“Spatial Form: An Answer to the Critics” by Joseph Frank: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Spatial Form: An Answer to the Critics” by Joseph Frank

“Spatial Form: An Answer to the Critics” by Joseph Frank first appeared in 1945 in The Sewanee Review and was later revised for inclusion in The Widening Gyre (1963). In this seminal work, Frank addressed the concept of “spatial form,” a revolutionary idea in literary theory emphasizing the need to apprehend modernist texts as unified structures rather than through linear progression. His argument centered on avant-garde literature, which often required readers to suspend temporal reading habits to grasp an intricate pattern of internal references as a spatial unity. Frank’s essay sparked extensive discussion, with critics debating its theoretical foundations and implications for modern literature. The article remains significant for its attempt to articulate the unique formal innovations of modernist literature while defending the descriptive rather than normative use of analytical categories. By proposing “spatial form” as a critical model, Frank contributed to broader discussions on the evolution of narrative and the interplay between temporality and structural coherence in literary art.

Summary of “Spatial Form: An Answer to the Critics” by Joseph Frank

• Historical Context and Purpose
  Joseph Frank reflects on the reception of his 1945 essay on “spatial form,” acknowledging its acceptance and criticism in Anglo-American literary circles. This article serves as a defense and clarification of his ideas, particularly in the context of avant-garde literature (Frank, 1977, pp. 231–232).
• Misconceptions about Frank’s Advocacy for Modernism
  Frank highlights misunderstandings about his role, emphasizing his analytical rather than advocative approach to modernist works. He states that his framework sought to describe aesthetic phenomena rather than endorse modernist norms, drawing on Lessing’s analytical methods without adopting normative judgments (Frank, 1977, pp. 233–234).
• Clarification of the “Spatial Form” Model
  Frank reiterates that “spatial form” was conceived as an “ideal type” or model to describe how avant-garde literature often suspends linear temporality. This approach emphasizes internal patterns and synchronic unity rather than diachronic narrative flow (Frank, 1977, pp. 234–235).
• Critiques and Misinterpretations
  Critics like G. Giovannini and Walter Sutton misunderstand Frank’s concept. Giovannini falsely conflates Frank’s ideas with those of John Peale Bishop and assumes an equivalence between spatial and pictorial art. Sutton questions the feasibility of “spatialization” in a time-based medium but overlooks Frank’s acknowledgment of the temporal act of reading (Frank, 1977, pp. 235–236).
• Juxtaposition of Myth and History
  Frank argues that modernist works like The Waste Land and Ulysses juxtapose mythic and historical elements to form a timeless unity. This structural innovation transforms linear history into a cohesive mythic pattern, challenging traditional temporal narratives (Frank, 1977, pp. 237–239).
• Criticism from Marxist and Ideological Perspectives
  Philip Rahv and Robert Weimann critique “spatial form” for its alleged ideological implications. Rahv misinterprets the concept as negating historical consciousness, while Weimann, from a Marxist stance, views it as an apologetic for bourgeois decadence. Frank defends the descriptive neutrality of his theory against such ideological readings (Frank, 1977, pp. 239–242).
• Frank Kermode’s Productive Opposition
  Frank identifies Kermode as a significant critic whose works paradoxically align with Frank’s ideas despite Kermode’s rejection of “spatial form” terminology. Kermode’s exploration of apocalyptic myths and temporal structures complements Frank’s theory, illustrating a shared interest in reconciling modernism with literary tradition (Frank, 1977, pp. 244–246).
• Proposals for a Unified Literary Theory
  Frank concludes with a call for integrating his and Kermode’s insights into a unified theory of literary structures. He envisions a framework that connects psychological and historical dimensions of literature, moving beyond ideological schisms (Frank, 1977, pp. 251–252).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Spatial Form: An Answer to the Critics” by Joseph Frank

