Introduction: “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc
“On Reading and Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc first appeared in 2022 in the journal SRAZ, contributing a critical discourse to the ongoing evolution of literary theory. Dolenc’s work re-evaluates the significance of literariness, especially as it is framed by the philosophies of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze. She addresses the dynamic and often conflicting definitions of “literariness,” a concept foundational to understanding what makes a text “literary.” By examining how Derrida’s deconstructive reading and Deleuze’s event-based approach open possibilities for interpreting literariness, Dolenc suggests a shift away from rigid institutional definitions of literature. Her study implies that reading should move beyond merely verifying theoretical postulates and instead approach the text as a unique linguistic event. This reconceptualization challenges literary theory to continuously redefine its purpose, given the unsettled nature of what constitutes “literary” work, thus keeping theory itself in a state of becoming. This work is pivotal for its contribution to literary scholarship, as it underscores the necessity of theory to adapt and embrace the inherent indeterminacies within literary texts, expanding the discourse on how literature can be understood and valued within academia.
Summary of “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc
- Literary Theory’s Evolution and Limitations
Barbara Dolenc examines the concept of literariness and its foundational role in literary theory, particularly through the lens of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze. She addresses how traditional, institutionalized literary theory often struggles with defining its core objectives, partly due to the varying and conflicting approaches within the field. According to Dolenc, the complexity of literariness challenges literary theory’s sustainability, highlighting an inherent tension in defining “what is literature” amidst a “stiff competition” of theories (Dolenc, 2022, p. 35). - The Concept of Literariness
Dolenc delves into the genealogy of literariness, referencing Roman Jakobson’s view that “the subject of literary scholarship is not literature but literariness,” which underscores the search for what inherently makes a work literary. This focus, rooted in Russian formalism and structuralism, aims to isolate literariness from general aesthetics or philosophy, legitimizing literary study through specific methodologies (Jakobson, 1997, p. 179; Dolenc, 2022, p. 36). However, the latter half of the 20th century, influenced by deconstruction, questioned literary theory’s authority to define literature’s essence, suggesting that “literary theories cannot seem to agree” on fundamental principles (Solar, 2014, p. 30). - Deconstruction and the Literary Text
The work discusses Derrida’s deconstructive perspective, which reframes literariness not as an intrinsic property of the text but as a construct of the “experience of literature.” Derrida insists that literature is defined through its openness to interpretation and connection to other discourses, challenging readers to see literariness as “a correlative of an intentional relation to the text” that evolves with each reading (Derrida, 1992b, p. 45; Dolenc, 2022, p. 38). This iterative and context-sensitive approach to texts allows literature to resist definitive categorization within the “literary institution.” - Deleuze’s Sense of Event and Literariness
Dolenc also explores Deleuze’s notion of “event” as a key component of literariness, viewing literature as a “bloc of sensations,” inherently dynamic and always in a state of “becoming” through the reader’s interaction. This idea positions literature as an experience of constantly shifting interpretations, produced rather than discovered, and driven by a “logic of inventing a style in literature” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994, p. 164; Dolenc, 2022, p. 39). According to Deleuze, the literary text, through its unique style and syntax, creates a “foreign language within language,” offering an eventful space for continuous and limitless reading. - Redefining Literary Theory
Ultimately, Dolenc calls for a literary theory that acknowledges its own instability and capacity for “deconstruction in aporetic experience,” which resists predefined methods and embraces the undecidable nature of literariness (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41). She argues that a renewed literary theory would prioritize the text’s singularity, focusing on how each reading becomes an event in itself, rather than reducing it to a fixed methodological framework. This perspective asserts that the potential of literary theory lies in its openness to reformation, embracing each reading as a unique encounter with the “unreadable” aspects of literariness.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc
| Term/Concept | Definition | Explanation in Context |
| Literariness | The quality that makes a text “literary”; introduced by Roman Jakobson as “that which makes of a given work a work of literature.” | Dolenc examines literariness as a central focus in literary theory, suggesting that it distinguishes literary texts from non-literary ones through their unique qualities. |
| Deconstruction | A philosophical approach, primarily developed by Jacques Derrida, that critiques the notion of fixed meaning and emphasizes the fluidity of interpretation. | Dolenc explores how deconstruction questions the foundations of literariness, challenging the idea of static literary definitions and encouraging interpretive openness. |
