Category: Theory Article Summaries

Introduction: “Literature As Discourse” by Roger Fowler

“Literature As Discourse” by Roger Fowler was first published in 1981 as part of the collection Criticism. This seminal work was instrumental in shifting the focus of literary analysis from formalist approaches to a discourse-oriented perspective. By treating literature as a form of social interaction rather than an isolated aesthetic object, Fowler’s work opened up new avenues for exploring the relationship between language, power, and ideology within texts. This paradigm shift significantly impacted the trajectory of literary theory, leading to a more socially and culturally engaged mode of literary criticism.

Summary of “Literature As Discourse” by Roger Fowler

• Critique of Linguistic Formalism: Fowler challenges “linguistic formalism,” particularly its focus on “distinctive syntactic and phonological shape,” as seen in Roman Jakobson’s work. He argues that this approach is “of limited significance” and “educationally restrictive” in literary studies.
• Literature as Discourse: Fowler proposes viewing literature as “discourse,” emphasizing the “interactional dimensions of texts.” This approach considers literature as “mediating relationships between language-users,” including “consciousness, ideology, role, and class.”
• Rejection of Formal Autonomy: Fowler rejects the idea that literary works possess “formal autonomy” and insists that literature is “part of social process” and subject to “causal and functional interpretations” similar to those in the sociology of language.
• Functional Linguistic Approach: Fowler advocates for a “functional theory of language,” as opposed to purely formalist approaches. He references Halliday’s functional grammar, which includes “ideational, interpersonal, and textual” functions, asserting that language’s purpose is rooted in its “communicative purposes.”
• Critique of Jakobson’s Poetic Function: Fowler criticizes Jakobson’s emphasis on the “phonetic and syntactic features” of poetry, arguing that it “suppresses” other language functions and reflects the “formalist goals” of a “historically specific culture.”
• Literature’s Responsibility: Fowler emphasizes that literature is not “exempt” from its “responsibility to work in the real world.” He argues that literature must acknowledge its “interpersonal function” and cannot be “cocooned” from its “relationship with society.”
• Speech Act Theory in Literary Criticism: Fowler introduces John Searle’s revision of Austin’s speech act theory, suggesting that “every utterance” in literature involves “locutionary, propositional, and illocutionary acts.” He uses Blake’s “Tyger” as an example to show how understanding these acts is “prerequisite to interpretation.”
• Focus on Interactional Features: Fowler concludes that analyzing literature as discourse allows critics to focus on “features of language” that “signal the interaction of consciousnesses.” This approach challenges “evasive critics’ strategies” that attempt to separate literature from “communicative transactions.”
• Literature as an Answerable Discourse: The essay argues that viewing literature as discourse makes it “inevitably answerable” and “responsible,” opposing the notion that literature can be an “objective” or “depersonalized” entity detached from society.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literature As Discourse” by Roger Fowler

Literary Device/Concept	Definition	Example
Formalism	A literary theory that focuses on the text as an independent object, emphasizing its structure and form.	Jakobson’s analysis of poetry, concentrating on phonetic and syntactic features.
Discourse	Language in use, focusing on the interaction between language users and the social context.	Fowler’s approach to treating literature as a process of communication between implied speakers.
Ideational Function	The function of language that conveys a worldview and structures experience.	The transmission of a particular perspective through the use of nouns, predicates, and logical connectives.
Interpersonal Function	The function of language that establishes and maintains relationships between people.	The use of questions, assertions, and status markers to signal the relationship between speaker and listener.
Textual Function	The function of language that creates well-formed and coherent texts.	The use of grammatical structures and cohesive devices to create a complete and understandable message.
Speech Act	A unit of language that performs an action, such as stating, promising, or questioning.	Blake’s rhetorical questions in “Tyger” which challenge the reader’s understanding of power and beauty.
Illocutionary Act	The intended meaning of a speech act, such as requesting, informing, or promising.	The implied meaning behind Blake’s rhetorical questions, which is to persuade the reader of the error and inscrutability of power and beauty.

Contribution of “Literature As Discourse” by Roger Fowler to Literary Theory/Theories

Literary Theory	Contribution	Supporting Quoted Phrases
Formalism	Challenges the focus on form, syntax, and structure as the primary elements of literary analysis.	“Linguistic formalism is of limited significance in literary studies, and educationally restrictive.”
Structuralism	Criticizes the reduction of literature to formal structures, advocating for a broader view of text as discourse.	“The text ceases to be an object and becomes an action or process.”
Marxism	Aligns with Marxist perspectives by recognizing literature’s connection to social and economic structures.	“The values are neither universal… They derive from the economic and social structures of particular societies.”
Sociolinguistics	Introduces the idea of literature as part of social discourse, focusing on its interactional dimensions.	“To treat literature as discourse is to see the text as mediating relationships between language-users: not only relationships of speech, but also of consciousness.”
Pragmatics	Applies speech act theory to literature, examining how language functions within texts to convey actions.	“Every utterance is simultaneously three language acts… locutionary, propositional, and illocutionary acts.”
Post-Structuralism	Questions the stability and universality of meaning, emphasizing literature’s role in social processes.	“No plausible essentialist or intrinsic definition of literature has been or is likely to be devised.”
Reader-Response Theory	Suggests that literature involves the reader in a communicative process, highlighting the role of interaction.	“These unanswerable questions bounce off the tiger towards the implied reader of the poem, and so a discourse is established.”
Discourse Analysis	Positions literature as a form of discourse that cannot be isolated from social communication and power relations.	“Literature isn’t exempt from language’s general responsibility to work in the real world of conflicts and sympathies.”
Cultural Studies	Recognizes literature as a product of cultural values, subject to historical and ideological influences.	“What literature is, can be stated empirically, within the realm of sociolinguistic fact… recognized by a culture as possessing certain institutional values.”

Examples of Critiques Through “Literature As Discourse” by Roger Fowler

Literary Work	Critique (using Fowler’s concepts)
William Blake’s “Tyger”	Blake’s poem “Tyger” is a prime example of how discourse analysis can illuminate a text’s meaning. The speaker’s questions, though directed at the tiger, are infelicitous (violating the conditions of normal communication) and function rhetorically. These unanswerable questions (“What the hammer? what the chain?”) are not meant to elicit information from the tiger but rather to create a sense of disorientation in the reader. By highlighting the limitations of language to comprehend the tiger’s existence (“What the anvil? what dread grasp / Dare its deadly terrors clasp?”), the poem challenges our understanding of power and beauty.
Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice”	Through the lens of discourse analysis, Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” can be seen as a commentary on social class and its impact on communication. The characters’ language choices and interactions reveal their social standing and influence their relationships.   For instance, Mr. Darcy’s initial aloofness and Elizabeth Bennet’s spirited retorts reflect the societal expectations and power dynamics between the landed gentry and the middle class. The witty banter and underlying tension highlight the importance of interpersonal function in the novel, where language is used not just to convey information but also to establish dominance and negotiate social positions.
Charles Dickens’ “Oliver Twist”	Charles Dickens’ “Oliver Twist” utilizes language to convey a particular ideology and critique social injustices. The impoverished characters’ limited vocabulary and the use of slang reflect their marginalization within society.   Dickens employs the ideational function extensively, shaping the reader’s worldview by depicting the harsh realities of poverty and the power imbalances between the rich and the poor. The narrative exposes the hypocrisy of Victorian society through the characters’ language and actions.
Modern Dystopian Novel	In a modern dystopian novel, the manipulation of language by the ruling class becomes a central theme. The government restricts vocabulary and enforces specific forms of discourse to control the population’s thoughts and behavior.   This suppression of free speech and critical thinking exemplifies Fowler’s concept of discourse as a tool for social control. By analyzing the limited language choices available to the characters, we can understand the oppressive nature of the regime and the characters’ potential resistance strategies.

Criticism Against “Literature As Discourse” by Roger Fowler

• Overemphasis on Social Context: Critics argue that Fowler places too much emphasis on the social and ideological context of literature, potentially overshadowing the aesthetic and artistic qualities of the text.
• Neglect of Literary Autonomy: Fowler’s rejection of the formal autonomy of literature is seen by some as diminishing the unique qualities that distinguish literary texts from other forms of discourse.
• Reduction of Literature to Discourse: Some critics believe that treating literature solely as discourse may oversimplify complex literary works, reducing them to mere social or ideological functions rather than appreciating their multifaceted nature.
• Potential Undervaluation of Formalist Insights: By dismissing linguistic formalism as “of limited significance,” Fowler may overlook valuable insights that formalist approaches can offer in understanding the structure and technique of literary works.
• Risk of Ideological Bias: Fowler’s approach, which emphasizes literature’s role in reflecting and mediating social relationships, might introduce an ideological bias that interprets texts primarily through a political or social lens, potentially skewing interpretations.
• Challenge to Traditional Aesthetics: Fowler’s challenge to conventional literary aesthetics, such as the notion of “objective” or “depersonalized” literature, is seen by some as an undermining of well-established critical frameworks that have long been valued in literary studies.
• Complexity of Speech Act Theory Application: The application of speech act theory to literature, as advocated by Fowler, might be viewed as overly complex or impractical, especially for literary works that do not fit neatly into the framework of locutionary, propositional, and illocutionary acts.

Suggested Readings: “Literature As Discourse” by Roger Fowler

1. Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature. Cornell University Press, 1975.
2. Fowler, Roger. Essays on Style and Language: Linguistics and Critical Approaches to Literary Style. Routledge, 1966.
3. Fowler, Roger. Literature as Social Discourse: The Practice of Linguistic Criticism. Batsford Academic and Educational, 1981.
4. Halliday, M.A.K. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Edward Arnold, 1978.
5. Jakobson, Roman. “Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics.” Style in Language, edited by Thomas A. Sebeok, MIT Press, 1960, pp. 350-377.
6. Lodge, David. The Modes of Modern Writing: Metaphor, Metonymy, and the Typology of Modern Literature. Cornell University Press, 1977.
7. Richards, I. A. Practical Criticism: A Study of Literary Judgment. Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1929.
8. Searle, John R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, 1969.
9. Widdowson, H.G. Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature. Longman, 1975.

Representative Quotations from “Literature As Discourse” by Roger Fowler with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The text ceases to be an object and becomes an action or process.”	This quotation highlights Fowler’s central thesis that literature should be seen as an interactive discourse, not merely as a static, formal structure.
“To treat literature as discourse is to see the text as mediating relationships between language-users.”	Fowler emphasizes that literature plays a role in shaping and reflecting social relationships, making it a dynamic participant in communication and society.
“Linguistic formalism is of limited significance in literary studies, and educationally restrictive.”	Fowler critiques the traditional focus on formalist approaches in literary studies, arguing that they fail to account for the broader social and communicative functions of literature.
“What literature is, can be stated empirically, within the realm of sociolinguistic fact.”	This statement reflects Fowler’s view that literature’s definition is not fixed but is shaped by cultural and social contexts, which can be observed and analyzed empirically.
“Literature isn’t exempt from language’s general responsibility to work in the real world of conflicts and sympathies.”	Fowler argues that literature, as a form of language, must engage with real-world issues, and cannot be isolated from social and ethical responsibilities.
“A text is treated as a process, the communicative interaction of implied speakers and thus of consciousnesses and of communities.”	This quotation encapsulates Fowler’s approach to literary analysis, which focuses on understanding texts as active communicative processes that involve multiple perspectives and social interactions.

