“Spatial Form: Some Further Reflections” by Joseph Frank: Summary and Critique

Engagement with Criticism

• Frank addresses Frank Kermode’s critiques and clarifies misconceptions about spatial form, emphasizing its role as a paradoxical yet critical concept to highlight the tension between temporality and intemporality in modern literature (Frank, 1978, p. 275).
• The debate advanced understanding of spatial form, moving beyond rigid dismissals of the concept as outdated or irrelevant (p. 276).

Modernism and Political Associations

• Frank counters Kermode’s assertion linking modernism with the extreme Right, highlighting the avant-garde’s alignment with libertarian and anarchist ideologies (p. 277).
• This political dimension underscores the complexity of cultural and artistic movements and their diverse associations (p. 278).

Theoretical Refinements

• Frank reflects on critiques, particularly the need to differentiate physical and psychological time in spatial form analysis. This oversight stems from focusing too narrowly on Nightwood (p. 278).
• He acknowledges the broader applicability of spatial form to avant-garde narratives like those of Joyce, Woolf, and Faulkner, which dislocate linear temporality to explore consciousness and memory (p. 279).

Integration with Structuralism and Linguistics

• The essay situates spatial form within developments in structural linguistics, information theory, and French structuralism, drawing on Roman Jakobson and Saussure (p. 280).
• Jakobson’s “space-logic” aligns with Frank’s idea of self-referential textual structures, further grounding spatial form in linguistic theory (p. 281).

Spatial Form in Poetry and the Novel

• While initially linked with poetry, spatial form is most impactful in narratives, particularly in modernist and avant-garde experiments that disrupt temporal order (p. 282).
• Frank examines how authors like Sterne and Proust use spatial techniques to reorganize plot and narrative sequence, contrasting “story” (chronological events) with “plot” (artistic arrangement) (p. 283).

Contributions of the Russian Formalists

• Drawing on Viktor Shklovsky and Boris Tomashevsky, Frank highlights the tension between “bound motifs” (chronological events) and “free motifs” (artistic elements) in narrative structure (p. 284).
• This distinction reinforces spatial form as intrinsic to the novel’s development, challenging the dominance of causal-chronological storytelling (p. 285).

Influence of French Theorists

• Gérard Genette’s analysis bridges spatial form with broader narrative techniques, highlighting the balance between narration (temporal) and description (spatial) (p. 286).
• Genette’s terms like discours and récit expand the theoretical framework, linking shifts in narrative emphasis to evolving literary trends (p. 287).

Implications for Literary Analysis

• Frank situates spatial form within a larger theoretical landscape, noting its influence on reader engagement, which requires re-reading to grasp non-linear narrative relationships (p. 289).
• The concept encapsulates the synchronic dimensions of literary texts, bridging narrative temporality with modernist disruptions (p. 290).

1. Expansion of Modernist Literary Analysis

• Integration with Modernist Techniques: Frank situates spatial form as a hallmark of modernist experimentation, especially in the works of Joyce, Woolf, and Proust. He shows how modernist texts abandon linear temporality in favor of simultaneous relationships between narrative elements (Frank, 1978, p. 279).
• Focus on Intemporality: The essay highlights how spatial form underscores the “immanence of the intemporal in the temporal,” capturing modernist literature’s tension with time and history (p. 276).

---

2. Alignment with Russian Formalism

• Story vs. Plot Distinction: Frank draws on the Russian Formalists’ distinction between “story” (chronological sequence) and “plot” (artistic arrangement) to define spatial form as an intrinsic feature of narrative construction (p. 283).
• Bound and Free Motifs: Borrowing from Tomashevsky, he uses “bound motifs” (causal-chronological elements) and “free motifs” (elements open to artistic manipulation) to discuss how spatial form enables creative flexibility in narrative (p. 284).

---

3. Engagement with Structuralism and Linguistics

• Influence of Saussure: Frank links spatial form to Saussure’s concept of language as a system of differential relations, arguing that meaning in modernist texts derives from internal textual relationships rather than external referentiality (p. 280).
• Jakobson’s Principle of Equivalence: He connects spatial form to Jakobson’s theory of poetic language, emphasizing how “equivalence” disrupts syntactical linearity to create spatial relationships in texts (p. 281).

