Tag: Theory Article Summaries

Introduction: “Beyond the threshold: Explorations of liminality in literature” by Minesh Dass

“Beyond the Threshold: Explorations of Liminality in Literature” by Minesh Dass first appeared in the English Academy Review: Southern African Journal of English Studies in 2013, published online on May 13. This scholarly work provides an intricate exploration of liminality, drawing on theoretical frameworks by Victor Turner, Homi K. Bhabha, and Arnold van Gennep to investigate the transformative potential of “in-between spaces” within literature. Anchored in the South African literary context but extending its purview to global texts, the article examines how boundaries, hybridity, and liminal processes contribute to identity formation in literature. By incorporating diverse texts and critiques, including those on South African and international authors, the study highlights the intricate interplay between cultural and literary boundaries. While the collection from which it emerges is critiqued for its uneven coherence and focus, Dass’s insights into the liminal as both a theme and literary framework underscore its significance in contemporary literary theory, offering a platform for further exploration of identity, transformation, and the boundaries of human experience.

Summary of “Beyond the threshold: Explorations of liminality in literature” by Minesh Dass

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Beyond the threshold: Explorations of liminality in literature” by Minesh Dass

Contribution of “Beyond the threshold: Explorations of liminality in literature” by Minesh Dass to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Beyond the threshold: Explorations of liminality in literature” by Minesh Dass

Criticism Against “Beyond the threshold: Explorations of liminality in literature” by Minesh Dass

Representative Quotations from “Beyond the threshold: Explorations of liminality in literature” by Minesh Dass with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Beyond the threshold: Explorations of liminality in literature” by Minesh Dass

1. Dass, Minesh. “Beyond the threshold: Explorations of liminality in literature.” (2013): 124-128.
2. Joseph, Michael. “Liminality.” Keywords for Childrens Literature, edited by Philip Nel and Lissa Paul, NYU Press, 2011, pp. 138–41. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qg46g.33. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024.
3. GADOIN, ISABELLE, and ANNIE RAMEL. “LIMINALITY – INTRODUCTION.” The Hardy Review, vol. 15, no. 1, 2013, pp. 5–10. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/45301764. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024.
4. Kalua, Fetson. “Homi Bhabha’s Third Space and African Identity.” Journal of African Cultural Studies, vol. 21, no. 1, 2009, pp. 23–32. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40647476. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024.

Introduction: “Why Lyric?” by Jonathan Culler

“Why Lyric?” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in PMLA in 2008, offering a critical examination of lyric poetry and its significance in literary studies. The essay challenges the dominant pedagogical paradigms that interpret lyric poems as dramatic monologues, a perspective shaped by the influence of prose narrative on literary analysis. Culler advocates for a revival of lyric studies by emphasizing its distinctive characteristics, such as its focus on the present, rhythmic and sound patterning, intertextuality, and linguistic extravagance. He critiques the assimilation of lyric into narrative frameworks, arguing that this approach undermines the unique features of lyric poetry, including its performative and epideictic qualities rooted in classical traditions. By examining the evolution of lyric from its origins in Greek antiquity to modern manifestations, Culler highlights the enduring cultural and aesthetic value of this poetic form, proposing methodologies that foreground its unique temporality and rhetorical address. The essay is significant for its contribution to literary theory, encouraging scholars to reassess the role of lyric in shaping language, subjectivity, and cultural memory.