Introduction: “Linguistics And Poetics” by Roman Jakobson

“Linguistics and Poetics” by Roman Jakobson was first published in 1960 as part of the collection A Linguist’s Handbook. This seminal essay revolutionized literary theory by bridging the gap between linguistics and poetics. Jakobson argued that poetic language is not fundamentally different from everyday language but rather represents a heightened focus on the message itself. By introducing the concept of the poetic function and exploring the six elements of communication, he provided a framework for analyzing literary texts with unprecedented rigor and sophistication. This essay remains a cornerstone of literary studies, inspiring countless scholars and critics to delve deeper into the intricacies of language and its artistic potential.

Summary of “Linguistics And Poetics” by Roman Jakobson

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Linguistics And Poetics” by Roman Jakobson

Term	Definition	Example
Poetic Function	Focus on the message for its own sake, emphasizing the form and sound of language.	Poetry, advertising jingles, and even everyday speech can exhibit poetic function.
Selection and Combination	Two basic modes of language use: choosing words and arranging them.	Selecting the words “child” and “sleeps” and combining them into “the child sleeps.”
Equivalence	The principle of similarity or sameness between elements in language.	Rhyme, meter, and alliteration are based on equivalence.
Contiguity	The principle of connection or association between elements in language.	Syntax, grammar, and the flow of ideas rely on contiguity.
Referential Function	Focus on the context or object being referred to.	Informative texts, news reports, and scientific papers primarily use this function.
Emotive Function	Focus on the speaker’s attitude or emotions.	Exclamations, interjections, and emotionally charged language.
Conative Function	Focus on the addressee, aiming to influence or persuade.	Commands, requests, and advertising slogans.
Phatic Function	Focus on establishing, maintaining, or ending communication.	Greetings, small talk, and social rituals.
Metalingual Function	Focus on the code itself, explaining or clarifying language.	Dictionaries, grammar books, and language lessons.

Contribution of “Linguistics And Poetics” by Roman Jakobson to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Linguistics And Poetics” by Roman Jakobson

Literary Work	Poetic Function	Referential Function
“Hamlet” by Shakespeare	– Utilizes complex poetic devices to enhance textual musicality and structural beauty.	– Grounds the narrative with a detailed historical and geographical setting.
“1984” by George Orwell	– Employs straightforward language; poetic elements highlight thematic concerns subtly.	– Creates a detailed, believable dystopian context that frames the narrative.
“The Waste Land” by T.S. Eliot	– Dense with allusions, employing a complex structure to elevate thematic and formal expression.	– Rich in historical, cultural, and mythological allusions that deepen the narrative context.
“Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen	– Irony and wit provide a poetic quality to the narrative, subtly influencing reader perception.	– Offers a meticulous depiction of early 19th-century English society, informing character behavior and social interactions.

Criticism Against “Linguistics And Poetics” by Roman Jakobson

Suggested Readings: “Linguistics And Poetics” by Roman Jakobson

1. Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature. Cornell UP, 1975.
2. Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. 2nd ed., U of Minnesota P, 2008.
3. Holdcroft, David. Saussure: Signs, System, and Arbitrariness. Cambridge UP, 1991.
4. Jakobson, Roman. Language in Literature. Edited by Krystyna Pomorska and Stephen Rudy, Harvard UP, 1987.
5. Jakobson, Roman, and Morris Halle. Fundamentals of Language. Mouton, 1956.
6. Joseph, John E. Saussure. Oxford UP, 2012.
7. Rudy, Stephen. Roman Jakobson: Life, Language, Art. Routledge, 1993.
8. Waugh, Linda R., and Monique Monville-Burston. On Language. Harvard UP, 1990.
9. Caton, Steven C. “Contributions of Roman Jakobson.” Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 16, 1987, pp. 223–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155871. Accessed 14 Aug. 2024.
10. Waugh, Linda R. “The Poetic Function in the Theory of Roman Jakobson.” Poetics Today, vol. 2, no. 1a, 1980, pp. 57–82. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1772352. Accessed 14 Aug. 2024.
11. Bohn, Willard. “Roman Jakobson’s Theory of Metaphor and Metonymy: An Annotated Bibliography.” Style, vol. 18, no. 4, 1984, pp. 534–50. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42945521. Accessed 14 Aug. 2024.

Representative Quotations from “Linguistics And Poetics” by Roman Jakobson with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Poetics deals primarily with the question, What makes a verbal message a work of art?”	This quotation establishes the central concern of poetics as the identification of the qualities that elevate language to art.
“The verbal structure of a message depends primarily on the predominant function.”	This quote highlights the importance of function in shaping the structure of language. Different functions (referential, emotive, etc.) lead to distinct verbal structures.
“Each of these six factors determines a different function of language.”	This introduces Jakobson’s influential model of six language functions (referential, emotive, conative, phatic, metalingual, poetic).
“The poetic function projects the principle of equivalence from the axis of selection into the axis of combination.”	This defines the poetic function as the emphasis on similarity and equivalence between words, sounds, or structures within a message.
“In poetry, and to a certain extent in latent manifestations of poetic function, sequences delimited by word boundaries become commensurable whether they are sensed as isochronic or graded.”	This quote delves deeper into the poetic function, explaining how it creates a sense of rhythm and measurability in language.
“To sum up, the analysis of verse is entirely within the competence of poetics…”	This quotation underscores the role of poetics in analyzing verse, recognizing its connection to, but distinction from, poetry.

Introduction: “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov

“Definition of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov was first published in 1981 as part of the collection Introduction to Poetics. Translated into English in the same year, the work holds immense importance in literature and literary theory. It serves as a foundational text, offering a comprehensive framework for understanding the nature of literary language and its functions. Todorov’s exploration of narrative structure, genre, and the relationship between literature and reality has significantly influenced subsequent critical and theoretical discussions.

Summary of “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov

• Two Attitudes in Literary Studies: Divergence Between Interpretation and Scientific Analysis: Todorov identifies two primary approaches in literary studies: one that treats the literary text as “a sufficient object of knowledge” and focuses on interpreting its meaning, and another that views each text as “the manifestation of an abstract structure” and seeks to understand the underlying laws governing literature. The first approach, which Todorov refers to as “interpretation,” aims to extract and articulate the meaning inherent within the text itself, considering the literary work as “the ultimate and unique object” of study (Todorov, p. 87). In contrast, the second approach inscribes itself within a scientific framework, where the goal is not merely to describe the particular work but to “establish general laws” that transcend individual texts (Todorov, p. 87). These two approaches, while distinct, are not necessarily incompatible, as they represent complementary perspectives on understanding literature.
• Interpretation: The Pursuit and Limitations of Extracting Meaning: Interpretation, which encompasses activities such as “exegesis, commentary, explication de texte,” and “close reading,” is defined by its pursuit to “name the meaning of the text examined” (Todorov, p. 87). The ideal of interpretation is to “make the text itself speak,” striving for fidelity to the object of study, which necessitates an “effacement of the subject”—the interpreter’s own biases and preconceptions (Todorov, p. 87). However, Todorov highlights the inherent drama in this approach: interpretation can never fully realize the text’s meaning but can only arrive at “a meaning subject to historical and psychological contingencies” (Todorov, p. 87). Moreover, pure interpretation risks becoming a mere “word-for-word repetition” of the work, as it must occasionally “project [the work] elsewhere than upon itself” to offer meaningful insights (Todorov, p. 87).
• Scientific Approach: Transcending the Particular to Discover General Laws: The second attitude in literary studies aligns itself with scientific inquiry, where the focus shifts from the particular text to the general principles it embodies. This approach sees the literary work not as an autonomous entity but as a “manifestation of laws that are external to it,” whether those laws pertain to psychology, sociology, philosophy, or other fields (Todorov, p. 88). The objective is to “transpose the work into the realm considered fundamental,” deciphering it as an expression of “something” beyond the text itself (Todorov, p. 88). This “labor of decipherment and translation” positions literary analysis within various scientific disciplines, aiming to uncover the broader laws that govern the creation and reception of literary works (Todorov, p. 88).
• Poetics: An Abstract and Internal Study of Literary Discourse: Todorov introduces poetics as a distinct approach that breaks down the dichotomy between interpretation and scientific analysis. Unlike interpretation, which seeks to name the meaning of individual works, poetics “does not seek to name meaning” but rather aims “at a knowledge of the general laws that preside over the birth of each work” within the literary domain (Todorov, p. 88). Unlike scientific analyses that look to external factors, poetics seeks these laws “within literature itself,” making it an “abstract” yet “internal” approach (Todorov, p. 88). The focus of poetics is not on the literary work itself but on the properties of “literary discourse,” specifically the concept of “literariness,” which Todorov defines as the “abstract property that constitutes the singularity of the literary phenomenon” (Todorov, p. 88). Thus, poetics is concerned with the theoretical structures and functions of literature as a whole, rather than with the specificities of individual texts.
• Structuralism and Poetics: Examining the Relationship and Distinctions: Todorov addresses the relationship between poetics and structuralism, acknowledging that poetics is “structural” in a broad sense because it deals with “an abstract structure (literature)” rather than individual literary works (Todorov, p. 89). However, Todorov distinguishes poetics from certain structuralist approaches that reduce literature to a system of communication or social codes. He argues that poetics, as he presents it, is not bound by the “limited corpus of hypotheses” associated with early structuralism, which often offered “instrumentalist conceptions of language” (Todorov, p. 89). Instead, poetics maintains a broader, more flexible relationship with structuralism, focusing on the inherent properties of literary discourse itself.
• Poetics and Linguistics: The Integral Role of Language in Literary Analysis: Finally, Todorov explores the connection between poetics and linguistics, asserting that literature is “a product of language,” and therefore, any study of literature must inherently engage with linguistic theories (Todorov, p. 89). While poetics may draw insights from linguistics, its scope is broader, encompassing “all the sciences of languages,” including disciplines such as anthropology, psychoanalysis, and philosophy of language (Todorov, p. 89). Poetics finds its closest allies in disciplines that study discourse, collectively forming the field of rhetoric, understood “in the broadest sense as a general science of discourses” (Todorov, p. 89). Thus, poetics positions itself at the intersection of literary theory, linguistics, and semiotics, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of literature as a linguistic and cultural phenomenon.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov

Term	Definition	Example
Interpretation	The analysis of a literary text to determine its meaning.	A close reading of a poem to understand its symbolism.
Science	The study of general laws governing a particular phenomenon.	A sociological analysis of a novel to understand its social context.
Poetics	The study of the general laws governing the creation of literary works.	Investigating the structure of a sonnet to understand the form.
Literariness	The specific qualities that distinguish literary language from ordinary language.	The use of metaphor and imagery in poetry.
Structuralism	The study of underlying structures in language, culture, and society.	Analyzing the narrative structure of a short story.
Semiotics	The study of signs and symbols and their meaning.	Interpreting the symbolism of colors in a painting.

Additional Notes

• Interpretation and science represent two contrasting approaches to literary study.
• Poetics bridges the gap between these two approaches by focusing on the internal structure of literary works.
• Literariness is a key concept in poetics, as it defines the unique characteristics of literary language.
• Structuralism and semiotics provide theoretical frameworks for analyzing literary texts.