| Event | A concept by Deleuze, referring to the occurrence within language that creates meaning; it is not an essence but an effect of language in action. | Dolenc suggests that literariness is an “event” that happens in the act of reading, where meaning arises through dynamic interaction with the text rather than static elements. |
| Iterability | The capacity for a text to be read and reinterpreted in different contexts, central to Derrida’s concept of textuality. | Dolenc argues that iterability allows literary texts to transcend their original contexts, providing a basis for continuous and evolving interpretations. |
| Singularity | The unique, one-time occurrence or characteristic of a text or reading experience. | For Dolenc, each reading is a singular experience, a unique encounter with the text that cannot be replicated or standardized. |
| Institutionalization | The process by which theories and approaches become formalized and accepted within academic structures. | Dolenc critiques how institutionalized literary theory can sometimes limit the scope of interpretation, creating rigid frameworks around what constitutes “literary theory.” |
| Interdisciplinarity | Integrating methods or insights from multiple academic disciplines to enrich understanding. | Dolenc highlights interdisciplinary approaches, particularly through Derrida and Deleuze’s philosophies, to address the multifaceted nature of literariness. |
| Aporia | A state of puzzlement or unresolved contradiction, especially relevant in deconstructive readings. | Dolenc sees literary theory in an “aporetic” state, suggesting that its inherent contradictions provide an impetus for ongoing theoretical exploration and re-evaluation. |
| Mimetologism | Derrida’s term related to the concept of mimesis, critiquing representations of reality as inherently limited or flawed. | Dolenc uses mimetologism to discuss how literary theory navigates the balance between reflecting “truth” and embracing interpretation beyond mere replication of reality. |
| Countersignature | The act of responding to a text in a way that acknowledges its singular event while creating a new, unique response. | Dolenc suggests that reading and interpretation are countersignatures, where each reading reaffirms and uniquely engages with the text. |
| Foreign Language within Language | The transformation of language to convey new meanings within an existing language framework, as described by Deleuze. | In the context of literary texts, Dolenc argues that the creation of new syntaxes or expressions within language reflects a becoming-other, creating layers of meaning. |
| Canon | A collection of works considered authoritative or representative in a given field. | Dolenc refers to the canon as a traditional way to define literariness, critiquing its limitations in recognizing the evolving nature of what constitutes literature. |
| Formalism | An approach to literary analysis that emphasizes structural elements of the text rather than contextual factors like authorial intent or historical setting. | Dolenc discusses formalism’s focus on the “aesthetic function” and literariness, noting its influence on literary theory despite its limitations. |
Contribution of “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc to Literary Theory/Theories
- Deconstruction
Dolenc extends Derrida’s principles of deconstruction to argue that literariness itself resists definitive categorization, asserting that literature is best understood as an “experience” rather than an essence. Through deconstruction, she challenges the institutionalized structure of literary theory, arguing that fixed methodologies limit the interpretive possibilities of texts. Instead, deconstruction enables a fluid, open-ended reading that values the singularity and unique event of each text (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41; Derrida, 1992b, p. 45). - Formalism and Russian Formalism
Building on the Russian Formalists’ notion of literariness, particularly Roman Jakobson’s idea that literariness is “that which makes of a given work a work of literature,” Dolenc critiques the limitations of purely formalist approaches. She acknowledges the value of formalism’s focus on intrinsic elements within the text but critiques its inadequacy in addressing the dynamic interaction between text and reader. Dolenc’s perspective thus challenges formalism to accommodate the shifting and relational aspects of literariness (Jakobson, 1997, p. 179; Dolenc, 2022, p. 36). - Reader-Response Theory
Dolenc’s emphasis on the role of the reader aligns with reader-response theory, which sees meaning as co-created through the act of reading. She argues that literariness is realized in the “intentional relation to the text,” highlighting the reader’s active role in creating meaning. This perspective reinforces the idea that literariness is not a fixed property but an event occurring through each unique engagement with the text, suggesting a reorientation of literary theory to foreground the reader’s interpretive experience (Dolenc, 2022, p. 38; Derrida, 1992b, p. 44). - Post-Structuralism and the Concept of Iterability
Dolenc engages with Derrida’s concept of iterability, or the idea that a text can be detached from its original context and reinterpreted infinitely. By supporting the iterative nature of texts, Dolenc situates her argument within post-structuralism, which recognizes the openness of texts to various interpretations. Her focus on iterability highlights that literariness is not confined to the text’s original context, but instead gains significance through its potential for reinterpretation and transformation across contexts (Dolenc, 2022, p. 39; Derrida, 1982, p. 315). - Interdisciplinary Approaches and Cultural Studies