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Context/Application
Spatial Form	A literary structure emphasizing synchronic (simultaneous) relationships over diachronic (sequential) progression.	Applied to avant-garde literature like The Waste Land and Ulysses, where patterns and internal references create a unified artistic vision.
Diachronic vs. Synchronic	Diachronic refers to sequential, time-based progression; synchronic pertains to simultaneous, spatial apprehension.	Used to describe how modern literature suspends linear temporality to highlight interconnected, non-sequential relationships within a work.
Ideal Type/Model	A conceptual framework or extreme abstraction used to analyze artistic phenomena without asserting literal representation.	Frank’s description of “spatial form” as a model rather than a claim about actual literary practices.
Space-Logic	The internal organization of relationships and references within a text that must be perceived as a whole to grasp its meaning.	Associated with modernist poetry and prose, where the meaning emerges from patterns of juxtaposed images and ideas rather than chronological narration.
Mythical vs. Historical Imagination	The mythical imagination seeks timeless, unified patterns; the historical imagination focuses on linear, causal sequences.	Modernist works like The Waste Land blur the lines, creating a sense of timeless unity while drawing on historical and mythic contrasts.
Synchronicity of Relations	The precedence of simultaneous connections and patterns within a text over the flow of chronological events.	Found in modernist texts where thematic and structural coherence emerge through juxtaposition rather than narrative causality.
Juxtaposition	The placement of disparate images, ideas, or references next to each other to evoke meaning through contrast and synthesis.	Seen in Eliot’s The Waste Land and Pound’s The Cantos, where contrasting fragments create a unified whole.
Temporal and Spatial Duality	The interplay between the linear progression of time and the spatial perception of narrative elements within a literary work.	Explored in Proust’s In Search of Lost Time, where past and present moments are juxtaposed to convey the experience of time’s passage.
Plot-Concordance	The integration of past, present, and future within a plot to create a unity that transcends mere chronological successiveness.	Kermode’s term, closely related to Frank’s “spatial form,” describing how literary plots achieve coherence by interweaving temporal dimensions.
Temporal Suspension	The act of temporarily halting linear narrative progression to focus on internal patterns and structural unity.	In modernist literature, this occurs when readers must apprehend relationships within the text as a unified structure before assigning sequential meaning.
Modernist Formal Innovation	Experimentation with language and structure to disrupt conventional narrative flow and highlight spatial or non-linear dynamics.	Exemplified by techniques in Joyce’s Ulysses and Djuna Barnes’s Nightwood, which foreground formal experimentation to create new modes of storytelling.
Critics’ Misinterpretations	Misunderstandings that “spatial form” equates to pictorial or static representations rather than dynamic synchronic configurations.	Addressed by Frank in response to critiques by Giovannini and Sutton, who conflated his ideas with those of visual or static art.
Continuity of Tradition	The idea that modernist experimentation extends rather than breaks with historical literary forms and structures.	Frank and Kermode both highlight the connection between modernist works and earlier literary traditions, arguing against the perception of modernism as a radical rupture.

Contribution of “Spatial Form: An Answer to the Critics” by Joseph Frank to Literary Theory/Theories

---

---

Examples of Critiques Through “Spatial Form: An Answer to the Critics” by Joseph Frank

Literary Work	Critique through Spatial Form	References from Article
T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land	– Eliot’s poem exemplifies spatial form by juxtaposing fragmented images and themes, requiring readers to synthesize meaning spatially. – The “instantaneous fusion of fragments” reflects synchronic rather than diachronic understanding.	“Pound defines the image ‘not as a pictorial reproduction but as a unification of disparate ideas and emotions into a complex presented spatially in a moment of time'” (Frank, p. 235).
James Joyce’s Ulysses	– Joyce’s narrative demands re-reading to perceive its spatial unity, where disparate elements coalesce into a coherent whole. – The novel’s episodic structure reflects the ambition to achieve a unified spatial perspective.	“Ulysses could not be read but only re-read; the unified spatial apprehension cannot occur on a first reading” (Frank, p. 251).
Marcel Proust’s À la recherche du temps perdu	– Proust’s use of memory creates a stereoscopic vision, merging past and present images spatially within the reader’s perception. – The discontinuity in presentation allows time’s passage to be directly communicated.	“By the discontinuous presentation of character, Proust forces the reader to juxtapose disparate images spatially, in a moment of time” (Frank, p. 251).
Ezra Pound’s Cantos	– The Cantos juxtaposes historical and mythical references in a way that transforms historical time into a mythic, spatial unity. – The structure resists sequential reading and instead focuses on synchronic relationships.	“By yoking past and present together in this way, these contrasts were felt as ‘locked in a timeless unity'” (Frank, p. 239).

Criticism Against “Spatial Form: An Answer to the Critics” by Joseph Frank

• Lack of Empirical Evidence for Universality
  • Critics argue that Frank overgeneralizes the applicability of spatial form across modernist literature without sufficient empirical evidence. His theory is seen as too narrowly drawn from specific avant-garde works, such as The Waste Land and Ulysses.
  • Walter Sutton’s objection: The temporality of reading cannot be entirely suspended, even in highly experimental works (Frank, p. 236).
• Confusion Between Spatial and Temporal Modes
  • Frank’s emphasis on the disjunction between spatial and temporal forms is criticized for creating unnecessary dichotomies. Critics argue that time remains an inescapable element of literature due to the linear process of reading.
  • Sutton’s critique: Frank’s idea that consciousness is suspended during the reading process is deemed “inconceivable” (Frank, p. 236).
• Perceived Advocacy for Modernist Elitism
  • Critics like Philip Rahv accuse Frank of implicitly justifying modernist experimentation at the expense of traditional narrative forms, portraying his analysis as an “apology” for modernist elitism.
  • Rahv’s critique: Frank romanticizes the “negation of history” in modernist literature, turning it into a myth rather than critiquing its cultural impact (Frank, p. 239).
• Terminological Ambiguity
  • Frank’s use of terms such as “spatial form” is criticized as ambiguous and inconsistent. Critics like Frank Kermode argue that Frank fails to adequately differentiate between critical fictions and myths, leading to conceptual confusion.
  • Kermode’s critique: Describes Frank’s terminology as “mythic” and “authoritarian,” opposing the characterization of literary structures as spatial (Frank, p. 247).
• Overemphasis on Formal Elements
  • Frank is accused of neglecting thematic, cultural, and psychological dimensions of the works he analyzes by focusing exclusively on their formal structure.
  • Roger Shattuck’s critique: Frank’s focus on “stereoscopic vision” in Proust minimizes the significance of the linear search central to the narrative (Frank, p. 234).
• Marxist and Historicist Objections
  • Marxist critics like Robert Weimann argue that spatial form negates the historical dimension of literature, undermining its ability to reflect social and historical realities.
  • Weimann’s critique: Claims that the “atemporality” of spatial form leads to an ideological “negation of self-transforming reality” (Frank, p. 241).
• Misinterpretation of Authorial Intent
  • Frank is criticized for attributing to authors like Joyce and Proust an intentional “spatial” design that may not align with their actual creative processes.
  • Critics’ concern: This interpretive leap risks imposing a theoretical framework on texts that might not consciously adhere to it.
• Provincial Focus on Anglo-American Modernism
  • Critics suggest that Frank’s analysis overly emphasizes Anglo-American and European avant-garde works, neglecting broader global literary traditions and modernisms.
  • Kermode’s critique: Accuses Frank of constructing a “period aesthetic” tied to specific historical and cultural contexts, limiting its broader relevance (Frank, p. 249).
• Failure to Engage Fully with Critics
  • While the essay is intended as a response to critics, Frank is accused of not fully addressing their substantive arguments, often dismissing them as misunderstandings.
  • Example: Dismisses Giovannini’s critique as a “total misunderstanding,” rather than engaging with the broader methodological implications (Frank, p. 235).