Contribution of “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov

Literary Work	Todorov’s Concept	Critique	Reference
James Joyce, Ulysses	Structuralism	Joyce’s novel can be analyzed through a structuralist lens by examining the underlying patterns and repetitions, such as the cyclical structure of a day, mirroring the mythical journey of Odysseus.	Todorov, T. (1981). Introduction to Poetics.
Virginia Woolf, To the Lighthouse	Stream of Consciousness	While not directly addressed by Todorov, Woolf’s novel challenges the notion of a linear narrative structure, prompting a reconsideration of the limits of structuralist analysis.	Woolf, V. (1927). To the Lighthouse.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude	Magical Realism	Marquez’s blend of realism and fantasy complicates the application of traditional literary analysis, forcing a re-evaluation of the boundaries between different genres and literary modes.	Marquez, G. G. (1967). One Hundred Years of Solitude.
Toni Morrison, Beloved	Historical and Cultural Context	Morrison’s novel highlights the importance of considering historical and cultural factors in literary analysis, challenging the purely formalist approach advocated by some proponents of Todorov’s work.	Morrison, T. (1987). Beloved.

Additional Considerations

• Interdisciplinary Approach: Todorov’s work can be combined with other theoretical frameworks to offer more comprehensive analyses. For example, a feminist or postcolonial reading of Beloved could be enriched by considering the novel’s formal elements.
• Limitations of Structuralism: While Todorov’s structuralist approach provides valuable insights, it is essential to recognize its limitations, particularly when analyzing complex and innovative literary works.
• Reader Response: Todorov’s emphasis on the text itself might be challenged by reader-response theories, which prioritize the reader’s interpretation.

Criticism Against “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov

• Overemphasis on Abstract Structures: Todorov’s focus on abstract structures and general laws may neglect the unique qualities and nuances of individual literary works. By prioritizing the abstract over the specific, there is a risk of reducing the richness of literary texts to mere instances of broader theoretical concepts, which can diminish the value of the literary experience.
• Detachment from Historical and Cultural Contexts: The approach Todorov advocates for poetics might be criticized for its detachment from the historical and cultural contexts in which literary works are produced and interpreted. By seeking to uncover universal laws of literature, poetics might overlook the ways in which texts are deeply embedded in and shaped by their specific social, political, and cultural environments.
• Potential for Reductionism: Todorov’s method could be seen as reductionist, as it attempts to fit the complexity of literature into predetermined theoretical frameworks. Critics might argue that this approach oversimplifies the diverse and multifaceted nature of literary works, reducing them to mere exemplifications of literariness or literary discourse.
• Neglect of Reader’s Role and Subjectivity: Todorov’s emphasis on the objective and scientific aspects of literary analysis may neglect the importance of the reader’s role and the subjectivity involved in interpreting texts. By focusing on abstract structures, his approach might overlook how individual readers bring their own experiences and perspectives to bear on their understanding of a text.
• Limited Engagement with Interdisciplinary Approaches: While Todorov acknowledges the relationship between poetics and other disciplines like linguistics and rhetoric, his approach could be critiqued for not fully engaging with interdisciplinary methods. Critics may argue that a more integrative approach, which combines insights from psychology, sociology, history, and other fields, would provide a richer and more comprehensive understanding of literature.
• Abstractness vs. Practical Application: The abstract nature of Todorov’s definition of poetics may be seen as impractical for actual literary analysis. Critics might argue that while theoretical rigor is important, it should also be balanced with practical tools that can be applied to the analysis of specific texts, something that Todorov’s approach might lack.
• Structuralist Limitations: Although Todorov attempts to distinguish poetics from structuralism, some critics might argue that his approach is still too closely aligned with structuralist thinking, which has been critiqued for its rigidity and failure to account for the dynamic and evolving nature of literature and language.
• Potential for Exclusion of Certain Literary Forms: Todorov’s framework may exclude or marginalize certain literary forms that do not easily conform to his model of literary discourse. For example, experimental literature or works that deliberately subvert traditional literary conventions might be difficult to analyze within the confines of Todorov’s poetics.
• Inaccessibility to Non-Specialists: The complex and abstract nature of Todorov’s theoretical framework might make it inaccessible to those who are not specialists in literary theory. This could limit the practical utility of his ideas for educators, students, and general readers who seek to engage with literature in a more straightforward and intuitive way.

Suggested Readings: “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov

1. Todorov, Tzvetan. Introduction to Poetics. Translated by Richard Howard. University of Georgia Press, 1981.
2. Todorov, Tzvetan. The Poetics of Prose. Translated by Richard Howard. Cornell University Press, 1977.
3. Todorov, Tzvetan. Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogical Principle. Translated by Wlad Godzich. University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
4. Frow, John. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 41, no. 1, 1982, pp. 112–13. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/430834. Accessed 14 Aug. 2024.
5. LAUX, CAMERON. “The Other Todorov: Anthropology and Critical Humanism.” Paragraph, vol. 18, no. 2, 1995, pp. 194–209. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43263467 . Accessed 14 Aug. 2024.
6. Zbinden, Karine. “Todorov and Bakhtin.” Tzvetan Todorov: Thinker and Humanist, edited by Karine Zbinden and Henk de Berg, NED-New edition, Boydell & Brewer, 2020, pp. 109–26. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvrdf17k.10. Accessed 14 Aug. 2024.

Representative Quotations from “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Interpretation, which is sometimes also called exegesis… is defined… by its aim, which is to name the meaning of the text examined.”	This quotation captures Todorov’s definition of interpretation as a process focused on extracting and articulating the meaning of a literary text.
“It is impossible to interpret a work, literary or otherwise, for and in itself, without leaving it for a moment, without projecting it elsewhere than upon itself.”	Todorov emphasizes the inherent limitation of interpretation: to fully understand a text, one must consider it in relation to external contexts or frameworks.
“Poetics… does not seek to name meaning, but aims at a knowledge of the general laws that preside over the birth of each work.”	This quotation defines the core objective of poetics as the study of the abstract, general principles that govern the creation of literary works, rather than specific meanings.
“Literature is, in the strongest sense of the term, a product of language.”	Todorov highlights the intrinsic connection between literature and language, underscoring that any analysis of literature must involve linguistic considerations.
“The goal of this study is no longer to articulate a paraphrase… but to propose a theory of the structure and functioning of literary discourse.”	Todorov clarifies that poetics is concerned with theoretical understanding, aiming to establish a comprehensive framework for how literary discourse operates.
“Each work is therefore regarded only as the manifestation of an abstract and general structure, of which it is but one of the possible realizations.”	This quotation encapsulates the structuralist perspective in poetics, where individual literary works are seen as specific instances of broader, underlying structures.

Introduction: “The Conflict Of Interpretations” by Paul Ricoeur

“The Conflict of Interpretations” by Paul Ricoeur was initially published in 1969 as part of the collection Essays in Hermeneutics. This seminal work has exerted a profound and enduring impact on the disciplines of literature and literary theory. By synthesizing insights from structuralism, psychoanalysis, hermeneutics, and religion, Ricoeur offers a comprehensive framework for understanding the interpretive process, establishing the text as a cornerstone in contemporary critical discourse.

Summary of “The Conflict Of Interpretations” by Paul Ricoeur

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Conflict Of Interpretations” by Paul Ricoeur

Concept/Device	Definition
Hermeneutics	The theory and practice of interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.
Kerygma	A proclamation or message, often referring to the Christian gospel.
Demystification	The process of revealing the true nature of something, often by exposing illusions or falsehoods.
Iconoclasm	The action of attacking or destroying sacred images and idols.
Phenomenology	A philosophical approach that focuses on the structures of conscious experience as they present themselves to the individual.
Propaedeutic	Preliminary or preparatory learning.
Analogy of being	A comparison between the human soul and the structure of the universe.
False consciousness	A Marxist concept referring to the distorted worldview held by members of the oppressed class.
Ideology	A system of ideas and beliefs that reflect and reinforce the interests of a particular group or class.
Genealogy of morals	A Nietzschean concept tracing the origins of moral values.
Ascesis	Severe self-discipline and abstinence.
Ananke	Greek goddess of necessity and compulsion.

Contribution of “The Conflict Of Interpretations” by Paul Ricoeur to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “The Conflict Of Interpretations” by Paul Ricoeur

Literary Work	Potential Applications of Ricoeur’s “Conflict of Interpretations”
Hamlet by William Shakespeare	* Conflict between the “recollection of meaning” (Hamlet’s search for truth and revenge) and the “reduction of illusions” (psychoanalytic interpretations of characters). <br>* Examination of the play’s multiple layers of meaning and the tension between different interpretive approaches.
Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert	* Analysis of the novel’s critique of societal norms and illusions through the character of Emma Bovary. <br>* Exploration of the interplay between the “patent” and “latent” meanings in the text.
Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka	* Examination of the protagonist’s alienation and the breakdown of communication as a form of “demystification.” <br>* Analysis of the text’s multiple levels of meaning and the reader’s role in constructing meaning.
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez	* Exploration of the novel’s magical realism as a challenge to traditional modes of interpretation. <br>* Analysis of the cyclical nature of time and history in the text and its implications for understanding the narrative.

Criticism Against “The Conflict Of Interpretations” by Paul Ricoeur

Suggested Readings: “The Conflict Of Interpretations” by Paul Ricoeur

1. Ricoeur, Paul. Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation. Trans. Denis Savage. Yale UP, 1970.
2. Ricoeur, Paul. The Symbolism of Evil. Trans. Emerson Buchanan. Beacon Press, 1969.
3. Ricoeur, Paul. Time and Narrative. Vol. 1. Trans. Kathleen McLaughlin and David Pellauer. University of Chicago Press, 1984.
4. Ricoeur, Paul. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. Trans. John B. Thompson. Cambridge UP, 198
5. Lowe, Walter James. “The Coherence of Paul Ricoeur.” The Journal of Religion, vol. 61, no. 4, 1981, pp. 384–402. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1202836. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.
6. Schwartz, Sanford. “Hermeneutics and the Productive Imagination: Paul Ricoeur in the 1970s.” The Journal of Religion, vol. 63, no. 3, 1983, pp. 290–300. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1203039. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.
7. DAVIS, COLIN. “Life Stories: Ricœur.” Traces of War: Interpreting Ethics and Trauma in Twentieth-Century French Writing, Liverpool University Press, 2018, pp. 119–33. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1ps33bb.10. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.

Representative Quotations from “The Conflict Of Interpretations” by Paul Ricoeur with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“There is no general hermeneutics, no universal canon for exegesis, but only disparate and opposed theories.”	This quotation highlights Ricoeur’s acknowledgment of the diversity and opposition within hermeneutic theories. It underscores the central theme of his work, which is the conflict and plurality in the field of interpretation, challenging the idea of a single, unified method.
“Hermeneutics seems to me to be animated by this double motivation: willingness to suspect, willingness to listen; vow of rigor, vow of obedience.”	Ricoeur describes the dual motivations that drive hermeneutics—both the suspicion that seeks to uncover hidden meanings and the listening that aims to restore and affirm meaning. This duality is crucial in understanding the tension within interpretative practices.
“Three masters, seemingly mutually exclusive, dominate the school of suspicion: Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud.”	Ricoeur identifies Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud as key figures in the “hermeneutics of suspicion.” This emphasizes their role in shaping a critical approach to interpretation, where texts and consciousness are interrogated for hidden ideologies, unconscious desires, and power dynamics.
“Understanding is hermeneutics: henceforward, to seek meaning is no longer to spell out the consciousness of meaning, but to decipher its expressions.”	This quotation reflects Ricoeur’s view that interpretation has evolved from merely articulating meaning to actively deciphering and uncovering deeper, often hidden, layers of meaning within texts. This shift is central to modern hermeneutics and literary theory.
“Destruction, Heidegger says in Sein und Zeit, is a moment of every new foundation.”	Ricoeur invokes Heidegger to support the idea that the deconstructive aspect of interpretation—tearing down old meanings—is necessary for the creation of new understandings. This concept is foundational to the hermeneutics of suspicion and critical theory, where dismantling existing structures is seen as a prelude to building new ones.