Dolenc’s work advocates for an interdisciplinary approach, considering insights from philosophy, linguistics, and cultural studies. She argues that literary theory can benefit from embracing interdisciplinary methodologies, especially given how theories from Derrida and Deleuze challenge traditional literary norms. This openness to other fields reflects the evolving landscape of literary studies, where cultural studies, in particular, have reshaped literary theory to include broader social, ideological, and cultural contexts (Dolenc, 2022, p. 36). - Aporia and Institutional Critique
Reflecting Derrida’s concept of aporia, or unresolved contradictions, Dolenc critiques the institutionalized literary theory for limiting interpretive possibilities by imposing rigid structures. She argues that literary theory’s current state, caught in an “aporetic experience of re-evaluation,” needs to evolve by embracing the uncertainties of interpretation rather than adhering to standardized methodologies. This perspective aligns with the critique of institutionalized literary studies and supports a more flexible, adaptive theoretical approach (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41; Derrida, 1981a, p. 70). - Theories of the Literary Canon
Dolenc’s critique of canonical approaches in literary theory questions the traditional selection of texts deemed “literary” based on historical or aesthetic conventions. Her discussion opens up the canon to texts that may challenge or expand definitions of literariness, supporting a move toward inclusivity and responsiveness to contemporary cultural shifts. This re-evaluation encourages literary theory to reconsider its criteria for canon formation, enabling new texts and interpretations to gain recognition (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41).
Examples of Critiques Through “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc
| Literary Work | Dolenc’s Theoretical Perspective | Example Critique |
| Hamlet by William Shakespeare | Deconstruction & Iterability: Dolenc emphasizes Derrida’s notion of iterability, suggesting that a text’s meaning evolves with each reading and context. | Through Dolenc’s lens, Hamlet is not confined to any single interpretation but is perpetually open to re-interpretation. Each reading may emphasize different aspects—such as existential questions, political implications, or psychological depth—highlighting the play’s “iterative structure” (Derrida, 1982, p. 315). |
| To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf | Reader-Response Theory & Event of Reading: Dolenc values the reader’s role in creating meaning, positioning the reading experience as an “event” where literariness is realized. | Through Dolenc’s framework, To the Lighthouse becomes a literary “event,” as each reader’s unique experience constructs different meanings, whether focusing on themes of memory, time, or identity. Woolf’s text thus invites the reader to engage actively, making the text’s literariness contingent on this engagement (Dolenc, 2022, p. 38). |
| Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett | Aporia & Unresolved Meaning: Dolenc’s approach incorporates Derrida’s idea of aporia, suggesting that unresolved questions can be integral to a text’s literariness. | Waiting for Godot exemplifies an aporetic text through its cyclical dialogue and lack of resolution. Dolenc’s approach would critique the play’s deliberate ambiguity, asserting that its meaning is found within the tension of its unanswered questions, challenging readers to engage with its existential uncertainties (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41). |
| The Waste Land by T.S. Eliot | Interdisciplinarity & Cultural Studies: Dolenc advocates for an interdisciplinary approach, allowing multiple contexts and discourses to inform a text’s literariness. | Applying Dolenc’s perspective, The Waste Land can be analyzed as a “bloc of sensations,” drawing on diverse cultural, historical, and religious references. This approach allows readers to interpret Eliot’s fragmented style and layered allusions as a reflection of cultural disintegration, making the poem an event in cultural critique (Deleuze/Guattari, 1994, p. 164). |
Criticism Against “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc
- Overemphasis on Deconstruction
Critics may argue that Dolenc’s heavy reliance on Derridean deconstruction limits her analysis, potentially overshadowing other valuable theoretical approaches. By focusing mainly on deconstruction and iterability, the text might neglect more concrete methods that could enhance practical literary analysis. - Lack of Practical Application
Dolenc’s theoretical discussions on literariness as an “event” or “experience” may feel abstract and difficult to apply practically. Critics might contend that her approach lacks clear guidelines or frameworks for real-world literary analysis, making it challenging for students or scholars seeking actionable insights. - Marginalization of Traditional Literary Theory
By critiquing formalist and canonical approaches, Dolenc risks sidelining established literary theories that many believe still hold relevance. Some may argue that her approach disregards the value of formalism, structuralism, and other traditional frameworks that continue to be instrumental in literary studies. - Potential for Relativism
Dolenc’s embrace of an open, reader-centered interpretation may lead to an “anything goes” mentality, where interpretations lack stability or accountability. This perspective could risk reducing literary theory to a subjective exercise, weakening its rigor and making it harder to establish any shared, objective understanding of texts. - Challenges in Institutional Contexts
Her critique of institutionalized literary theory might be seen as impractical, given that academic frameworks require structure and methodology. Critics could argue that Dolenc’s ideal of a continuously evolving theory disregards the need for standardized practices in educational settings, potentially complicating the teaching and assessment of literature.