Summary of “Why Lyric?” by Jonathan Culler

• Crisis of Lyric in Literary Studies
  Culler discusses the marginalization of lyric poetry in academic settings, where narrative prose dominates. He critiques how the pedagogical focus on narrative reduces poetry to dramatic monologues, aligning it with the conventions of prose fiction (Culler, 2008, p. 201). This approach sidelines key poetic features such as rhythm, sound, and intertextuality, which are integral to the lyric’s aesthetic and meaning.
• Lyric vs. Narrative
  Lyric is distinct from narrative in that it emphasizes the present moment and engages the reader line by line, rather than focusing on a sequential story. Culler underscores the need to celebrate lyric’s singularity and resist assimilating it into narrative paradigms (Culler, 2008, p. 202).
• Challenges to Traditional Definitions
  Citing René Wellek, Culler critiques the Romantic association of lyric with intense subjective experience, which leads to interpretative limitations. Instead, Wellek and new lyric studies propose focusing on specific historical and formal conventions of lyric poetry, such as odes, elegies, and songs (Culler, 2008, p. 203).
• Modern Approaches to Lyric
  New lyric studies, represented by scholars like Virginia Jackson and Yopie Prins, advocate for examining how the lyric has been historically constructed rather than treating it as a transhistorical category. These approaches explore alternative frameworks, challenging the narrative-driven “lyricization of poetry” (Culler, 2008, p. 204).
• Classical Models of Lyric
  Culler traces the origins of lyric to Greek and Roman traditions, emphasizing its performative and epideictic nature. In classical contexts, lyric was often addressed to an audience, serving as a rhetorical and ethical activity. This contrasts with modern lyric, which has become more meditative and individualized (Culler, 2008, p. 205).
• Reviving Lyric Studies
  To restore lyric’s place in literary studies, Culler proposes focusing on its unique features: rhythm, sound, hyperbolic forms like apostrophe, and its non-narrative temporality. He argues that lyric foregrounds the materiality of language and embodies the formative interplay between language, memory, and cultural identity (Culler, 2008, p. 206).
• Lyric’s Cultural Significance
  The lyric’s ability to embed language in memory—through rhythmical and phonological patterning—underscores its cultural and aesthetic value. Culler calls for a proliferation of models to understand lyric’s diverse historical manifestations and encourage its integration into literary studies (Culler, 2008, p. 206).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Why Lyric?” by Jonathan Culler

Contribution of “Why Lyric?” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

• Revisiting the Lyric Genre
  Culler challenges traditional definitions of lyric, which align it with intense personal expression, proposing instead a broader understanding that encompasses its diverse forms and historical contexts. This critique contributes to genre theory by questioning the viability of fixed transhistorical categories for lyric poetry (Culler, 2008, p. 203).
• Critique of Narrative Dominance
  Culler critiques the dominance of narrative theory in literary studies, where lyric is often interpreted through the lens of narrative structures. He highlights how this approach marginalizes the non-narrative temporality of lyric, emphasizing its focus on “what happens now” rather than “what happens next” (Culler, 2008, p. 202).
• Integration of Intertextuality
  By foregrounding the intertextual nature of lyric, such as Robert Frost’s allusion to François Villon, Culler enriches intertextuality theory. He demonstrates how lyric engages in complex dialogues with other texts, adding layers of meaning beyond narrative reconstruction (Culler, 2008, p. 203).
• Lyric and Rhetorical Theory
  Drawing on classical traditions, Culler situates lyric within rhetorical theory as epideictic discourse—designed to praise or critique societal values. This framing broadens the understanding of lyric’s performative and communicative functions (Culler, 2008, p. 204).
• Challenging the Dramatic Monologue Paradigm
  Culler critiques the New Criticism-inspired view of lyric as a dramatic monologue, a perspective that aligns it with narrative fiction. His argument contributes to formalist theory by emphasizing the overlooked features of lyric, such as rhythm, sound, and hyperbolic forms of address (Culler, 2008, p. 201).
• Focus on the Materiality of Language
  By emphasizing lyric’s material aspects, such as rhythm and phonological patterning, Culler aligns with linguistic theory and formalism, arguing that lyric foregrounds the sensory and structural properties of language (Culler, 2008, p. 205).
• Reinforcing Lyric’s Role in Subjectivity Formation
  Culler connects lyric to psychoanalytic and poststructuralist theories, arguing that its structural patterning links language to the formation of subjectivity. He highlights how lyric engages readers through memory, rhythm, and temporality, shaping their experience of language (Culler, 2008, p. 206).
• Reviving Classical Lyric Models
  By revisiting Greek and Roman traditions, Culler contributes to classical literary theory, proposing a model where the lyric is seen as a performative act directed at an audience. This approach contrasts with the solipsistic nature of modern lyric and offers a historical framework for its study (Culler, 2008, p. 204).
• New Lyric Studies Approach
  Culler engages with the work of Virginia Jackson and Yopie Prins, advocating for new historicism and cultural studies approaches to lyric. He emphasizes the need to explore how lyric has been constructed and functioned in different historical and cultural contexts (Culler, 2008, p. 204).
• Proposing New Typologies for Lyric
  Culler suggests creating new typologies for lyric, distinguishing between present-tense and past-tense lyrics, which contributes to structuralist theory. This shift encourages diverse methodologies for analyzing lyric’s unique temporal and linguistic features (Culler, 2008, p. 206).