Introduction: “The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” By P. D. Juhl

“The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” by P. D. Juhl first appeared in 1980 in the journal New Literary History. This essay is a cornerstone in the field of literary theory, offering a profound interrogation of the concept of “the text” itself. Juhl’s meticulous examination of the term’s various interpretations and implications has significantly influenced subsequent discussions about textual authority, reader response, and the nature of literary meaning. By challenging the notion of a fixed, objective text, Juhl opened up new avenues for exploring the dynamic relationship between the reader and the written word.

Summary of “The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” By P. D. Juhl

• Interpretation and Coherence:
  Juhl asserts that when we interpret a text, we often appeal to criteria like coherence or complexity. He explains that “we say that the text, or a certain part of the text, supports this interpretation rather than that because under the former the text is more coherent.” This means that interpretations are often validated by how logically consistent or sophisticated they render the text.
• Example of Interpretative Choices:
  Juhl illustrates the process of interpretation using a poem by Wordsworth, where the phrase “rolled round” could either imply a “slow and gentle motion” or a “violent motion.” The interpretation depends on how these connotations align with the surrounding text, showing how different readings can be supported by different assumptions about coherence.
• Significance of Authorial Intent:
  Juhl argues that interpretations must consider the author’s intention to be meaningful. He states that “an interpretation can account for such facts only if it is a statement about the author’s intention,” suggesting that understanding what the author intended is essential for making coherent and justified interpretations of the text.
• Hypothetical Scenarios to Illustrate Intent:
  Juhl uses thought experiments, such as imagining a poem being accidentally typed by a monkey or created by water erosion, to demonstrate that without intentional authorship, interpretations lose their grounding. He argues that if a text were created by chance rather than intention, “it would simply be an ‘accident’ that ‘rolled round’ is qualified by the words ‘in earth’s diurnal course,'” thus rendering coherent interpretation meaningless.
• Necessity of Intentionality for Coherence:
  Juhl emphasizes that only if the words “in earth’s diurnal course” were intentionally chosen by an author can we argue that one interpretation of “rolled round” (as gentle motion) is more coherent than another (as violent motion). This underscores the idea that coherence in interpretation is linked to the author’s purposeful use of language.
• Generalizing the Argument to All Textual Features:
  Juhl generalizes his argument by stating that the necessity of authorial intention applies to any textual feature that can be described as something the author has deliberately done, such as word choice, sentence structure, or imagery. He asserts that “what I have shown for f holds for any textual feature which can be described in terms of what the author has done.”
• Critique of Separating Speaker’s Intent from Author’s Intent:
  Juhl critiques the idea that interpretations could focus solely on the speaker’s intent, independent of the author. He argues that coherent interpretation inherently involves understanding the author’s broader intentions, stating that questions about the text often require an explanation not just of the “speaker’s action, but of the author’s.”
• Coherence as a Measure of Valid Interpretation:
  Juhl concludes that a valid interpretation is one that can account for the greatest amount of textual data, reflecting Beardsley’s idea that “a proposed explication may be regarded as a hypothesis that is tested by its capacity to account for the greatest quantity of data in the words of the poem.” This highlights the importance of coherence as a critical test for any interpretation.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” By P. D. Juhl

Term/Concept	Definition
Coherence	The logical consistency and unity of a text or interpretation.
Complexity	The intricate and multifaceted nature of a text, allowing for multiple interpretations.
Interpretation	The process of assigning meaning to a text.
Textual Feature	Specific elements within a text, such as word choice, syntax, or imagery.
Authorial Intention	The author’s intended meaning or purpose in creating the text.
Function	The role or purpose of a textual element within the overall structure of the work.
Speaker	The voice or persona through which a poem is spoken.
Accident	A chance occurrence or event without a deliberate cause.

Contribution of “The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” By P. D. Juhl to Literary Theory/Theories

• Contribution to Hermeneutics (Interpretive Theory):
  Juhl’s emphasis on the necessity of authorial intent aligns with hermeneutic principles, which prioritize understanding a text through the intentions of its creator. He argues that “an interpretation can account for such facts only if it is a statement about the author’s intention,” reinforcing the hermeneutic view that meaning is deeply connected to the author’s purpose and context.
• Challenge to New Criticism:
  While New Criticism advocates for a focus on the text itself, independent of authorial intent or external factors, Juhl challenges this by asserting that valid interpretations must consider the author’s intention. He critiques the New Critical approach by stating that without understanding the author’s purpose, interpretations “lose their grounding in coherence or purpose,” thereby limiting the depth and accuracy of textual analysis.
• Engagement with Intentionalism:
  Juhl makes a significant contribution to Intentionalism by arguing that the interpretation of a text must be tied to the author’s intention. He posits that “only if the words ‘in earth’s diurnal course’ have been used to qualify ‘rolled round’ by the author” can an interpretation be coherent, thus reinforcing the Intentionalist view that understanding a text’s meaning is inseparable from understanding the author’s intended message.
• Critique of Reader-Response Theory:
  By insisting on the primacy of authorial intent, Juhl implicitly critiques Reader-Response Theory, which centers the reader’s interpretation as the primary source of meaning. He argues that interpretations detached from the author’s intention, such as those produced randomly, “lose their grounding” and cannot account for the text’s coherence, thus questioning the validity of purely reader-centered interpretations.
• Contribution to Functionalism in Literary Criticism:
  Juhl introduces a functional approach to literary criticism by suggesting that textual features can only be meaningfully explained if they serve the author’s purpose. He states, “the fact that the words ‘in earth’s diurnal course’ connote gentle motion could in principle explain” the author’s choice of words, but only if understood within the context of the author’s intentions. This perspective adds a functionalist dimension to the analysis of literary texts.
• Reinforcement of the Role of Context in Interpretation (Contextualism):
  Juhl’s argument underscores the importance of considering the author’s context and intentions in forming valid interpretations, aligning with Contextualist approaches in literary theory. He emphasizes that understanding why an author chose specific words or structures requires an analysis of the author’s intentions and circumstances, thus supporting a Contextualist view that interpretation cannot be isolated from the context in which a text was created.
• Support for Theories of Textual Authority:
  Juhl’s work contributes to debates on textual authority by asserting that the author’s intention holds significant interpretative weight. He argues that without considering the author’s intent, interpretations “cannot in principle account for” the coherence of the text, thereby supporting theories that view the author as the primary authority in determining textual meaning.

Examples of Critiques Through “The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” By P. D. Juhl

Criticism Against “The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” By P. D. Juhl

• Overemphasis on Authorial Intent: Critics argue that Juhl’s focus on authorial intent limits the interpretive possibilities of a text. By insisting that valid interpretations must be grounded in the author’s intentions, Juhl may disregard the potential for readers to find new meanings in texts that were not consciously intended by the author.
• Neglect of Reader Response: Juhl’s theory downplays the role of the reader in constructing meaning, which is a central tenet of Reader-Response Theory. Critics contend that this diminishes the importance of the reader’s engagement with the text, where meaning is seen as dynamic and created in the interaction between text and reader.
• Dismissal of Textual Autonomy: Some literary theorists critique Juhl for not allowing the text to stand on its own. By tying interpretation so closely to authorial intent, Juhl potentially undermines the concept of the text as an autonomous entity, capable of generating meaning independent of the author’s original intentions.
• Inflexibility in Interpretive Approaches: Juhl’s approach may be seen as too rigid, as it does not easily accommodate interpretative flexibility. Critics argue that this rigidity could stifle creative or alternative readings of texts that might offer valuable insights, particularly in post-structuralist and deconstructionist frameworks, where ambiguity and multiplicity of meaning are embraced.
• Potential Historical Limitations: Critics also point out that Juhl’s emphasis on authorial intent may be problematic when interpreting historical texts, where the author’s intent is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain. This reliance on intent could limit the applicability of his approach to literary works from earlier periods or works by anonymous authors.
• Insufficient Consideration of Cultural and Social Contexts: Juhl’s focus on the author’s intention may overlook the broader cultural, social, and historical contexts that influence both the creation and interpretation of texts. Critics argue that these contexts are crucial for a comprehensive understanding of a text, and that Juhl’s approach might not fully account for these factors.
• Exclusion of Non-Intentional Meanings: Juhl’s theory is critiqued for excluding interpretations that arise from unintended meanings or accidental features of the text. Critics argue that these non-intentional aspects can be just as significant in the interpretative process and that Juhl’s framework might dismiss these potential readings.

Suggested Readings: “The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” By P. D. Juhl

1. Beardsley, Monroe C. The Possibility of Criticism. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970.
2. Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Harvard University Press, 1980.
3. Hirsch, E. D. Jr. Validity in Interpretation. Yale University Press, 1967.
4. Wimsatt, W. K., and Monroe C. Beardsley. The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry. University of Kentucky Press, 1954.
5. Juhl, P. D. “The Appeal to the Text: What Are We Appealing To?” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 36, no. 3, 1978, pp. 277–87. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/430438. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.
6. Hirsch, E. D. “The Politics of Theories of Interpretation.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 9, no. 1, 1982, pp. 235–47. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343282. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.
7. HERMAN, LUC, and BART VERVAECK. “Before and Surrounding Structuralism.” Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 2nd ed., University of Nebraska Press, 2019, pp. 11–41. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvr43mhw.6. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.
8. KNAPP, STEVEN, et al. “The Impossibility of Intentionless Meaning.” Intention Interpretation, Temple University Press, 1992, pp. 51–64. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14bs87q.8. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.
9. NATHAN, DANIEL O., and GARY ISEMINGER. “Irony, Metaphor, and the Problem of Intention.” Intention Interpretation, Temple University Press, 1992, pp. 183–202. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14bs87q.15. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.

Representative Quotations from “The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” By P. D. Juhl with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“We say that the text, or a certain part of the text, supports this interpretation rather than that because under the former the text is more coherent, or more complex, than under the latter.”	Juhl argues that coherence and complexity are often used as criteria to justify interpretations. This reflects the idea that interpretations are judged based on how well they make the text appear logically consistent or sophisticated.
“What is being claimed is that I), but not I2, can account for the fact that ‘rolled round’ is qualified by words connoting gentle motion rather than by words which would suggest that the woman is being violently whirled about.”	Here, Juhl illustrates the importance of authorial intent in determining which interpretation of a text is more coherent. The interpretation that aligns with the gentle motion suggested by the phrase is considered more coherent because it aligns with what is presumed to be the author’s intent.
“It is immediately obvious that we can no longer say that the words ‘in earth’s diurnal course’ qualify ‘rolled round’ because they are an appropriate means to suggest gentle motion.”	Juhl uses a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate that without authorial intent, the coherence of a text’s interpretation is lost. This underscores his argument that intentionality is crucial for making sense of a text’s features, such as word choice or phrasing.
“Hence the fact that the words ‘in earth’s diurnal course’ connote, or are an appropriate means to suggest, gentle motion could in principle explain f… only under the assumption that the author had a certain purpose or intention.”	Juhl emphasizes that understanding the meaning of a text relies on assuming the author had specific intentions. This reflects his argument that interpretation must be tied to what the author intended to convey for it to be coherent and meaningful.
“I have argued that unless an interpretation is a statement about the author’s intention, it cannot in principle account for f.”	This quotation encapsulates Juhl’s central thesis: that valid interpretations must reflect the author’s intentions. Without reference to what the author intended, an interpretation cannot fully account for the text’s features, making it less coherent or justified.

