1984, pp. 164–77. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42966546. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
4. CULLER, JONATHAN, and Péter Csató. “AN INTERVIEW WITH JONATHAN CULLER.” Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HJEAS), vol. 8, no. 2, 2002, pp. 58–71. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41274187. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
5. Culler, Jonathan. “Whither comparative literature?.” Comparative Critical Studies 3.1-2 (2006): 85-97.

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

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

1. 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).
2. 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).
3. 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).
4. 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).
5. 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).
6. 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).
7. 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).
8. 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

Criticism Against “In Defence Of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Potential for Misreading
   • By advocating for interpretative extremes, Culler risks encouraging arbitrary or misguided readings that may distort rather than illuminate the text.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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

Suggested Readings: “In Defence Of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler

1. 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 17 Dec. 2024.
2. Kaminski, Johannes. “Joys and Sorrows of Interpretation.” Lives and Deaths of Werther: Interpretation, Translation, and Adaptation in Europe and East Asia, The British Academy, 2023, pp. 21–69. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.20829393.4. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
3. Culler, Jonathan. “READERS AND READING.” On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism, Cornell University Press, 1982, pp. 31–84. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt1ffjph5.6. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
4. Culler, Jonathan. “In Defence of Overinterpretation, dalam Umberto Eco, Interpretation and Overinterpretation.” (1992).

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

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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).
4. 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).
5. 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).
6. 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).
7. 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).
8. 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).
9. 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).
10. 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

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

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. 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).
5. 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).
6. 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).
7. 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).
8. 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).
9. 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

Criticism Against “Between Author And Text” By Umberto Eco

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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

Suggested Readings: “Between Author And Text” By Umberto Eco

1. Capozzi, Rocco. “Umberto Eco: Acute Observer of Our Social and Cultural History.” Italica, vol. 93, no. 1, 2016, pp. 5–22. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43896080. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
2. Eco, Umberto. “Reading My Readers.” MLN, vol. 107, no. 5, 1992, pp. 819–27. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2904818. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
3. Eco, Umberto. “Two Problems in Textual Interpretation.” Poetics Today, vol. 2, no. 1a, 1980, pp. 145–61. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1772358. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
4. Eco, Umberto. Six walks in the fictional woods. Harvard University Press, 1994.
5. Eco, U. (2010). Between Author and Text. In Interpretation and Overinterpretation (pp. 67-88). Cambridge University Press.