Examples of Critiques Through “Why Lyric?” by Jonathan Culler

Criticism Against “Why Lyric?” by Jonathan Culler

• Overemphasis on Theory Over Practice
  Critics argue that Culler’s focus on redefining lyric within theoretical frameworks can overlook the practical engagement of readers with lyric poetry, particularly those who enjoy poetry for its emotional or aesthetic value rather than academic categorization.
• Marginalization of Reader Response
  Culler’s emphasis on formal and historical aspects of lyric neglects reader-response theory, which considers how individual readers interpret and emotionally connect to lyric poetry.
• Limited Address of Non-Western Lyric Traditions
  Culler’s analysis primarily focuses on Western traditions, with limited exploration of non-Western lyric forms, which may offer alternative frameworks for understanding the genre.
• Potential Oversimplification of Narrative
  While critiquing the dominance of narrative paradigms in literary studies, Culler’s binary opposition of narrative and lyric risks oversimplifying the interrelation between the two forms, as some lyric poems incorporate narrative elements.
• Historical Reductionism in New Lyric Studies
  By aligning with the historical approaches of Virginia Jackson and Yopie Prins, Culler’s argument might reduce lyric to its social and historical contexts, potentially neglecting its universal and timeless qualities.
• Neglect of Popular Lyric Forms
  Critics may point out that Culler largely ignores contemporary popular forms of lyric, such as song lyrics, which are integral to modern cultural experiences but are not extensively discussed in his work.
• Ambiguity in Proposed Models
  While advocating for new typologies of lyric, Culler does not fully articulate clear criteria for these models, leaving some ambiguity about how they should be applied to analyze lyric poetry.
• Challenges to Pedagogical Application
  Some educators argue that Culler’s call to foreground lyric’s distinct features, such as its immediacy and intertextuality, might not be easily integrated into traditional literary curricula, which are often structured around narrative forms.

Representative Quotations from “Why Lyric?” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Why Lyric?” by Jonathan Culler

1. Culler, Jonathan. “Why Lyric?” PMLA, vol. 123, no. 1, 2008, pp. 201–06. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25501839. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
2. Findlay, L. M. “Culler and Byron on Apostrophe and Lyric Time.” Studies in Romanticism, vol. 24, no. 3, 1985, pp. 335–53. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/25600546. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
3. Culler, Jonathan. “Reading Lyric.” Yale French Studies, no. 69, 1985, pp. 98–106. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2929927. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
4. BUTTERFIELD, ARDIS. “WHY MEDIEVAL LYRIC?” ELH, vol. 82, no. 2, 2015, pp. 319–43. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24477788. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
5. Culler, Jonathan. “Lyric, History, and Genre.” New Literary History, vol. 40, no. 4, 2009, pp. 879–99. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40666452. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.

Introduction: “Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler

“Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in Narrative, Volume 12, Number 1, in January 2004, published by The Ohio State University Press. In this seminal article, Culler critically examines the concept of the omniscient narrator, a longstanding staple in narrative theory, challenging its utility and coherence within literary analysis. He contends that the term “omniscience” conflates various narrative techniques and imposes a theologically derived analogy onto the author, which is neither necessary nor illuminating. By scrutinizing traditional assumptions, Culler argues for alternative frameworks, such as “telepathy,” to describe narrative phenomena like access to characters’ thoughts and feelings. His work significantly contributes to literary theory by encouraging a reevaluation of entrenched concepts and proposing more precise terminology to understand narrative practices, particularly in realist and modernist traditions.