Introduction: “Literary Criticism And Philosophy” by F. R. Leavis

“Literary Criticism And Philosophy” by F. R. Leavis was first published in 1937 in the journal Scrutiny. A cornerstone of Leavis’s critical thought, the essay emerged as a response to René Wellek’s challenge to articulate the theoretical underpinnings of his literary criticism. This seminal piece solidified Leavis’s reputation as a leading figure in English literary criticism and laid the groundwork for his subsequent influential works.

Summary of “Literary Criticism And Philosophy” by F. R. Leavis

• Acknowledgment of Fundamental Criticism: Leavis expresses gratitude to Dr. Wellek for his thorough critique, acknowledging that the issues raised were ones he was already aware of but did not explicitly address. He states, “I must thank Dr. Wellek for bringing fundamental criticism to my work, and above all for raising in so complete a way an issue that a reviewer or two had more or less vaguely touched on.” Leavis admits that he was conscious of these assumptions but chose not to explicitly defend them.
• Assumptions in Literary Criticism: Leavis acknowledges making several assumptions in his analysis of English poetry, which he did not explicitly state or defend. Dr. Wellek points out, “I could wish that you had made your assumptions more explicitly and defended them systematically.” In response, Leavis admits, “I knew I was making assumptions… and I was not less aware than I am now of what they involve.” This recognition shows his awareness of the underlying assumptions in his work.
• Distinction Between Literary Criticism and Philosophy: Leavis emphasizes the distinction between literary criticism and philosophy, arguing that they are fundamentally different disciplines. He asserts, “Literary criticism and philosophy seem to me to be quite distinct and different kinds of discipline.” He further notes, “I myself am not a philosopher, and I doubt whether in any case I could elaborate a theory that he would find satisfactory.” This highlights his belief that the two fields require different approaches and that his work in criticism is not intended to be philosophical.
• The Role of the Critic: Leavis defines the critic as the “complete reader,” whose primary task is to engage deeply with the text and realize its full meaning. He argues, “By the critic of poetry I understand the complete reader: the ideal critic is the ideal reader.” He contrasts this with the philosophical approach, stating, “The reading demanded by poetry is of a different kind from that demanded by philosophy.” This distinction underlines the critic’s role in fully experiencing and understanding the work, rather than analyzing it through an abstract lens.
• Evaluation in Literary Criticism: Leavis discusses the nature of evaluation in literary criticism, emphasizing that it is an intrinsic part of the critic’s engagement with the text. He rejects the notion of applying an external norm to measure poetry, arguing, “The critic’s aim is, first, to realize as sensitively and completely as possible this or that which claims his attention.” He clarifies that evaluation is a natural outcome of this process, stating, “A certain valuing is implicit in the realizing.” This approach positions evaluation as a product of deep engagement with the text rather than an external judgment.
• The Critic’s Methodology: Leavis highlights the importance of a concrete and detailed approach in literary criticism. He argues that the critic should focus on thoroughly engaging with the text and avoid premature generalizations. He advises, “The business of the literary critic is to attain a peculiar completeness of response and to observe a peculiarly strict relevance in developing his response into commentary.” This approach prioritizes a full and nuanced understanding of the work, rooted in its specific details.
• Criticism of Theoretical Generalization: Leavis critiques the idea of deriving abstract principles from literary criticism, suggesting that such an approach is secondary to the concrete work of the critic. He explains, “The cogency I hoped to achieve was to be for other readers of poetry—readers of poetry as such.” He continues, “Ideally I ought perhaps… to be able to complete the work with a theoretical statement.” However, Leavis argues that such theoretical work would be a separate task, not integral to his primary aim of engaging with poetry on a concrete level.
• Importance of Concrete Judgment: Leavis argues for the primacy of concrete judgment in literary criticism over abstract theorizing. He insists that engaging directly with the text is more valuable than stating general principles. He notes, “My whole effort was to work in terms of concrete judgments and particular analyses.” He believes that summarizing these judgments into abstract propositions would diminish their clarity and usefulness, stating, “I cannot see that I should have added to the clarity, cogency, or usefulness of my book by enunciating such a proposition.”
• Advancing Literary Theory: Despite recognizing the limitations of his approach, Leavis believes that his focus on concrete criticism has contributed to the advancement of literary theory. He reflects, “There is, I hope, a chance that I may in this way have advanced theory, even if I haven’t done the theorizing.” He acknowledges the limitations of his method but maintains that working within these constraints is essential to producing meaningful criticism, stating, “I believe that any approach involves limitations, and that it is by recognizing them and working within them that one may hope to get something.”

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literary Criticism And Philosophy” by F. R. Leavis

Concept	Definition
Concreteness	A focus on specific examples and experiences rather than abstract ideas.
Abstraction	The process of forming general ideas or concepts by considering specific examples.
Norm	A standard, pattern, or model against which something is compared.
Tradition	A body of cultural practices or beliefs passed down through generations.
Convention	A widely accepted practice or custom.

Contribution of “Literary Criticism And Philosophy” by F. R. Leavis to Literary Theory/Theories

• Contribution to Practical Criticism: Leavis’s emphasis on the detailed and concrete analysis of literary texts is foundational to the practice of Practical Criticism, a method developed by I.A. Richards and further advanced by Leavis. Practical Criticism involves a close, text-centered approach, free from external theoretical frameworks. Leavis asserts, “My whole effort was to work in terms of concrete judgments and particular analyses.” This method focuses on engaging directly with the text, thereby contributing to the development of Practical Criticism as a key approach in literary theory.
• Advancement of New Criticism: Leavis’s insistence on the autonomy of the text and the importance of close reading aligns with the principles of New Criticism, a literary theory that emphasizes the intrinsic value of the text itself, independent of historical or biographical contexts. He writes, “The critic’s aim is, first, to realize as sensitively and completely as possible this or that which claims his attention.” This focus on the text’s formal qualities and the rejection of external norms are central tenets of New Criticism, to which Leavis’s work has significantly contributed.
• Development of Reader-Response Theory: Leavis’s concept of the critic as the “complete reader” who fully engages with the text foreshadows ideas central to Reader-Response Theory, which emerged later in the 20th century. Reader-Response Theory emphasizes the active role of the reader in creating meaning from a text. Leavis’s statement, “By the critic of poetry I understand the complete reader: the ideal critic is the ideal reader,” highlights the importance of the reader’s subjective experience, a key element in Reader-Response Theory.
• Impact on Ethical Criticism: Leavis’s work also contributes to Ethical Criticism, which explores the moral implications and responsibilities inherent in literary texts. Although Leavis does not explicitly frame his criticism as ethical, his focus on the importance of literature’s connection to “direct vulgar living” and the “actual” can be seen as aligning with Ethical Criticism. He argues, “Traditions, or prevailing conventions or habits, that tend to cut poetry in general off from direct vulgar living and the actual… have a devitalizing effect.” This suggests a belief in the moral and ethical responsibilities of literature, which is a central concern of Ethical Criticism.
• Contribution to the Theory of Close Reading: Leavis’s insistence on focusing on the particularities of the text itself, avoiding premature generalizations, is a key contribution to the theory and practice of Close Reading. Close Reading is a technique central to both New Criticism and Practical Criticism, and Leavis’s approach strongly supports this method. He states, “The business of the literary critic is to attain a peculiar completeness of response and to observe a peculiarly strict relevance in developing his response into commentary.” This method has been fundamental to the development of Close Reading as a rigorous analytical approach in literary theory.
• Influence on Structuralism: While not directly a Structuralist, Leavis’s attention to the internal coherence and organization of a text can be seen as an early influence on Structuralist approaches to literature, which analyze the underlying structures within texts. Leavis speaks of the critic’s task to understand “the organization into which [a text] settles as a constituent in becoming ‘placed’,” suggesting a focus on the internal systems of meaning within a work. This approach aligns with Structuralist ideas that emphasize the underlying systems and relations within a text.
• Reinforcement of Anti-Theoretical Stance in Literary Criticism: Leavis’s reluctance to abstractly theorize and his preference for concrete literary analysis have contributed to an anti-theoretical stance within some branches of literary criticism, particularly in reaction to the more abstract and philosophical approaches of Structuralism and Post-Structuralism. He states, “I believe that any approach involves limitations, and that it is by recognizing them and working within them that one may hope to get something.” This has reinforced a critical approach that values the text itself over theoretical abstractions, influencing later critics who advocate for a more pragmatic and less theoretical approach to literature.

Examples of Critiques Through “Literary Criticism And Philosophy” by F. R. Leavis

Work	Author	Focus (Theoretical Concepts)
King Lear	Shakespeare	Human suffering, moral complexity (Concreteness in portraying Lear’s descent into madness)
Paradise Lost	Milton	Language, theology, morality (Emphasis on the poem’s engagement with religious themes rather than abstract theological concepts)
Tess of the D’Urbervilles	Hardy	Tragic heroine, social context, realism (Rejection of a fixed moral standard in portraying Tess’s struggles)
The Waste Land	Eliot	Modernist techniques, cultural disillusionment (Importance of lived experience in capturing the fragmented nature of modern society)

Criticism Against “Literary Criticism And Philosophy” by F. R. Leavis

• Lack of Theoretical Rigor: Critics argue that Leavis’s refusal to explicitly state and defend his assumptions leads to a lack of theoretical rigor. By not engaging with the philosophical underpinnings of his critical practice, Leavis is seen as avoiding a deeper exploration of the theoretical foundations of his work, which some believe weakens the overall intellectual robustness of his criticism.
• Anti-Theoretical Stance: Leavis’s dismissal of abstract theorizing is criticized for contributing to an anti-theoretical stance in literary criticism. This approach is seen by some as limiting the scope of literary analysis, as it discourages engagement with broader theoretical frameworks that could provide deeper insights into literary texts.
• Overemphasis on the Text Itself: Leavis’s focus on the text alone, without considering external contexts such as historical, social, or authorial influences, is criticized for being overly narrow. This approach is seen as reductive, potentially missing the broader cultural and ideological forces that shape literature and its interpretation.
• Neglect of Philosophical Engagement: Leavis’s clear distinction between literary criticism and philosophy has been criticized for neglecting the productive interplay between these disciplines. Some argue that his rejection of philosophical analysis in literary criticism overlooks the valuable insights that philosophy can provide in understanding literature’s deeper meanings and ethical implications.
• Subjectivity in Criticism: Leavis’s emphasis on the critic as the “complete reader” is seen by some as overly subjective, leading to concerns about the consistency and objectivity of his evaluations. Critics argue that this reliance on personal response can result in idiosyncratic readings that lack broader critical validity.
• Resistance to Generalization: Leavis’s reluctance to generalize from his concrete analyses is seen as a limitation by some critics. This resistance to forming broader theoretical conclusions is criticized for preventing his work from contributing more substantially to the development of literary theory as a whole.
• Potential Elitism in Criticism: Some critics have accused Leavis’s approach of being elitist, suggesting that his emphasis on certain canonical texts and high standards for literary quality reflects a narrow view of literature. This perspective is criticized for potentially marginalizing diverse voices and literary traditions that do not fit within his defined norms.

