Category: Theory Article Summaries

Introduction: “Lyric Words, not Worlds” by Jonathan Culler

“Lyric Words, not Worlds” by Jonathan Culler, first appeared in Journal of Literary Theory in 2017 (Vol. 11, Issue 1, pp. 32–39), challenges the prevalent notion that lyric poetry creates a fictional world akin to narrative fiction, a model that risks misrepresenting the genre’s distinctiveness. Culler argues that lyrics should not be primarily interpreted as fictional constructs but rather as forms of epideictic discourse—akin to oratory—that assert truths about our world through poetic form. Highlighting the tension between fictional elements (e.g., characters, minimal plots) and the ritualistic dimensions of lyric, Culler proposes that the ritualistic, characterized by performative and iterative features, holds structural priority in lyric poetry. By emphasizing brevity, rhythmic patterning, and the capacity for reiteration, Culler situates lyric as an event itself rather than a representation of events. His insights reinvigorate discussions in literary theory by advocating for a framework that appreciates the lyric’s unique authority, distinct from the narrative or fictional modes. This work has significantly influenced debates on lyric’s nature, especially in reassessing its relationship with mimesis, speaker dynamics, and the formal conventions that empower its claims to truth and universality.

Summary of “Lyric Words, not Worlds” by Jonathan Culler

1. The Misapplication of Fictional World Theory to Lyric Poetry
   Culler critiques the trend of interpreting lyric poetry through the lens of narrative fiction, where poems are said to construct fictional worlds. He asserts that this approach risks trivializing lyric poetry by reducing its universal claims to the subjective expressions of a fictional persona (Culler, 2017, p. 33). He highlights the inadequacy of this framework for understanding the authority and intent of lyric poetry.
2. Lyric as Epideictic Discourse, Not Mimesis
   Drawing on classical theories, Culler aligns lyric poetry with epideictic discourse, a rhetorical form focused on praise or blame, rather than mimesis or imitation (Culler, 2017, p. 34). He argues that lyric poetry often strives to function as an event in itself, rather than as a representation of events.
3. The Role of Fictional Elements in Lyric
   While acknowledging the presence of fictional elements, such as personas or minimal narratives, Culler maintains that these are secondary to the ritualistic and performative dimensions of lyric poetry. The authority of a lyric stems from its form, not from the creation of a fictional speaker or world (Culler, 2017, p. 35).
4. The Ritualistic Dimension of Lyric Poetry
   Culler emphasizes the ritualistic aspects of lyric, including its iterative nature, performative unity, and ceremonial elements. These features invite readers to occupy the position of the lyric “I” and make the poem’s language memorable and repeatable (Culler, 2017, pp. 35–36).
5. Critique of the Dominant Lyric Model
   Culler challenges the dominance of the dramatic monologue model in lyric pedagogy, which posits that the speaker is always a constructed persona. He argues that this model obscures the unique qualities of lyric poetry, particularly its focus on rhythm, linguistic patterning, and ritual (Culler, 2017, p. 37).
6. Tension Between Fictional and Ritualistic Modes
   Drawing on Roland Greene’s analysis, Culler describes the interplay between fictional and ritualistic modes in lyric sequences, such as Shakespeare’s sonnets. While some sequences create a semblance of narrative, the ritualistic elements often dominate in isolated lyrics (Culler, 2017, pp. 36–37).
7. Lyric’s Brevity and Authority
   Culler underscores the brevity of lyric poetry, which resists narrative elaboration and fosters a focus on memorable language and epiphanic moments. This brevity supports the lyric’s authority, derived from its sensuous form and conventions rather than fictional coherence (Culler, 2017, p. 38).
8. Rejecting the Fictional World Hypothesis for Lyric
   Culler questions the utility of framing lyric as generating a fictional world, given its brevity and lack of narrative depth. Instead, he advocates for treating lyrics as assertions about our world, which are authorized by their poetic form (Culler, 2017, p. 38).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Lyric Words, not Worlds” by Jonathan Culler

Contribution of “Lyric Words, not Worlds” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Lyric Words, not Worlds” by Jonathan Culler

Criticism Against “Lyric Words, not Worlds” by Jonathan Culler

Representative Quotations from “Lyric Words, not Worlds” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Lyric Words, not Worlds” by Jonathan Culler

1. McHale, Brian. “Beginning to Think about Narrative in Poetry.” Narrative, vol. 17, no. 1, 2009, pp. 11–30. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30219288. Accessed 18 Dec. 2024.
2. CULLER, JONATHAN. “Introduction: Critical Paradigms.” PMLA, vol. 125, no. 4, 2010, pp. 905–15. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41058288. Accessed 18 Dec. 2024.
3. Culler, Jonathan. “Lyric Words, not Worlds.” Journal of Literary Theory 11.1 (2017): 32-39.

