Category: Theory Article Summaries

Introduction: “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler

“Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in 2010 in the journal PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association). This seminal work investigates the evolution and shifts in literary criticism, tracing its roots from ancient modes of judgment in poetic performances to modern interpretive frameworks. Culler explores critical transformations, particularly the break from classical genre-based criticism to a focus on literature as a mode of expression. He draws heavily on theorists like Jacques Rancière to articulate this paradigmatic shift and its implications for literary criticism. The essay underscores how the transition from mimesis to expression has diversified the field, giving rise to a wide array of interpretive methods, such as structuralism and poststructuralism, that engage with texts as dynamic systems of meaning. Its importance lies in framing the challenges and opportunities for criticism in the 21st century, particularly amidst technological advancements and changing conceptions of texts and media. Culler’s insights provoke deeper inquiry into the purpose and methodology of literary criticism, encouraging scholars to reconceptualize its role in a rapidly evolving intellectual and cultural landscape.

Summary of “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler

Contribution of “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler

Criticism Against “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler

• Overemphasis on Historical Evolution
  Critics argue that Culler’s extensive focus on the historical evolution of criticism—such as the transition from mimesis to expression—overshadows more contemporary and urgent theoretical concerns, limiting its applicability to present-day challenges.
• Limited Engagement with Non-Western Literatures
  The essay predominantly centers on Western literary traditions and paradigms, failing to adequately address critical frameworks from non-Western or marginalized literatures, which are increasingly vital in global literary discourse.
• Ambiguity in Theoretical Future
  While Culler raises questions about the future of criticism, he offers limited concrete solutions or new paradigms, leaving many of his inquiries unresolved and overly abstract.
• Neglect of Practical Criticism
  The essay focuses on theoretical developments but provides minimal guidance on applying these paradigms to practical criticism, leaving a gap for readers seeking actionable methods.
• Reliance on Established Theorists
  Critics note that Culler heavily references established figures such as Derrida, Rancière, and Foucault, which may reinforce traditional academic hierarchies rather than exploring emerging or alternative voices.
• Overgeneralization of Paradigms
  Some scholars suggest that Culler’s categorization of paradigms, such as expressive poetics and structuralism, oversimplifies their diverse and nuanced applications in literary criticism.
• Neglect of Aesthetic Pleasure
  The essay downplays the role of aesthetic pleasure and the reader’s emotional engagement with literature, which many believe remains central to literary studies.
• Technological Challenges Underexplored
  While Culler mentions the impact of digital texts, critics argue that he fails to fully explore the complexities and implications of technology on literature and criticism in the 21st century.
• Fragmentation of Ideas
  The essay’s structure, which integrates multiple theoretical perspectives, has been critiqued for being overly fragmented, making it difficult to identify a unified thesis or direction.

Representative Quotations from “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler

1. Dawson, Paul. “Style, the Narrating Instance, and the ‘Trace’ of Writing.” Style, vol. 47, no. 4, 2013, pp. 466–89. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.47.4.466. Accessed 19 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 19 Dec. 2024.
3. Culler, Jonathan. “Problems in the ‘History’ of Contemporary Criticism.” The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, vol. 17, no. 1, 1984, pp. 3–15. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1315457. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
4. Culler, Jonathan. “Lyric, History, and Genre.” New Literary History, vol. 40, no. 4, 2009, pp. 879–99. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40666452. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.

Introduction: “On The Sublime” By Longinus translated by W. H. Fyfe

“On The Sublime” by Longinus, translated by W.H. Fyfe and revised by Donald Russell, first appeared in 1995 under Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England. As a foundational work of literary criticism, “On The Sublime” explores the nature and sources of elevated writing, providing profound insights into how sublimity in literature transcends persuasion to transport readers or listeners into a state of exalted emotional and intellectual experience. The text critiques earlier treatments of the sublime, particularly those lacking practical guidance, emphasizing that true greatness in literature combines innate genius with methodical refinement. This blend of nature and art enables expressions that are not merely convincing but transformative. Longinus discusses essential elements of the sublime, such as grandeur of conception, emotional intensity, and stylistic excellence, alongside practical techniques like figurative language and rhythmical harmony. The treatise remains a cornerstone of literary theory, influencing the Romantic era’s emphasis on imagination and elevating the pursuit of literary excellence as a means of touching the divine in human expression.