Suggested Readings: “Literary Criticism And Philosophy” by F. R. Leavis

1. Bradbury, Malcolm. The Social Context of Modern English Literature. Oxford University Press, 1971.
2. Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. University of Minnesota Press, 1983.
3. Ellis, David. The Art of Literary Biography. Oxford University Press, 2002.
4. Green, David. F. R. Leavis: A Revaluation. Oxford University Press, 1980.
5. Hillis Miller, J. The Ethics of Reading: Kant, de Man, Eliot, Trollope, James, and Benjamin. Columbia University Press, 1987.
6. MacKillop, Ian. F. R. Leavis: A Life in Criticism. Penguin Books, 1997.
7. Medalie, David. F. R. Leavis and the Modernist Prose Fiction Tradition. Clarendon Press, 2002.
8. Pole, David. “Leavis and Literary Criticism.” Philosophy, vol. 51, no. 195, 1976, pp. 21–34. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3749766. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.
9. Joyce, Chis. “The Idea of ‘Anti-Philosophy’ in the Work of F. R. Leavis.” The Cambridge Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 1, 2009, pp. 24–44. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42966981. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.
10. Kinch, M. B. “F. R. Leavis: Cultural Theorist?” The Cambridge Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 4, 1993, pp. 408–12. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42967294. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.

Representative Quotations from “Literary Criticism And Philosophy” by F. R. Leavis with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Literary criticism and philosophy seem to me to be quite distinct and different kinds of discipline – at least, I think they ought to be.”	Leavis emphasizes the inherent differences between literary criticism and philosophy, suggesting they demand distinct approaches and methodologies.
“The reading demanded by poetry is of a different kind from that demanded by philosophy.”	Leavis underscores the unique nature of reading poetry, positing that it requires a different kind of engagement and responsiveness compared to philosophical inquiry.
“The critic’s aim is, first, to realize as sensitively and completely as possible this or that which claims his attention; and a certain valuing is implicit in the realizing.”	This statement highlights the critic’s primary task of immersing themselves in the literary work to develop a deep and nuanced understanding that informs their evaluation.
“I do not see what would be gained by the kind of explicitness he demands (though I see what is lost by it).”	Leavis expresses his skepticism towards the need for elaborate theoretical justifications in literary criticism, arguing that excessive abstraction can hinder the appreciation of the concrete literary experience.
“There is, I hope, a chance that I may in this way have advanced theory, even if I haven’t done the theorizing.”	This concluding remark suggests that Leavis believes his concrete critical practice can contribute to theoretical understanding, even without explicit theoretical formulations.

Introduction: “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis

“The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis first appeared in the 1974 collection The Theory of Literary Criticism: A Logical Analysis. This seminal essay significantly contributed to the ongoing debate about the importance of context in literary theory, challenging prevailing assumptions and offering a rigorous philosophical framework for understanding the relationship between a text and its historical, social, and cultural milieu.

Summary of “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis

• The Importance of Context in Understanding Literature
• Ellis emphasizes that understanding a literary text necessitates considering its relevant context, which traditionally involves “recreating the original circumstances of its composition” including the historical, biographical, and social context.
• Critique of Historical and Biographical Contexts
• While it is common to assume that historical and biographical contexts enhance the understanding of a text, Ellis challenges this by stating that “literary texts are not to be taken as part of the contexts of their origin.” He argues that reverting a text to its original context undermines its status as literature.
• The Unique Status of Literary Texts
• According to Ellis, literary texts transcend their original contexts and become something more significant within the broader cultural discourse. He argues that treating them merely as products of their origin “annihilates exactly the thing that makes them literary texts.”
• The Process of a Text Becoming Literature
• Ellis describes the transformation of a text into literature as a three-stage process: its creation by the author, its presentation as literature, and its acceptance by society as literature. He asserts that returning to the original context reverses this process and diminishes the text’s literary value.
• Criticism of Intentionalism
• The essay critiques the intentionalist approach, which seeks to understand a text based on the author’s intent. Ellis argues that this method is flawed because “the meaning of the poem is what the poet intended” can only be reliably evidenced by the text itself, not by external biographical information.
• The Fallacy of Adding Historical Specificity
• Ellis argues that adding historical or biographical specificity to a text diminishes its general literary impact, stating that “what is taken away is the level of generality possessed by the text as a literary text.” He contends that knowing more about the historical details of a text’s origin often results in understanding less about its literary significance.
• The Problem with Studying the Creative Process
• He further critiques the value of studying the creative process, suggesting that it contributes nothing to understanding the text’s meaning. Instead, he argues, “only an understanding of the meaning of the text makes the study of its genesis possible and intelligible.”
• Final Argument Against Intentionalism
• Ellis concludes that even if we accept the premise that the meaning of a text is what the author intended, the “only reliable evidence of that intent is the poem” itself. Thus, relying on any other evidence over the text itself is misguided.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis

Term/Concept	Definition
Relevant Context	The historical, social, and cultural background of a literary work.
Intentional Fallacy	The belief that an author’s intended meaning is the sole or primary determinant of a literary work’s interpretation.
Literary Text	A piece of language that is treated independently of its original context, focusing on its aesthetic and linguistic qualities.
Genesis of a Work	The process of a literary work’s creation and development.
Selective Operation	The author’s choices in including or excluding details in a literary work.

Contribution of “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis to Literary Theory/Theories

• Challenging Traditional Contextualism
• Ellis questions the traditional emphasis on historical, biographical, and social contexts in literary interpretation, arguing that these contexts can often obscure rather than clarify a text’s meaning. This critique contributes to the ongoing debate in literary theory regarding the role of context in interpretation.
• Critique of Intentionalism
• By arguing against the intentional fallacy, Ellis reinforces the idea that a literary work should be understood independently of the author’s intentions. This perspective aligns with and strengthens the arguments of New Criticism, which advocates for a close reading of the text itself rather than external factors.
• Reinforcement of Textual Autonomy
• Ellis’s assertion that literary texts outgrow their original contexts and acquire a broader cultural significance contributes to the theory of textual autonomy. This idea suggests that a text should be interpreted based on its internal elements rather than external influences, reinforcing the concept that literature operates independently of its origins.
• Redefinition of Literary Status
• Ellis offers a redefinition of what makes a text literary by arguing that its transformation from its original context to its acceptance by society is what grants it literary status. This contributes to literary theory by proposing that the literary value of a text is determined by its ability to transcend its initial circumstances.
• Criticism of Biographical Approaches
• Ellis critiques the biographical approach to literary criticism, arguing that it can distort the understanding of a text by reintroducing details that the author deliberately excluded. This contribution challenges the validity of biographical criticism and supports the notion that the text itself is the most reliable source for interpretation.
• Emphasis on Generality over Specificity
• By arguing that adding historical or biographical specificity can reduce a text’s literary impact, Ellis contributes to the theoretical discussion on the importance of maintaining the generality and universality of literary texts. This idea aligns with theories that prioritize the universal themes and experiences conveyed by literature.
• Expansion of the Debate on Literary Interpretation
• Ellis’s essay expands the debate on literary interpretation by introducing the idea that understanding a text’s genesis (its creation process) offers little value to interpreting its meaning. This perspective adds depth to discussions on the relevance of authorial background in literary theory.

Examples of Critiques Through “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis

Literary Work	Original Context	Critique Through Ellis’ Lens
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee	Racial tensions in the American South during the 1930s	While understanding the historical context of racism in the American South can illuminate the struggles faced by characters like Scout Finch, Ellis would argue that focusing solely on this context can diminish the novel’s broader exploration of human empathy, prejudice, and the importance of moral courage.
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley	The emergence of Romanticism and scientific advancements in the early 19th century	While knowledge of Romanticism and scientific discovery during Shelley’s time can provide interesting background, Ellis would argue that getting caught up in these details risks overshadowing the timeless themes of Frankenstein, such as the dangers of unchecked ambition, the nature of responsibility, and the consequences of playing God.
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez	The history and politics of Colombia, including the rise of magical realism as a literary genre	While appreciating the influence of Colombian history and magical realism on One Hundred Years of Solitude can be enriching, Ellis would argue that prioritizing this context can distract from the novel’s universal themes of love, loss, family, and the cyclical nature of history.
The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka	The rise of totalitarian regimes and anxieties of modern life in early 20th-century Europe	While understanding the historical context of Kafka’s time can provide insight into the nightmarish world of The Metamorphosis, Ellis would argue that dwelling on this context can take away from the story’s power to explore alienation, isolation, and the dehumanizing effects of societal expectations.

Criticism Against “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis

• Oversimplification of Contextual Relevance
• Critics may argue that Ellis oversimplifies the role of context by suggesting that historical and biographical contexts are largely irrelevant to understanding literary texts. This view could be seen as dismissive of the valuable insights that contextual knowledge can provide in interpreting literature, particularly in understanding complex or culturally embedded works.
• Neglect of Cultural and Social Influences
• By downplaying the significance of the original context, Ellis’s argument could be criticized for neglecting the influence of cultural and social factors on a text’s meaning. Critics might argue that these factors are essential for a comprehensive understanding of literature, especially when considering texts that are deeply rooted in specific cultural or historical settings.
• Potential Limitation of Interpretive Flexibility
• Some may contend that Ellis’s emphasis on textual autonomy limits interpretive flexibility by discouraging the exploration of diverse contexts that could enrich the understanding of a text. This could be seen as restricting the range of possible interpretations and reducing the depth of literary analysis.
• Undermining the Role of Authorial Intent
• Ellis’s rejection of intentionalism might be seen as overly dismissive of the author’s role in shaping a text’s meaning. Critics could argue that understanding an author’s intent, even if not definitive, can offer valuable perspectives and should not be entirely disregarded in literary criticism.
• Risk of Ignoring Historical and Political Contexts
• The argument against considering a text’s original context could be criticized for potentially ignoring important historical and political dimensions that influence both the creation and reception of a work. In some cases, understanding these contexts may be crucial for a full appreciation of the text’s significance and impact.
• Overemphasis on Textual Autonomy
• Critics might challenge Ellis’s strong emphasis on textual autonomy by arguing that it creates an artificial separation between a text and its context. This approach could be seen as neglecting the interconnectedness of literature with the broader social, political, and historical environments in which it is produced and consumed.
• Reduction of Literature’s Educational Value
• By minimizing the importance of context, Ellis’s approach could be criticized for reducing the educational value of literature. Understanding the context in which a work was created can provide important lessons about history, society, and human experience, which might be overlooked if the focus is solely on the text itself.
• Potential Elitism in Interpretation
• The emphasis on textual analysis over contextual understanding might be seen as promoting an elitist approach to literary criticism, accessible primarily to those with advanced skills in close reading, while potentially alienating readers who find value in understanding the historical and cultural backgrounds of texts.

Suggested Readings: “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis

1. Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Image, Music, Text, translated by Stephen Heath, Hill and Wang, 1977, pp. 142-148.
2. Ellis, John M. The Theory of Literary Criticism: A Logical Analysis. University of California Press, 1974.
3. Wimsatt, W. K., and M. C. Beardsley. “The Intentional Fallacy.” The Sewanee Review, vol. 54, no. 3, 1946, pp. 468-488.

Representative Quotations from “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Literary texts are not to be taken as part of the contexts of their origin; and to take them in this way is to annihilate exactly the thing that makes them literary texts.”	Ellis argues that interpreting a literary text solely through its original context reduces its literary value and transforms it into something other than literature.
“The process of a text becoming a literary text involves three stages: its originating in the context of its creator, its then being offered for use as literature, and its finally being accepted as such.”	This quote outlines Ellis’s view that a text’s transformation into literature is a process that moves beyond its initial creation and involves societal acceptance and recognition.
“But that specificity is a loss, not a gain; what is taken away is the level of generality possessed by the text as a literary text.”	Ellis emphasizes that adding historical specificity to a text diminishes its broader, more universal literary significance, which is essential to its impact as literature.
“The study of the creative process, in the sense of the development of a work in the hands of its author, contributes nothing whatsoever to our understanding of the meaning of the text.”	Ellis critiques the focus on the author’s creative process, arguing that it does not enhance the understanding of the text’s meaning, which should be derived from the text itself.
“Even if we grant the intentionalist thesis that the meaning of the poem is what the poet intended, it would still be true that the only reliable evidence of that intent is the poem.”	Ellis contends that the text itself is the most reliable source of understanding its meaning, even if one accepts the premise that the author’s intention is central to that understanding.