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.

Introduction: “What Can Literature Do? Simone de Beauvoir as a Literary Theorist” by Toril Moi

“What Can Literature Do? Simone de Beauvoir as a Literary Theorist” by Toril Moi first appeared in PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) in January 2009, published by the Modern Language Association and accessible through JSTOR. In this seminal article, Moi explores Simone de Beauvoir’s undervalued contributions to literary theory, particularly through her essay “Que peut la littérature?” presented in 1964. Moi argues that Beauvoir’s literary philosophy, grounded in existentialism and phenomenology, offers a compelling counterpoint to poststructuralist trends that dominate feminist criticism. Beauvoir’s emphasis on literature as an act of unveiling human experience aligns with phenomenological and ordinary language philosophies, prioritizing voice, speech acts, and the situated nature of writing. Moi highlights the historical and theoretical significance of Beauvoir’s antiformalist approach, underscoring its relevance to contemporary debates on canon formation and feminist inclusivity. The article’s importance lies in recovering Beauvoir’s literary vision as a profound alternative to dominant theoretical paradigms, advocating for the integration of diverse voices and existential perspectives into literary studies.

Summary of “What Can Literature Do? Simone de Beauvoir as a Literary Theorist” by Toril Moi

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “What Can Literature Do? Simone de Beauvoir as a Literary Theorist” by Toril Moi

Contribution of “What Can Literature Do? Simone de Beauvoir as a Literary Theorist” by Toril Moi to Literary Theory/Theories

• Existentialism and Literary Theory:
  • Highlights Beauvoir’s existentialist perspective, where literature is seen as an act of revealing the world through a situated, subjective lens. Literature is not just a mirror but a means to unveil truths and engage with the world (Moi, 2009, p. 192).
  • Aligns with existentialist concepts of freedom and responsibility, where the author appeals to the reader’s freedom to co-create meaning (Moi, 2009, p. 191).
• Phenomenology in Literature:
  • Introduces phenomenology into literary theory by framing literature as an act of dévoilement (unveiling) that reveals specific, lived realities (Moi, 2009, p. 193).
  • Draws parallels between Beauvoir’s literary theory and Martin Heidegger’s aesthetics, where literature unveils the essence of human experience in its particularity (Moi, 2009, p. 192).
• Speech Act Theory and Literature:
  • Positions Beauvoir’s theory as compatible with ordinary language philosophy, emphasizing that literature is a speech act with ethical and communicative implications (Moi, 2009, p. 192).
  • Anticipates later developments in theories of performativity and the role of language in shaping reality (Moi, 2009, p. 194).
• Feminist Literary Theory:
  • Challenges the dominance of poststructuralist feminist theory, particularly critiques of écriture féminine, by emphasizing literature’s power to convey voice and individual experience without reducing it to purely technical experimentation (Moi, 2009, p. 190).
  • Advocates for expanding the canon to include diverse voices, particularly women and minorities, as a way to enrich understanding of human experience (Moi, 2009, p. 196).
• Antiformalism and Ethical Reading:
  • Offers an antiformalist critique of literary theory by rejecting the separation of form and content, arguing that the way a story is told is inseparable from its meaning (Moi, 2009, p. 194).
  • Advocates for an ethical approach to literature, focusing on its ability to overcome existential separation and foster empathy (Moi, 2009, p. 194).
• Redefinition of Realism:
  • Redefines realism not as a static depiction of reality but as the articulation of the writer’s situated and singular perspective of the world (Moi, 2009, p. 194).
  • Challenges poststructuralist dismissal of realism, proposing instead that all literature inherently reflects the author’s unique relationship to the world (Moi, 2009, p. 194).
• Voice and Human Presence in Literature:
  • Centralizes the concept of voice in literature, where a human presence and subjective truth are necessary for literature to be distinguished from mere information (Moi, 2009, p. 194).
  • Anticipates contemporary discussions in literary ethics and theories of affect that prioritize the communicative and relational aspects of literature (Moi, 2009, p. 195).
• Bridging Literature and Knowledge:
  • Frames literature as a source of epistemological value, where reading allows individuals to “taste another life” and access different perspectives without losing their own subjectivity (Moi, 2009, p. 194).
  • Connects to feminist and postcolonial critiques of traditional knowledge systems by emphasizing literature’s role in representing marginalized voices (Moi, 2009, p. 195).

