“Poststructuralism and the “Paraliterary” by Rosalind Krauss: Summary and Critique

Introduction to the ‘Paraliterary’

• The article introduces the term “paraliterary” as a form of writing where boundaries between literature and criticism blur (Krauss, 1980, p. 36).
• Inspired by poststructuralist thinkers like Jacques Derrida and Roland Barthes, the paraliterary destabilizes traditional notions of authorship, coherence, and literary unity (p. 38).

---

Theoretical Context

• Krauss situates her discussion in response to criticism from literary establishments accusing poststructuralism of undermining “close reading” and academic criticism (p. 36).
• Critics like Morris Dickstein see poststructuralist theory as a threat to traditional literature, reflecting a broader institutional resistance (p. 37).

---

Key Contributions of Derrida and Barthes

• Jacques Derrida:
  • In his lecture “Restitutions,” Derrida exemplifies the paraliterary by using a voice that theatrically interrupts his discourse, demonstrating the interplay of levels, styles, and fragmented perspectives (p. 37).
  • This dramatization, Krauss argues, borrows techniques historically confined to literature, subverting conventional philosophical discourse (p. 38).
• Roland Barthes:
  • Works like The Pleasure of the Text and S/Z merge literary creativity with critical exploration, creating a hybrid form that challenges clear categorization (p. 38).
  • Barthes emphasizes “stereographic space,” where texts are systems of interwoven cultural codes and clichés, displacing the primacy of authorial intent or “denotation” (p. 39).

---

Features of the Paraliterary

• Fragmentation and Multi-Voicedness:
  • The paraliterary is characterized by “voices without the Author” and “criticism without the Argument,” rejecting unity or resolution (p. 38).
• Critique of Traditional Realism:
  • Barthes contends that realism merely copies other representations of reality, creating a “pastiche” rather than an authentic imitation (p. 39).
• Opposition to Formalism:
  • Contrary to formalism’s focus on uncovering textual meanings, Barthes and Derrida reject the idea of a stable, underlying truth in literature (p. 39).

---

Resistance and Reception

• The wider literary establishment remains resistant to poststructuralist theory, seeing it as inaccessible and incompatible with traditional critical practice (p. 40).
• However, graduate students and readers of postmodernism embrace paraliterary works, recognizing their relevance in an era marked by the collapse of modernist literature (p. 40).

---

Impact and Legacy

• The paraliterary reflects postmodernism’s demand for critical texts to engage readers as co-creators of meaning.
• Barthes and Derrida emerge as central figures in this shift, redefining literary criticism as a creative, critical act (p. 40).

Blurring the Boundary Between Literature and Criticism

• Krauss highlights how poststructuralist thinkers like Jacques Derrida and Roland Barthes redefine the relationship between literature and criticism, creating a hybrid genre called the “paraliterary” (Krauss, 1980, p. 36).
• This redefinition challenges traditional distinctions, positioning criticism itself as a creative act rather than merely an analytical one, reshaping how texts are approached within literary theory.

---

Introduction of Fragmentation and Multi-Voiced Narratives

• Krauss emphasizes the fragmented nature of poststructuralist texts, where coherence and unity give way to a multiplicity of voices and perspectives (p. 38).
• By rejecting a singular authorial intent, the paraliterary encourages an intertextual approach, aligning with poststructuralist theories of decentered meaning and textual plurality (p. 39).

---

Critique of Formalism and Traditional Realism

• Poststructuralism’s challenge to formalism is foregrounded in Krauss’s discussion, particularly through Barthes’s work in S/Z. Barthes dismisses the idea that texts have inherent meanings to be “extracted,” critiquing formalist close reading as reductive (p. 39).
• Similarly, Barthes redefines realism as “pastiche,” arguing that it imitates representations of reality rather than reality itself, which resonates with theories critiquing mimetic art forms (p. 39).