Summary of “Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler

• Critique of “Omniscience” as a Critical Concept:
  • Culler argues that the term “omniscience” is overused and underexamined in narrative theory. It serves as a catch-all term for diverse narrative phenomena, leading to conceptual confusion (Culler, 2004, p. 22).
  • He critiques the theological analogy between an omniscient God and an omniscient author, suggesting that this framework is neither accurate nor useful for understanding narrative techniques (p. 23).
• Authorial “Omniscience” vs. Narrative Practices:
  • Culler challenges the assumption that authors inherently possess omniscience within their fictional worlds, pointing out inconsistencies in how the term is applied to narrative authority (p. 24).
  • He highlights that “omniscience” often conflates creative authority (the power to invent) with knowledge, which misrepresents the artistic process (p. 26).
• Alternative Frameworks:
  • Nicholas Royle’s concept of “telepathy” is proposed as a more suitable alternative for understanding narrative insights into characters’ thoughts and emotions. This term emphasizes estrangement and specificity, avoiding the theological baggage of “omniscience” (p. 27).
• Reconceptualizing Narrators:
  • Culler suggests abandoning the notion of narrators as either omniscient beings or human-like characters. Instead, he advocates for a focus on the performative and imaginative aspects of narrative (p. 28).
  • He questions the assumption that narrators must have a personal consciousness, proposing that narrative authority could derive from collective or impersonal mechanisms (p. 29).
• Critique of Realist Tradition and Victorian Narratives:
  • The so-called “omniscient narrators” of the Victorian realist tradition (e.g., George Eliot and Anthony Trollope) are reinterpreted as embodying a voice of social consensus or a collective consciousness rather than divine omniscience (p. 30).
  • Critics like J. Hillis Miller and Betsy Ermath suggest that this form of narration reflects a shared societal perspective rather than an individual’s godlike authority (p. 31).
• Challenges in Defining “Omniscience”:
  • Culler highlights how critics’ efforts to justify selective “omniscience” often result in convoluted explanations. He emphasizes that narrative effects are better understood through artistic choices rather than presumed narrator motivations (p. 25).
• Effects Provoking “Omniscience” Ascriptions:
  • Culler identifies four narrative practices that lead to the attribution of omniscience:
    1. Authoritative narrative declarations (e.g., opening lines of Emma by Jane Austen).
    2. Inside access to characters’ thoughts, which is exclusive to fiction.
    3. Authorial narrators flaunting creative control (e.g., Tom Jones by Henry Fielding).
    4. Realist narrators presenting themselves as judicious historians (p. 26–30).
• Call for New Critical Vocabulary:
  • Culler concludes by urging critics to discard the misleading concept of “omniscient narrators.” He advocates for alternative terms that better capture the nuanced effects and techniques of narrative fiction (p. 34).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler

Contribution of “Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler

Criticism Against “Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler

• Overemphasis on Theological Analogy:
  • Some critics argue that Culler’s rejection of omniscience overly focuses on its theological roots, neglecting the practical ways the term has evolved in literary analysis.
• Reduction of Narrative Complexity:
  • Culler’s framework risks oversimplifying narrative techniques by dismissing the concept of omniscience entirely, potentially ignoring its explanatory power in certain contexts.
• Neglect of Readerly Interpretation:
  • While emphasizing performative authority, Culler underexplores how readers actively interpret “omniscience” as a literary device, which remains significant in narrative understanding.
• Undermining Traditional Narratology:
  • By challenging foundational narratological concepts, such as omniscience and zero focalization, Culler’s critique may alienate traditional narrative theorists who find value in these terms.
• Ambiguity in Alternative Frameworks:
  • The introduction of “telepathy” and other alternatives may lack the clarity and broad applicability that “omniscience” provides, leading to potential confusion.
• Potential Overgeneralization:
  • Culler’s critique of omniscience in realist and modernist traditions might not account for diverse global literary practices where the concept remains relevant.
• Limited Engagement with Realist Fiction:
  • Critics suggest that his dismissal of omniscience in realist fiction (e.g., George Eliot) underestimates its role in establishing narrative coherence and reader trust.
• Neglect of Historical Contexts:
  • The critique does not sufficiently consider how omniscience as a narrative tool reflects changing historical, cultural, and ideological contexts in literature.
• Risk of Disregarding Authorial Intent:
  • By focusing on the effects of narrative authority, Culler’s argument minimizes the role of authorial intent in shaping omniscient narration.

Representative Quotations from “Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler

1. Culler, Jonathan. “Omniscience.” Narrative, vol. 12, no. 1, 2004, pp. 22–34. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20107328. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
2. Olson, Barbara K. “‘Who Thinks This Book?’ Or Why the Author/God Analogy Merits Our Continued Attention.” Narrative, vol. 14, no. 3, 2006, pp. 339–46. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20107394. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
3. Dawson, Paul. “The Return of Omniscience in Contemporary Fiction.” Narrative, vol. 17, no. 2, 2009, pp. 143–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25609360. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
4. Dolis, John. Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 45, no. 3, 2008, pp. 401–04. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25659674. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
5. Nelles, William. “Omniscience for Atheists: Or, Jane Austen’s Infallible Narrator.” Narrative, vol. 14, no. 2, 2006, pp. 118–31. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30219642. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.

Introduction: “Lyric, History and Genre” by Jonathan Culler

“Lyric, History, and Genre” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in New Literary History in its 40th volume, published in the autumn of 2009 by Johns Hopkins University Press. This article addresses the interplay between lyric poetry, historical development, and the concept of genre, reflecting on their implications for literary theory and criticism. Culler explores how genre functions not as a rigid classification but as a dynamic, historical construct, evolving through cultural and intellectual contexts. He critiques traditional, essentialist views of genres, emphasizing instead their open-ended, socially and historically mediated nature. The article underscores the lyric’s unique performative and temporal aspects, positioning it as a central yet historically complex literary form. Culler’s insights contribute significantly to debates on genre theory, challenging the modern tendency to narrowly frame lyric poetry within dramatic or mimetic models, thus enriching our understanding of its broader historical and theoretical dimensions.