Examples of Critiques Through “What Can Literature Do? Simone de Beauvoir as a Literary Theorist” by Toril Moi

Criticism Against “What Can Literature Do? Simone de Beauvoir as a Literary Theorist” by Toril Moi

• Overemphasis on Phenomenology and Existentialism
  • Critics may argue that Moi overemphasizes Beauvoir’s existential and phenomenological framework while sidelining alternative theoretical perspectives like structuralism or poststructuralism, which have also influenced literary theory.
  • This approach risks making Beauvoir’s ideas appear too narrowly situated within mid-20th-century intellectual currents.
• Underexploration of Poststructuralist Critiques
  • Moi acknowledges the poststructuralist critique of Beauvoir but does not sufficiently engage with or counter arguments that dismiss Beauvoir’s literary theory as outdated.
  • The text could delve deeper into reconciling Beauvoir’s existentialist focus with poststructuralist ideas about language and meaning (Moi, 2009, p. 191).
• Lack of Systematic Comparison with Contemporary Theorists
  • Moi mentions figures like Stanley Cavell, Roland Barthes, and Julia Kristeva but does not fully explore how Beauvoir’s theories compare or contrast with their approaches to literature.
  • Critics might feel this leaves Beauvoir’s place within broader literary theory somewhat underdefined.
• Potential Overinterpretation of Beauvoir’s Literary Contribution
  • Some might argue that Moi overstates Beauvoir’s impact as a literary theorist, framing her as “hidden” or underappreciated, when her contributions might better be classified as ancillary to her existentialist philosophy.
  • This could exaggerate the uniqueness or novelty of Beauvoir’s approach.
• Neglect of Beauvoir’s Limitations in Literary Practice
  • While Moi celebrates Beauvoir’s theoretical insights, there is little discussion of potential limitations in Beauvoir’s literary practice, such as her relatively modest reception as a novelist compared to other contemporaries like Sartre.
  • This leaves the balance between Beauvoir’s theoretical and creative contributions uneven.
• Simplification of the “Literature vs. Information” Debate
  • Moi’s treatment of Beauvoir’s distinction between literature and information could be seen as oversimplified. Critics might argue that the nuances of this distinction, particularly in the context of interdisciplinary works, deserve deeper analysis.
  • The critique of works like Oscar Lewis’s The Children of Sanchez as not fully literary may seem reductive (Moi, 2009, p. 193).
• Historical Contextual Limitations
  • Moi’s focus on Beauvoir’s 1964 lecture (Que peut la littérature?) as the central piece of evidence may narrow the scope of analysis, neglecting broader historical or cultural developments in literary theory that have evolved since then.

Representative Quotations from “What Can Literature Do? Simone de Beauvoir as a Literary Theorist” by Toril Moi with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “What Can Literature Do? Simone de Beauvoir as a Literary Theorist” by Toril Moi

1. Moi, Toril. “What Can Literature Do? Simone de Beauvoir as a Literary Theorist.” PMLA, vol. 124, no. 1, 2009, pp. 189–98. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25614258. Accessed 16 Dec. 2024.
2. Moi, Toril. “How the French Read.” New Literary History, vol. 44, no. 2, 2013, pp. 309–17. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24542597. Accessed 16 Dec. 2024.
3. Moi, Toril. “THE ADVENTURE OF READING: LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY, CAVELL AND BEAUVOIR.” Literature and Theology, vol. 25, no. 2, 2011, pp. 125–40. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23927546. Accessed 16 Dec. 2024.
4. de Beauvoir, Simone, et al. “WHAT CAN LITERATURE DO?” “The Useless Mouths” and Other Literary Writings, edited by Margaret A. Simons and Marybeth Timmermann, University of Illinois Press, 2011, pp. 197–210. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/j.ctt13x1m7b.20. Accessed 16 Dec. 2024.

Introduction: “The Application of Theory” by Jonathan Culler

“The Application of Theory” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in the James Joyce Quarterly (Vol. 18, No. 3, Spring 1981), published by the University of Tulsa. In this essay, Culler examines the challenges and implications of applying literary theory to textual analysis, focusing on Seymour Chatman’s Story and Discourse as a case study. Culler critiques the work of the MURGE group, which undertook a detailed, sentence-by-sentence application of Chatman’s model to James Joyce’s short story “Araby.” While Chatman expressed reservations about this exhaustive approach, particularly its tediousness and potential misrepresentation of his work, Culler highlights the theoretical tensions that emerge when attempting to use abstract models for concrete textual elucidation. He argues that the process exposes the need for precise operational definitions in theory while also revealing the inherent limitations of narrative models in resolving interpretive disagreements. Culler’s essay underscores the dual role of literary theory: as both a descriptive framework for understanding existing literary competence and a prescriptive tool that can reshape interpretive practices. This discussion is pivotal in literary theory as it questions the boundaries of theory’s applicability and its influence on critical methodologies.