---

Reversal of Denotation and Connotation Hierarchies

• Krauss underscores Barthes’s radical claim that denotation (literal meaning) is not foundational but rather the final layer of connotation, challenging long-held assumptions in semiotics and literary interpretation (p. 39).
• This insight aligns with structuralist and poststructuralist emphases on the constructed nature of meaning, influencing later theories in deconstruction and cultural studies.

---

Expanding the Role of Cultural Codes in Texts

• The article expands literary theory’s understanding of texts as systems of cultural codes, stereotypes, and clichés that shape how meaning is produced and interpreted (p. 39).
• This approach shifts focus from individual creativity to cultural systems, advancing structuralist ideas of language and cultural production and integrating them into poststructuralist frameworks.

---

Destabilizing the Concept of the Author

• By emphasizing “de-origination,” Krauss affirms poststructuralist critiques of authorship, wherein the author is not the origin of meaning but a function within textual and cultural systems (p. 39).
• This perspective directly engages with Roland Barthes’s famous essay The Death of the Author and Derrida’s deconstructive strategies, deepening their theoretical implications.

---

Redefining Literary Criticism as a Creative Text

• Krauss illustrates how poststructuralism transforms criticism into a performative and literary act, merging the analytical with the artistic. This reconceptualization broadens the scope of literary theory, encouraging innovative forms of critical engagement (p. 38).
• The shift exemplified by Barthes and Derrida situates literary theory within the broader intellectual movement of postmodernism, contributing to its interdisciplinary appeal.

---

Impact on Postmodern Literary Practice

• Krauss connects the rise of the paraliterary to the collapse of modernist literature, noting its resonance with postmodernism’s emphasis on reflexivity and the constructedness of art (p. 40).
• This linkage situates her work as a pivotal contribution to understanding the transition from modernist to postmodernist literary practices.

Elitism and Accessibility

• Critics argue that Krauss’s discussion of the “paraliterary” reflects an elitist perspective, as the concepts and theories presented are highly abstract and inaccessible to general readers.
• Theoretical jargon and references to Derrida and Barthes can alienate audiences unfamiliar with poststructuralist discourse.

---

Neglect of Practical Criticism

• Krauss’s emphasis on the paraliterary undermines traditional methods of practical criticism, such as close reading and textual analysis, which remain foundational in literary studies.
• By rejecting systematic approaches, the article risks dismissing methods valued for their rigor and clarity.

---

Overemphasis on Theory

• The focus on poststructuralist theory at the expense of broader literary practices limits the scope of Krauss’s argument, neglecting other critical frameworks and their contributions.
• Some critics suggest this creates a theoretical echo chamber, where only poststructuralist perspectives are legitimized.

---

Critique of Fragmentation

• The privileging of fragmented, multi-voiced narratives over unified texts is seen by some as an undermining of the coherence and communicative power of literature.
• Detractors argue that this approach risks reducing texts to mere collections of cultural codes without room for individual creativity or originality.

---

Cultural Relativism

• The rejection of fixed meanings and denotation in favor of cultural codes and connotations invites accusations of cultural relativism, where all interpretations are equally valid, potentially leading to interpretive anarchy.
• This stance is criticized for disregarding the possibility of universal themes or truths in literature.

---

Institutional Disconnect

• Krauss acknowledges the limited impact of poststructuralist theory on broader literary establishments, but critics view this as a failure to bridge theoretical innovation with practical application in the literary field.
• The gap between poststructuralist theory and mainstream criticism highlights its limited influence outside academia.

---

Undermining of Realism

• The critique of realism as “pastiche” is viewed as overly reductive, dismissing its ability to engage with social and political realities in meaningful ways.
• Realist works are argued to provide valuable insights that transcend their supposed replication of pre-existing representations.

---

Resistance to Authorship

• The dismissal of the author’s role as a source of meaning faces criticism for neglecting the intentional and creative processes behind literary works.
• Critics argue that this undermines the individuality and artistry of authorship, reducing texts to impersonal cultural constructs.