Summary of “On The Sublime” By Longinus translated by W. H. Fyfe

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “On The Sublime” By Longinus translated by W. H. Fyfe

Contribution of “On The Sublime” By Longinus translated by W. H. Fyfe to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “On The Sublime” By Longinus translated by W. H. Fyfe

Criticism Against “On The Sublime” By Longinus translated by W. H. Fyfe

• Subjectivity in Defining Sublimity: Critics argue that Longinus’ definition of sublimity relies heavily on subjective criteria, such as personal emotional response, making it less applicable as a universal standard.
• Ambiguity in Core Concepts: The treatise lacks a clear and systematic definition of what constitutes sublimity, blending moral, intellectual, and aesthetic elements without clear boundaries.
• Fragmented Structure: The incomplete nature of the text leaves many ideas undeveloped, leading to interpretive challenges and speculation about Longinus’ full intentions.
• Overemphasis on Rhetoric: Some scholars critique Longinus for focusing predominantly on rhetorical texts, thus marginalizing other forms of literary sublimity, such as narrative or drama.

Criticism Against Its Relevance

• Limited Scope in Literary Application: The examples and analysis are largely confined to classical texts, making the principles less directly applicable to diverse literary traditions and modern works.
• Neglect of Non-Western Traditions: Critics point out that Longinus’ framework excludes or fails to address the aesthetic and literary traditions of non-Western cultures, reflecting a Eurocentric bias.

Criticism Against The Translation by W. H. Fyfe

• Loss of Nuance in Translation: Some scholars believe that Fyfe’s translation, while eloquent, occasionally sacrifices the precision of Longinus’ original Greek phrasing.
• Historical Contextualization: Fyfe’s interpretation of Longinus has been critiqued for not adequately situating the work within its broader historical and philosophical context, potentially altering its meaning.

Criticism Against Methodology

• Overreliance on Classical Exemplars: Longinus’ repeated citation of classical authors, such as Homer and Plato, may alienate readers seeking examples beyond the Greek and Roman literary canon.
• Moralistic Undertones: The association of sublimity with moral greatness is seen as problematic by some, as it conflates aesthetic judgment with ethical considerations.

Representative Quotations from “On The Sublime” By Longinus translated by W. H. Fyfe with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “On The Sublime” By Longinus translated by W. H. Fyfe

1. Godolphin, F. R. B. “The Basic Critical Doctrine of ‘Longinus,’ On the Sublime.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, vol. 68, 1937, pp. 172–83. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/283262. Accessed 18 Dec. 2024.
2. Macksey, Richard. “Longinus Reconsidered.” MLN, vol. 108, no. 5, 1993, pp. 913–34. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2904883. Accessed 18 Dec. 2024.
3. O’Gorman, Ned. “Longinus’s Sublime Rhetoric, or How Rhetoric Came into Its Own.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 2, 2004, pp. 71–89. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40232412. Accessed 18 Dec. 2024.
4. de Jonge, Casper C., and Arjan A. Nijk. “Longinus, On the Sublime 12.4-5: Demosthenes and Cicero.” Mnemosyne, vol. 72, no. 5, 2019, pp. 766–90. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26787697. Accessed 18 Dec. 2024.
5. Campana, Joseph. “On Not Defending Poetry: Spenser, Suffering, and the Energy of Affect.” PMLA, vol. 120, no. 1, 2005, pp. 33–48. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25486143. Accessed 18 Dec. 2024.

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.