---

4. Reconceptualization of Narrative

• Temporal Disruptions: Frank explores narrative techniques like anachrony (e.g., flashbacks and flash-forwards) and time shifts, which spatialize narrative by challenging linear progression (p. 289).
• Role of Description and Narration: Drawing from Genette, he highlights the balance between narration (temporal) and description (spatial), showing how description acquires structural importance in modernist and postmodernist texts (p. 286).

---

5. Contribution to Poetics

• Space-Logic in Poetry: Frank extends the concept of spatial form to poetry, arguing that modernist poems prioritize intra-textual relationships over external references, creating a “space-logic” that aligns with structuralist theories (p. 281).
• Application to Narrative Spatialization: His work bridges the gap between poetics and narrative theory, showing how spatial principles operate across literary forms (p. 282).

---

6. Integration into Postmodern Theory

• Dissolution of the Self: Frank discusses the modernist and postmodernist emphasis on the loss of self, connecting it to the spatialization of narrative and the rejection of causal-chronological sequences (p. 278).
• Synchronic Reading: He anticipates postmodern readerly practices, advocating for re-reading and simultaneous engagement with a text’s holistic structure rather than linear consumption (p. 290).

---

7. Development of Comparative Literary Theory

• International Influence of Modernism: Frank demonstrates spatial form’s adaptability across cultural and linguistic boundaries, from Anglo-American modernists like Joyce and Woolf to Russian formalists and French theorists (p. 280).
• Cultural Synchronization: He contextualizes spatial form within broader cultural shifts, bridging literary theory with cultural and historical analysis (p. 277).

---

8. Connection with Phenomenology and Reader-Response Theory

• Focus on Reader Engagement: Frank emphasizes the reader’s role in constructing meaning through non-linear and spatial relationships in the text, prefiguring elements of reader-response theory (p. 290).
• Simultaneity in Reading: He parallels phenomenological perspectives by showing how spatial form engages the reader’s perception of time and space simultaneously (p. 290).

1. Overemphasis on Modernism

• Critics argue that Frank disproportionately focuses on modernist texts, potentially neglecting how spatial form functions in pre-modern and non-Western literary traditions.
• This narrow emphasis may limit the universality of the concept, confining it to specific cultural and historical contexts.

---

2. Ambiguity in Defining Spatial Form

• Frank’s definition of spatial form, though detailed, remains abstract and paradoxical, leading to difficulties in its practical application.
• Terms like “space-logic” and “intemporality” lack clear boundaries, making the theory seem overly theoretical and less empirically grounded.

---

3. Insufficient Attention to Reader Diversity

• Frank’s reliance on a highly intellectualized reader who can perceive simultaneity and engage in re-reading assumes a homogeneity in reader experience.
• Critics suggest this approach overlooks how diverse audiences might interpret texts differently, especially those unfamiliar with modernist conventions.

---

4. Underestimation of Chronological Narratives

• By emphasizing disruptions of time and sequence, Frank appears to undervalue the artistry and complexity of traditional linear narratives.
• Some critics see this as an implicit devaluation of historical storytelling methods that rely on chronology.

---

5. Overgeneralization Across Texts

• Critics note that applying spatial form to a wide range of texts risks reducing the nuanced differences between works and authors.
• For example, treating Nightwood and Ulysses under the same framework might obscure their distinct artistic intents and stylistic approaches.

---

6. Minimal Engagement with Emerging Digital Texts

• Frank’s essay does not address the implications of spatial form for digital literature, hypertexts, or multimodal works, which increasingly challenge traditional literary forms.
• This omission limits the applicability of his ideas to contemporary media landscapes.

---

7. Limited Engagement with Political Contexts

• While Frank counters claims linking modernism and right-wing ideologies, critics argue that he insufficiently examines how spatial form might intersect with broader political and social issues.
• His critique of Kermode could benefit from deeper political and historical analysis.

---

8. Dependence on Structuralism

• Frank’s reliance on structuralist theories like Saussure and Jakobson has been critiqued for being dated in light of post-structuralist developments.
• Critics argue that spatial form should be re-evaluated through more contemporary theoretical lenses, such as deconstruction or new materialism.

---

9. Neglect of Non-Canonical Texts

• Frank primarily engages with canonical modernist works, which some critics see as a limitation in demonstrating the broader applicability of spatial form.
• Exploring non-canonical or marginalized literary voices could strengthen the universality of his framework.