Summary of “The Application of Theory” by Jonathan Culler

1. The Aim and Context of Culler’s Discussion
   Jonathan Culler’s essay, The Application of Theory, published in the James Joyce Quarterly (Vol. 18, No. 3, Spring 1981), evaluates the challenges of applying literary theory to textual analysis. Using Seymour Chatman’s Story and Discourse as a framework, Culler critiques the ambitious effort by the MURGE group to implement Chatman’s model in analyzing James Joyce’s “Araby.” This effort tested the boundaries of theoretical applicability in literary studies, highlighting both the potential insights and inherent limitations of narrative models (Culler 287).
2. MURGE Group’s Comprehensive Application of Theory
   The MURGE group undertook a rigorous, sentence-by-sentence application of Chatman’s model to “Araby,” striving for precision and consistency. They aimed to test the operational viability of Chatman’s framework by systematically identifying plot elements, such as kernels and satellites. Culler notes their belief that “a comprehensive analysis” was essential for fully evaluating the model’s utility, even if it appeared tedious to both write and read (Culler 288).
3. Chatman’s Objection to Exhaustive Analysis
   Seymour Chatman critiqued the MURGE group’s method as excessive and not in line with his intended application of the model. He argued that their detailed approach, with its reliance on diagrams and formulae, risked misrepresenting narrative analysis as overly mechanical or esoteric. Moreover, he claimed that their work “would not prove anything” and that a comprehensive analysis could not illuminate broader interpretive insights (Culler 287-288).
4. The Need for Operational Precision in Theory
   Culler emphasizes the importance of operational definitions in literary theory, especially for collaborative analyses like MURGE’s. Disagreements within the group about identifying narrative elements, such as character traits or kernels, underscored the limitations of Chatman’s model. As James Sosnoski observed, effective models must offer “explicit rules of identification” to ensure their practical usability (Culler 289).
5. Theory as a Tool for Clarification, Not Resolution
   Culler asserts that theoretical models should not be seen as algorithms capable of resolving interpretive disputes. Instead, they should clarify such disagreements by highlighting relevant textual factors. He argues that this inability to resolve conflicts reflects the model’s alignment with the complexities of literary competence. “Models of narrative are not algorithms designed to generate ‘true’ structural descriptions,” he writes, but rather representations of interpretive processes (Culler 290).
6. Literary Theory’s Dual Role
   Culler highlights the dual nature of literary theory: as both a descriptive tool for understanding existing literary competence and a prescriptive framework for reshaping interpretive practices. He observes that theoretical writings oscillate between presenting new concepts as accurate representations of literature and as tools for uncovering novel textual insights. This inherent tension, he concludes, ensures that “the application of theory will always be a problem, never a solution” (Culler 291-292).
7. Broader Implications for Literary Studies
   The essay ends by considering the broader implications of Culler’s analysis. He notes that interpretive models must account for ambiguity and disagreement among readers, as these features are intrinsic to literary texts. Taxonomies or classifications of narrative elements, for example, should reflect the judgments of experienced readers rather than relying solely on linguistic features (Culler 291).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “The Application of Theory” by Jonathan Culler

Contribution of “The Application of Theory” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “The Application of Theory” by Jonathan Culler

Criticism Against “The Application of Theory” by Jonathan Culler

Representative Quotations from “The Application of Theory” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “The Application of Theory” by Jonathan Culler

1. Culler, Jonathan. “The Application of Theory.” James Joyce Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 3, 1981, pp. 287–92. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25476373. Accessed 14 Dec. 2024.
2. XIE, MING. “What Does the Comparative Do for Theory?” PMLA, vol. 128, no. 3, 2013, pp. 675–82. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23489305. Accessed 14 Dec. 2024.
3. 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 14 Dec. 2024.

Introduction: “Ideology And Literature” by Michael Moriarty

“Ideology and Literature” by Michael Moriarty first appeared in the Journal of Political Ideologies in 2006, published online on August 8 by Routledge. In this pivotal article, Moriarty investigates the historical and theoretical interplay between ideology and literature, particularly through the lens of Marxist criticism. He explores Althusserian theories of ideology and their profound influence on literary criticism, emphasizing the Marxist tradition as a framework for understanding the connections between ideological constructs and literary texts. Moriarty traces the evolution of ideological analysis from Althusser’s conception of ideology as “lived experience” to its applications by thinkers like Terry Eagleton, Pierre Macherey, and Fredric Jameson. The article addresses the limitations and potentials of applying ideological critique to literature, noting that while it illuminates the societal and political dimensions of texts, it risks reductive interpretations. By engaging with alternate perspectives, including feminist, psychoanalytic, and deconstructionist critiques, Moriarty underscores the enduring relevance of ideology as an analytical tool, while cautioning against its overextension in literary studies. This work remains significant for its synthesis of critical theories and its interrogation of literature’s role in reflecting and challenging sociopolitical structures.