Representative Quotations from “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Literariness is not a natural essence, an intrinsic property of the text.” (Derrida 1992b: 44) | Dolenc underscores that literariness does not inherently reside within a text itself but emerges from the interpretive act of reading, challenging static or essentialist views of what constitutes “literary” in a work. |
| “The subject of literary scholarship is not literature but literariness.” (Jakobson, 1997, p. 179) | Dolenc references Jakobson to highlight that literary studies should focus on the distinctive qualities that make a work “literary,” suggesting that literariness itself, rather than the text alone, is the true subject of literary theory. |
| “Theory’s answer is still, of course, a reading.” (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41) | For Dolenc, literary theory remains tied to the act of reading, implying that each interpretive engagement with a text reaffirms theory’s purpose and prevents it from becoming static or overly methodological. |
| “Deconstruction…does not settle for methodical procedures but opens up a passageway.” (Derrida, 1992a, p. 337) | Dolenc uses Derrida’s description of deconstruction to emphasize its capacity to disrupt and redefine fixed interpretive methods, enabling literary theory to be flexible and inventive rather than rigid and prescriptive. |
| “Is it necessary to read works by Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze… given that the theory has been institutionalized?” | Dolenc questions whether literary theory benefits from returning to Derrida and Deleuze, critiquing the constraints that institutionalized approaches place on theoretical innovation and the potential enrichment these thinkers bring to theory. |
| “If the imperative of literary theory is reading literary texts, the state of undecidability is a challenge.” (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41) | Dolenc posits that literary theory must embrace the inherent ambiguities in reading, which challenges the discipline to evolve and continually question the limitations and possibilities of interpretation. |
| “The event of the literary text happens in reading.” (Dolenc, 2022, p. 38) | This statement reflects Dolenc’s view that literariness arises dynamically during the act of reading, emphasizing that the literary text is not a static object but a participatory event created through interpretation. |
| “It is possible to re-evaluate the objectives and the purpose of a theoretical approach to a literary text.” | Dolenc advocates for a continual reassessment of literary theory’s goals, particularly as theories like deconstruction and reader-response challenge conventional methodologies and encourage more adaptable frameworks. |
| “Formal analysis belongs to the order of calculable guarantees and decidable evidence.” (Derrida, 2005, p. 152) | Dolenc echoes Derrida’s critique of formal analysis, suggesting that literary theory should move beyond rigid, calculable approaches that limit interpretive richness and often ignore the evolving nature of literariness. |
| “Writing is always incomplete, always in the midst of being formed.” (Deleuze, 1998, p. 1) | Through Deleuze’s words, Dolenc emphasizes the fluid and ongoing nature of writing and literature, presenting literary texts as unfinished and perpetually open to interpretation, in contrast to finalized or definitive readings. |
Suggested Readings: “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc
- Dolenc, Barbara. “On reading and literariness: The (im) possibility of literary theory.” Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia: Revue publiée par les Sections romane, italienne et anglaise de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Zagreb 67 (2022): 35-42.
- Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain.” Comparative Literature, vol. 59, no. 2, 2007, pp. 97–118. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40279363. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.
- Zamora, Margarita. “Historicity and Literariness: Problems in the Literary Criticism of Spanish American Colonial Texts.” MLN, vol. 102, no. 2, 1987, pp. 334–46. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2905693. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.
- McNAMER, SARAH. “The Literariness of Literature and the History of Emotion.” PMLA, vol. 130, no. 5, 2015, pp. 1433–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44017160. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.