Representative Quotations from “Spatial Form: An Answer to the Critics” by Joseph Frank with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“I tried to understand the moderns in their own terms… descriptive, not at all as normative.”	Frank clarifies his stance as an analyst of modernist literature rather than an advocate, focusing on understanding their formal innovations rather than judging them by traditional standards.
“Spatial form… as a particular phenomenon of modern avant-garde writing.”	This phrase situates the concept of spatial form specifically within modernist experimentation, highlighting its relevance in the avant-garde context rather than a universal literary theory.
“To suspend the process of individual reference temporarily until the entire pattern of internal references can be apprehended as a unity.”	Frank describes the interpretive process required by spatial form, emphasizing the reader’s need to view the text as a whole rather than in a linear progression.
“The ambition of modern poetry to dislocate ‘the temporality of language’… culminates in the self-negation of language.”	Frank acknowledges the limits of modernist dislocation of temporality, noting that when taken to an extreme, it can lead to incomprehensibility or even the negation of language’s communicative function.
“The juxtaposition of disparate historical images… turns history into myth.”	Frank explains how modernist literature transforms historical contexts into mythic frameworks through its structural techniques, collapsing temporal distinctions into a unified, spatialized narrative.
“Time becomes… a purely physical limit of apprehension, which conditions but does not determine the work.”	Here, Frank emphasizes that while reading inevitably involves time, modernist works challenge and subvert the dominance of temporality in shaping meaning.
“Syntactical sequence is given up for a structure depending upon the perception of relationships between disconnected word-groups.”	This quote describes a key aspect of spatial form: the reliance on the juxtaposition of fragments to create meaning, rather than through conventional sequential progression.
“Spatial form can be correlated with the substitution of the mythical for the historical imagination.”	Frank highlights a broader cultural shift in modernism, where historical narratives give way to mythic structures, reflecting a search for timeless meaning rather than temporal causality.
“Certainly the reader must juxtapose disparate images spatially… so that the experience of time’s passage is communicated directly to his sensibility.”	Frank emphasizes that spatial form forces readers to engage with time as a simultaneous, layered phenomenon rather than a linear sequence, enhancing their experience of temporality.
“What is necessary for the future… is to recognize that we now have the basis for a unified theory of literary structures.”	Frank advocates for integrating spatial form into a broader theoretical framework, connecting modernist innovations with literary traditions and encouraging historical and psychological correlations in analysis.

Suggested Readings: “Spatial Form: An Answer to the Critics” by Joseph Frank

1. Frank, Joseph. “Spatial form: an answer to critics.” Critical Inquiry 4.2 (1977): 231-252.
2. Frank, Joseph. “Spatial Form: An Answer to Critics.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 4, no. 2, 1977, pp. 231–52. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342961. Accessed 29 Nov. 2024.
3. Frank, Joseph. “Spatial Form in Modern Literature: An Essay in Three Parts.” The Sewanee Review, vol. 53, no. 4, 1945, pp. 643–53. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27537640. Accessed 29 Nov. 2024.
4. Mitchell, W. J. T. “Spatial Form in Literature: Toward a General Theory.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 6, no. 3, 1980, pp. 539–67. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343108. Accessed 29 Nov. 2024.
5. Frank, Joseph. “Spatial Form in Modern Literature: An Essay in Three Parts.” The Sewanee Review, vol. 53, no. 3, 1945, pp. 433–56. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27537609. Accessed 29 Nov. 2024.
6. Kermode, Frank. “A Reply to Joseph Frank.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 4, no. 3, 1978, pp. 579–88. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343076. Accessed 29 Nov. 2024.