Summary of “Ideology And Literature” by Michael Moriarty

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Ideology And Literature” by Michael Moriarty

Contribution of “Ideology And Literature” by Michael Moriarty to Literary Theory/Theories

• Advancement of Marxist Literary Theory:
  • The article explores Marxist approaches to literature, focusing on Althusserian theories of ideology. It highlights the role of literature in exposing ideological structures and its contribution to Marxist criticism’s analysis of class struggle and domination (Moriarty, 2006, pp. 43–45).
  • Expands on Pierre Macherey’s notion that literature critiques its own ideological underpinnings by organizing and channeling ideological discourse into discernible structures (Moriarty, 2006, p. 45).
• Reevaluation of Ideology in Literature:
  • Extends Althusser’s conceptualization of ideology as lived experience, arguing that literature makes ideology visible through artistic forms rather than scientific analysis (Moriarty, 2006, pp. 44–46).
  • Suggests that literature provides “an analogue of knowledge,” not by representing reality, but by revealing the structures of ideology that shape human experience (Moriarty, 2006, pp. 46–47).
• Integration of Psychoanalysis with Marxist Theory:
  • Discusses the incorporation of psychoanalytic theories into Marxist literary criticism, notably in Jameson’s The Political Unconscious, which views texts as reflecting collective fantasies and contradictions (Moriarty, 2006, pp. 48–49).
• Contribution to the Debate on the Function of Literature:
  • Challenges traditional Marxist views that focus solely on class struggle, arguing for broader applications of ideology, including its intersection with race, gender, and colonialism (Moriarty, 2006, pp. 50–53).
  • Critiques the category of “literature” itself, suggesting that its institutional and cultural definitions are deeply ideological and historically contingent (Moriarty, 2006, p. 55).
• Heteroglossia and Literary Texts:
  • Draws on Bakhtin’s concept of heteroglossia to demonstrate how literary texts contain multiple conflicting discourses, making ideology visible and destabilizing dominant narratives (Moriarty, 2006, p. 52).
• Interdisciplinary Application of Ideology:
  • Highlights the flexibility of the term “ideology,” showing its relevance in feminist, postcolonial, and critical race theories by addressing broader forms of domination beyond class (Moriarty, 2006, pp. 53–54).
• Critique of Reductionism in Literary Studies:
  • Warns against reductionist approaches in Marxist literary criticism that view literature solely as a reflection of economic and social structures. Instead, it emphasizes literature’s capacity to subvert and critique ideology through its formal and aesthetic dimensions (Moriarty, 2006, p. 55).
• Relevance to Contemporary Criticism:
  • Asserts the continuing importance of ideology in understanding literature’s engagement with social and political realities, while recognizing the term’s evolution in non-Marxist frameworks (Moriarty, 2006, p. 53).
• Role of the Reader and Critic:
  • Emphasizes the active role of the reader and critic in uncovering and analyzing the ideological functions of literary texts, bridging formalist and materialist methodologies (Moriarty, 2006, pp. 46–47).
• Utopian Potential of Literature:
  • Engages with Fredric Jameson’s idea of the “utopian” dimension of literature, suggesting that literature provides imaginative frameworks for envisioning alternative social realities (Moriarty, 2006, p. 56).

Examples of Critiques Through “Ideology And Literature” by Michael Moriarty

Criticism Against “Ideology And Literature” by Michael Moriarty

Representative Quotations from “Ideology And Literature” by Michael Moriarty with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Ideology And Literature” by Michael Moriarty

1. MORIARTY, MICHAEL. “Barthes: Ideology, Culture, Subjectivity.” Paragraph, vol. 11, no. 3, 1988, pp. 185–209. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43151672. Accessed 16 Dec. 2024.
2. Moriarty, Michael. “The Longest Cultural Journey: Raymond Williams and French Theory.” Social Text, no. 30, 1992, pp. 57–77. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/466466. Accessed 16 Dec. 2024.
3. Moriarty, Michael. “Ideology and literature.” The Meaning of Ideology. Routledge, 2013. 41-58.

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

Contribution of “Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.