Introduction: “The Formalist Critic” by Cleanth Brooks

“The Formalist Critic” by Cleanth Brooks was first published in 1947 as part of the influential collection The Kenyon Review. This essay is a cornerstone of New Criticism, a literary movement that emphasized close reading and formal analysis of a text, independent of authorial intent or historical context. Brooks’s exploration of the formalist approach in this essay has had a profound impact on literary criticism and continues to be widely studied and debated.                                      

Summary of “The Formalist Critic” by Cleanth Brooks

• Role of Literary Criticism:
• Literary criticism is primarily concerned with “a description and an evaluation of its object,” focusing on the literary work itself. The main issue for critics is “the problem of unity”—how the various parts of a work contribute to creating or failing to create a cohesive whole. This perspective emphasizes that criticism should not just describe but also evaluate the effectiveness of this unity in the literary piece.
• Form and Content Unity:
• In literature, “form and content cannot be separated,” as “form is meaning.” This principle highlights the idea that the structure of a work is not just a vessel for content but is integral to the work’s overall meaning. A successful literary work achieves a seamless fusion of form and content, making them indistinguishable from one another.
• Focus on the Work Itself:
• The formalist critic is “concerned primarily with the work itself,” rather than the author’s life, intentions, or the reactions of various readers. The critic’s task is to analyze the structure and unity of the literary work, avoiding distractions from external factors such as “biography and psychology” or “the history of taste.” This focus allows for a more precise and objective analysis of the literary piece.
• Rejection of Authorial Intent and Reader Response:
• The formalist critic assumes that “the relevant part of the author’s intention is what he got actually into his work.” This means that the critic does not prioritize what the author consciously tried to achieve or what the author recalls about the writing process. Additionally, the critic uses the concept of an “ideal reader” to maintain a central point of reference, focusing on the “structure of the poem or novel” rather than the spectrum of potential interpretations by various readers.
• Criticism of Popular Value Tests:
• Formalist criticism rejects the idea that the value of a work can be determined by the author’s “sincerity” or “the intensity of the author’s feelings as he composed it.” For example, Ernest Hemingway’s claim that his last novel was his best is dismissed as “pathetically inept” in determining the novel’s actual value. Similarly, subjective reactions, such as A. E. Housman’s “bristling of his beard at the reading of a good poem,” are considered irrelevant unless they come from a reader whose critical judgment is already trusted.
• Criticism’s Modest Role:
• The role of the critic is described as “modest,” focusing on assessing whether a literary work “has succeeded or failed.” Critics offer only “negative help” to practicing artists, as literature is “not written by formula,” and thus, the critic has no formula to offer. The critic’s function is not to prescribe but to provide feedback that might inform, but not dictate, artistic creation.
• Distinction Between Literary Criticism and Other Analyses:
• Literary criticism is distinct from other types of analysis, such as reducing a work “to its causes” or estimating “its effects.” While acknowledging that a literary work “mirrors the past” and “may influence the future,” formalist criticism focuses on the work itself rather than its external influences or consequences. Good literature is considered “more than effective rhetoric applied to true ideas,” and thus, literary criticism must go beyond simply evaluating rhetoric or philosophical content.
• Misunderstandings and Objections:
• Formalist criticism often faces the criticism that it “cuts loose” the work from its author and audience, making the analysis seem “bloodless and hollow.” However, the formalist critic argues that distinctions between the work and its external context are “necessary and useful and indeed inevitable” for effective criticism. By focusing on the “structure of the thing composed,” formalist critics maintain that they are not denying the humanity of the author or the reader but are instead striving for a more precise and objective understanding of the literary work itself.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Formalist Critic” by Cleanth Brooks

Concept/Device	Definition
Formalism	A critical approach that focuses on the text itself, emphasizing its structure, language, and literary devices, rather than external factors like authorial intent or historical context.
Close Reading	A detailed analysis of a text to uncover its meaning and significance.
Unity	The harmonious integration of various elements within a literary work to create a cohesive whole.
Form and Content	The inseparable relationship between the structure of a literary work and its meaning.
Metaphor and Symbolism	Figurative language used to create deeper layers of meaning in a text.
Concrete and Particular	A focus on specific details and images to convey universal ideas.
Moral Problem	The central ethical or philosophical issue explored in a literary work.
Ideal Reader	A hypothetical reader who can fully appreciate the complexities and nuances of a text.
Sincerity	The authenticity of an author’s emotions and intentions, often mistakenly used as a measure of literary value.
Document	A literary work as a historical record, reflecting the time and culture in which it was created.

Contribution of “The Formalist Critic” by Cleanth Brooks to Literary Theory/Theories

• Pioneering Close Reading: Brooks significantly advanced the critical method of close reading, emphasizing the intrinsic analysis of a text.
• Form as the Core of Meaning: His insistence on the inseparability of form and content redefined the understanding of literary meaning.
• Autonomy of the Literary Work: Brooks contributed to establishing the literary text as an independent entity, distinct from its author and reader.
• Rejection of Extrinsic Criticism: He challenged the dominance of biographical, historical, and sociological approaches, advocating for a focus on the text itself.
• Foundational Role in New Criticism: Brooks’ essay was instrumental in shaping the New Critical movement, a significant force in twentieth-century literary criticism.
• Enduring Influence: His ideas continue to be a cornerstone of literary analysis, informing contemporary critical discourse.
• Clarification of Critical Boundaries: Brooks delineated the scope of literary criticism, distinguishing it from other modes of inquiry.
• Redefining the Critic’s Role: His conception of the critic as an objective analyst has had a lasting impact on critical practice.

Examples of Critiques Through “The Formalist Critic” by Cleanth Brooks

Literary Work	Formalist Critique
“Hamlet” by William Shakespeare	Focus on the unity of the play, where the internal conflict of Hamlet is reflected in the structure. The formalist critic would examine how soliloquies, plot developments, and symbols like Yorick’s skull contribute to the overarching theme of death and indecision. The critic would avoid speculation on Shakespeare’s personal life or the historical context of Elizabethan England.
“Moby-Dick” by Herman Melville	A formalist critique would analyze the novel’s intricate structure, particularly the use of symbolism and recurring motifs (such as the white whale) to explore themes of obsession, fate, and the human condition. The formalist critic would focus on how these elements create a cohesive narrative, rather than Melville’s intentions or readers’ interpretations.
“The Waste Land” by T.S. Eliot	Emphasis would be placed on the poem’s fragmented form and how its structure reflects the theme of cultural disintegration. The use of literary allusions, shifting voices, and symbolism would be analyzed as part of the poem’s unity. The formalist critic would avoid delving into Eliot’s personal experiences or the poem’s reception history.
“Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen	The formalist approach would focus on the novel’s use of irony, dialogue, and character development to build its thematic unity around issues of class, marriage, and morality. The critic would examine how Austen’s precise use of language and narrative techniques contribute to the novel’s form, without exploring Austen’s biography or societal impacts.

Criticism Against “The Formalist Critic” by Cleanth Brooks

• Neglect of Historical and Social Context: Critics argue that formalism’s emphasis on the text in isolation ignores the crucial influence of historical and social factors on literary production and interpretation.
• Authorial Intent Dismissed: Formalism’s disregard for authorial intent is seen as limiting, as understanding the author’s purpose can enrich interpretation.
• Reader Response Overlooked: By focusing solely on the text, formalism fails to account for the diverse and subjective experiences of readers.
• Limited Scope of Analysis: Critics contend that formalism’s narrow focus on textual elements restricts the range of critical inquiry and interpretation.
• Elitism and Impracticality: Some argue that formalism’s emphasis on complex analysis makes it inaccessible to a wider audience, rendering it elitist and impractical.
• Overemphasis on Unity and Coherence: Critics point out that not all literary works strive for perfect unity, and formalism’s insistence on coherence can overlook the value of fragmentation and ambiguity.
• Ahistorical Approach: Formalism’s neglect of historical context can lead to a distorted understanding of literary works and their significance.
• Ignoring the Political and Ideological: By focusing on formal elements, formalism often overlooks the political and ideological dimensions of literature.

Suggested Readings: “The Formalist Critic” by Cleanth Brooks

1. Brooks, Cleanth. The Well Wrought Urn: Studies in the Structure of Poetry. Harcourt, Brace & World, 1947.
2. Brooks, Cleanth, and Robert Penn Warren. Understanding Poetry. 4th ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976.
3. Brooks, Cleanth. Modern Poetry and the Tradition. University of North Carolina Press, 1939.
4. Eliot, T. S. The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism. Methuen, 1920.
5. Leavis, F. R. The Common Pursuit. Chatto & Windus, 1952.
6. Richards, I. A. Practical Criticism: A Study of Literary Judgment. Harcourt, Brace & World, 1929.
7. Ransom, John Crowe. The New Criticism. New Directions, 1941.
8. Wellek, René, and Austin Warren. Theory of Literature. 3rd ed., Harcourt, Brace & World, 1956.

Representative Quotations from “The Formalist Critic” by Cleanth Brooks with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The primary concern of criticism is with the problem of unity – the kind of whole which the literary work forms or fails to form, and the relation of the various parts to each other in building up this whole.”	This statement emphasizes the core concern of formalist criticism: understanding how the different elements of a literary work come together to create a unified whole.
“In a successful work, form and content cannot be separated.”	This quote underlines the fundamental belief of formalism that the structure and meaning of a literary work are inextricably linked.
“Literature is not a surrogate for religion.”	Brooks here distinguishes literature from other forms of expression, particularly religious ones, emphasizing that literature has its own unique function and purpose.
“The formalist critic is concerned primarily with the work itself.”	This statement clearly defines the focus of formalist criticism: the literary text as an independent object of study.
“The intensity of his reaction has critical significance only in proportion as we have already learned to trust him as a reader.”	This quote reveals Brooks’ skepticism towards subjective responses to literature, arguing that critical judgment should be based on rigorous analysis, not personal taste.

Introduction: “Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards

“Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards, first published in the year 1932 as part of the collection “Principles of Literary Criticism,” holds significant importance in both literature and literary theory. In this essay, Richards explores the interplay between language, emotion, and cognition, delineating how poetry harnesses emotive language to evoke responses beyond the factual or scientific realm. His analysis provides a foundational understanding of how poetry operates on psychological and emotional levels, challenging readers and critics to reconsider the ways in which they interact with literary texts. Richards’ emphasis on the emotive versus the cognitive functions of language in poetry has profoundly influenced subsequent literary criticism, encouraging a deeper appreciation for the subjective and experiential aspects of reading and interpreting poetry. This work remains a critical piece in the study of literature, offering insights into the complex dynamics between a poem’s structural elements and its broader impacts on the reader’s beliefs and emotions.

Summary of “Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards  

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards  

Literary Device/Concept	Definition/Explanation
Emotive Language	Language used to evoke emotions rather than to convey information or factual correctness. Richards notes, “It is the supreme form of emotive language.”
Scientific vs. Emotive Use of Language	Distinguishes between language used for factual, scientific purposes and language used to evoke emotional responses. Richards argues that the latter was the original use of language.
Subordination of Reference to Attitude	The idea that in poetry, the reference (or factual content) is less important than the attitude or emotional response it evokes in the reader. “For all that matters in either case is acceptance, that is to say, the initiation and development of the further response.”
Vagueness of Reference	The concept that poetic references often lack precise, verifiable scientific truth and instead focus on being emotionally resonant or evocative. “References as they occur in poetry are rarely susceptible of scientific truth or falsity.”
Indiscernibility of Fancy and Knowledge	Discusses the blurring lines between imagination (fancy) and factual knowledge in poetic expressions, which often leads to a twilight of understanding where both are indistinguishable.
Misuse of Poetry	Criticizes the common misunderstanding of poetry’s purpose, highlighting that assessing its truth or falsity is a misuse and overlooks the emotional and psychological impacts. “The people who say ‘How True!’… are misusing his work.”
Critical Emotive Utterances	Refers to critical statements about poetry that are emotive rather than analytical, shaping attitudes rather than providing objective critiques. “And the same is true of those critical but emotive utterances about poetry which gave rise to this discussion.”
Objectless Beliefs	Beliefs formed not based on direct references or facts but as a result of the emotional interplay and artistic manipulation in poetry, leading to emotive responses disconnected from factual bases.
Revelation Doctrines	Discusses the tendency in criticism to ascribe a false sense of revelation or profound truth to poetic works based on subjective emotional responses rather than objective truths. “One perversion…is in fact responsible for Revelation Doctrines.”

Contribution of “Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards  to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards

Literary Work	Critique through “Poetry and Beliefs”
“Ode to a Nightingale” by John Keats	Richards might critique this poem for its deep emotional resonance which surpasses factual or scientific interpretation. He would likely appreciate how Keats uses the emotive power of language to evoke a profound sense of escapism and melancholy, embodying his idea that, “Poetry is the supreme form of emotive language.”
“The Waste Land” by T.S. Eliot	In Richards’ view, Eliot’s work exemplifies the complexity of references and beliefs interwoven into poetry. He would discuss how the poem’s obscure allusions and fragmented structure challenge the reader’s emotive and intellectual responses, reflecting his thought that, “No one can understand such utterances about poetry…without distinguishing the making of a statement from the incitement or expression of an attitude.”
“Song of Myself” by Walt Whitman	Richards might analyze how Whitman’s expansive, inclusive lyrical style invites readers to engage emotionally rather than seek factual correctness. This approach aligns with Richards’ assertion that, “The emotions and attitudes resulting from a statement used emotively need not be directed towards anything to which the statement refers.” Whitman’s work would be seen as an illustration of poetry that transcends scientific validation to touch upon universal truths through emotive expression.
“Daddy” by Sylvia Plath	Through Richards’ perspective, Plath’s poem could be critiqued for its intense emotive language that powerfully conveys personal trauma and complex emotional states. He would likely focus on how the poem uses emotive expressions to provoke a response that is not dependent on the veracity of the references but on the emotional impact, illustrating his idea that, “Only references which are brought into certain highly complex and very special combinations, so as to correspond to the ways in which things actually hang together, can be either true or false, and most references in poetry are not knit together in this way.”

Criticism Against “Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards  

Suggested Readings: “Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards  

1. Greene, Roland, et al., editors. “B.” The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics: Fourth Edition, STU-Student edition, Princeton University Press, 2012, pp. 114–72. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2tt8jz.10. Accessed 12 Aug. 2024.
2. VENDLER, HELEN. “TEACHING I: I. A. Richards.” The American Scholar, vol. 49, no. 4, 1980, pp. 499–503. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41210668. Accessed 12 Aug. 2024.
3. Cohn, Jan. “The Theory of Poetic Value in I. A. Richards’ ‘Principles of Literary Criticism’ and Shelley’s ‘A Defence of Poetry.’” Keats-Shelley Journal, vol. 21/22, 1972, pp. 95–111. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30212743. Accessed 12 Aug. 2024.
4. Brooks, Cleanth. “I. A. Richards and ‘Practical Criticism.’” The Sewanee Review, vol. 89, no. 4, 1981, pp. 586–95. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27543909. Accessed 12 Aug. 2024.
5. Winterowd, W. Ross. “I. A. Richards, Literary Theory, and Romantic Composition.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 11, no. 1, 1992, pp. 59–78. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/465880. Accessed 12 Aug. 2024.
6. Brown, Stuart C. “I. A. Richards’ New Rhetoric: Multiplicity, Instrument, and Metaphor.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 10, no. 2, 1992, pp. 218–31. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/465482. Accessed 12 Aug. 2024.
7. Shafer, Robert E. “The Practical Criticism of I. A. Richards and Reading Comprehension.” Journal of Reading, vol. 14, no. 2, 1970, pp. 101–08. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40012942. Accessed 12 Aug. 2024.

Representative Quotations from “Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards  with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“It is the supreme form of emotive language.”	Richards refers to poetry as the highest expression of emotive language, which prioritizes emotional response over factual or logical clarity. This underscores the primary function of poetry—to evoke feelings and attitudes, rather than to convey information or argue rationally.
“Only references which are brought into certain highly complex and very special combinations… can be either true or false, and most references in poetry are not knit together in this way.”	This quote emphasizes the notion that poetic references typically do not adhere to the standards of factual truth or falsehood because they are not intended to be verifiable but are designed to enhance the emotive and aesthetic experience of the poem.
“The people who say ‘How True!’ at intervals while reading Shakespeare are misusing his work.”	Richards critiques readers who seek factual accuracy or literal truths in poetry, arguing that this approach misses the essence of poetic expression, which is to invoke a deeper, emotional, or contemplative response rather than to confirm empirical truths.
“No one can understand such utterances about poetry… without distinguishing the making of a statement from the incitement or expression of an attitude.”	Here, Richards points out the necessity of distinguishing between literal statements and the emotional or attitudinal effects intended by poetic language. Understanding poetry requires recognizing its primary function to affect the reader’s emotions and thoughts, rather than to state facts.
“Too much inferior poetry has been poured out as criticism, too much sack and too little bread.”	Richards laments the quality of much poetic criticism, suggesting that it is often as emotively charged and unsubstantial as bad poetry. This metaphor criticizes literary criticism that fails to offer substantive insights, instead indulging in the same stylistic excesses as the texts it critiques.
“But it is easy, by what seems only a slight change of approach, to make the initial step an act of faith, and to make the whole response dependent upon a belief as to a matter of fact.”	This quote warns of the danger in poetry and criticism of turning emotive responses into rigid dogmas or beliefs, which can distort the intended artistic experience. It highlights the subtle but significant shift that can lead to misinterpretations and misuse of poetic works by overly literal readings.

Introduction: “Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky

“Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky, first published in 1936 in the collection Structure, Sign and Function, holds immense significance in literature and literary theory. This seminal work introduced the concept of the aesthetic function as a social phenomenon, arguing that art and literature are not isolated expressions but are deeply intertwined with the social fabric. Mukarovsky’s exploration of how aesthetic norms and values are shaped by and, in turn, influence society laid the groundwork for subsequent studies in sociology of art, cultural studies, and literary theory.

Summary of “Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky

Term	Definition	Explanation
Fictionality	The quality of being fictional.	While literature often uses elements of reality, its primary function is not to convey factual information but to create aesthetic experiences.
Poetic Act	The creative process of constructing a literary work.	The author’s creation of fictional elements is not considered lying but a form of artistic expression.
Indirect (Figurative) Tie	The connection between a literary work and reality that is not direct or literal.	A literary work can evoke real-life experiences, emotions, and situations without explicitly describing them.
Material Relationship	The connection between a literary work and the reader’s world.	A strong literary work can engage the reader on multiple levels, connecting with their personal experiences and values.
Extra-aesthetic Values	Values that exist beyond the aesthetic realm, such as social, moral, and political values.	Literary works often carry implicit or explicit values that resonate with readers.
Aesthetic Value	The value derived from the artistic qualities of a work.	While important, aesthetic value is not isolated but interacts with other values within the work.
Mutual Tension	The conflict or contrast between the values within a literary work and the values of the society in which it is created.	This tension can lead to social commentary and critical reflection.

Contribution of “Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky

Literary Work	Critique Using Mukarovsky’s Framework
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky	Mukarovsky’s theory highlights the novel’s aesthetic function as it engages with moral and ethical dilemmas, not just as themes, but as part of the structural design of the narrative. The novel mediates complex realities, influencing the reader’s perception of justice and morality beyond the text.
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald	Through Mukarovsky’s lens, the aesthetic function of this novel transcends its plot, creating a symbolic landscape that critiques the American Dream. The social norms and values of the 1920s are not only depicted but interrogated, challenging the reader’s understanding of success and happiness.
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee	This work can be critiqued using Mukarovsky’s ideas on the social construction of interpretation. The racial injustices and moral complexities presented in the novel activate a dialogue with the reader’s societal context, questioning enduring social norms and values about race and justice.
“Waiting for Godot” by Samuel Beckett	Applying Mukarovsky, the play’s minimalist form and content integrate to challenge traditional narrative expectations, reflecting existential themes that resonate with the viewer’s personal and collective existential queries, thus transforming viewer attitudes towards meaning and time.
Beloved by Toni Morrison	Morrison’s novel can be analyzed through Mukarovsky’s perspective on extra-aesthetic values. The narrative structure intertwines with historical and emotional realities of slavery, pushing the reader to reevaluate the historical memory and its impact on contemporary values and identities.

Criticism Against “Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky

Suggested Readings: “Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky

1. Bürger, Peter. Theory of the Avant-Garde. Translated by Michael Shaw, University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
2. Călinescu, Matei. Five Faces of Modernity: Modernism, Avant-Garde, Decadence, Kitsch, Postmodernism. Duke University Press, 1987.
3. Eco, Umberto. The Limits of Interpretation. Indiana University Press, 1990.
4. Fokkema, Douwe, and Elrud Ibsch. Theories of Literature in the Twentieth Century: Structuralism, Marxism, Aesthetics of Reception, Semiotics. Hurst, 1977.
5. Steiner, Peter. Russian Formalism: A Metapoetics. Cornell University Press, 1984.

Representative Quotations from “Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The aesthetic function is not merely an added ornament but the very foundation of what makes a work of art.”	This quote emphasizes that the aesthetic function is intrinsic to art, defining its nature rather than being just an embellishment. It shapes how art communicates and interacts with its audience, forming the core of its impact.
“Artistic signs are dialectically negated reality; they do not simply mirror reality but transform it into something else.”	Mukarovsky suggests that art does not replicate reality straightforwardly but reconstructs it, offering new interpretations and perspectives. This transformation is a critical process where art becomes a medium for deeper understanding and reflection.
“The social fact of art lies in its collective interpretation; it is never solely an individual encounter.”	This statement underlines the communal aspect of art interpretation. Art exists within a social context and its meanings are shaped by collective experiences and social dynamics, not just by individual perceptions.
“Each element of a work of art, whether content or form, is charged with a network of social values and norms.”	Here, Mukarovsky highlights that every component of an artwork—its form and content—is imbued with societal values and norms. These elements are not neutral but are active participants in the dialogue between art and society.
“The indirect relationship between art and reality is its strength, allowing art to comment on reality from a unique vantage point.”	This quotation points out that art’s strength lies in its indirect approach to reality, enabling it to provide commentary and critique from a distinct perspective that can offer insightful and transformative views.
“Art is a social agent; it has the power to influence and reshape societal values through its aesthetic function.”	Mukarovsky casts art as an active social agent with the power to influence and reshape societal norms and values. Through its aesthetic function, art engages with and can alter the social fabric, highlighting its critical role in cultural dynamics.