Summary of “Lyric, History and Genre” by Jonathan Culler

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Lyric, History and Genre” by Jonathan Culler

Contribution of “Lyric, History and Genre” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Lyric, History and Genre” by Jonathan Culler

Criticism Against “Lyric, History and Genre” by Jonathan Culler

Representative Quotations from “Lyric, History and Genre” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Lyric, History and Genre” by Jonathan Culler

1. Culler, Jonathan. “Lyric, History, and Genre.” New Literary History, vol. 40, no. 4, 2009, pp. 879–99. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40666452. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
2. Alvergue, José Felipe. “Lyric Redress: The Racial Politics of Voice and American Personhood.” Criticism, vol. 60, no. 2, 2018, pp. 221–45. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.13110/criticism.60.2.0221. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
3. BUTTERFIELD, ARDIS. “WHY MEDIEVAL LYRIC?” ELH, vol. 82, no. 2, 2015, pp. 319–43. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24477788. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
4. ECKERT, LINDSEY. “READING LYRIC’S FORM: THE WRITTEN HAND IN ALBUMS AND LITERARY ANNUALS.” ELH, vol. 85, no. 4, 2018, pp. 973–97. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26802860. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.

Introduction: “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler

“Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in 2010 in the journal PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association). This seminal work investigates the evolution and shifts in literary criticism, tracing its roots from ancient modes of judgment in poetic performances to modern interpretive frameworks. Culler explores critical transformations, particularly the break from classical genre-based criticism to a focus on literature as a mode of expression. He draws heavily on theorists like Jacques Rancière to articulate this paradigmatic shift and its implications for literary criticism. The essay underscores how the transition from mimesis to expression has diversified the field, giving rise to a wide array of interpretive methods, such as structuralism and poststructuralism, that engage with texts as dynamic systems of meaning. Its importance lies in framing the challenges and opportunities for criticism in the 21st century, particularly amidst technological advancements and changing conceptions of texts and media. Culler’s insights provoke deeper inquiry into the purpose and methodology of literary criticism, encouraging scholars to reconceptualize its role in a rapidly evolving intellectual and cultural landscape.

Summary of “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler

Contribution of “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler

Criticism Against “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler

• Overemphasis on Historical Evolution
  Critics argue that Culler’s extensive focus on the historical evolution of criticism—such as the transition from mimesis to expression—overshadows more contemporary and urgent theoretical concerns, limiting its applicability to present-day challenges.
• Limited Engagement with Non-Western Literatures
  The essay predominantly centers on Western literary traditions and paradigms, failing to adequately address critical frameworks from non-Western or marginalized literatures, which are increasingly vital in global literary discourse.
• Ambiguity in Theoretical Future
  While Culler raises questions about the future of criticism, he offers limited concrete solutions or new paradigms, leaving many of his inquiries unresolved and overly abstract.
• Neglect of Practical Criticism
  The essay focuses on theoretical developments but provides minimal guidance on applying these paradigms to practical criticism, leaving a gap for readers seeking actionable methods.
• Reliance on Established Theorists
  Critics note that Culler heavily references established figures such as Derrida, Rancière, and Foucault, which may reinforce traditional academic hierarchies rather than exploring emerging or alternative voices.
• Overgeneralization of Paradigms
  Some scholars suggest that Culler’s categorization of paradigms, such as expressive poetics and structuralism, oversimplifies their diverse and nuanced applications in literary criticism.
• Neglect of Aesthetic Pleasure
  The essay downplays the role of aesthetic pleasure and the reader’s emotional engagement with literature, which many believe remains central to literary studies.
• Technological Challenges Underexplored
  While Culler mentions the impact of digital texts, critics argue that he fails to fully explore the complexities and implications of technology on literature and criticism in the 21st century.
• Fragmentation of Ideas
  The essay’s structure, which integrates multiple theoretical perspectives, has been critiqued for being overly fragmented, making it difficult to identify a unified thesis or direction.

Representative Quotations from “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler

1. Dawson, Paul. “Style, the Narrating Instance, and the ‘Trace’ of Writing.” Style, vol. 47, no. 4, 2013, pp. 466–89. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.47.4.466. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
2. CULLER, JONATHAN. “Introduction: Critical Paradigms.” PMLA, vol. 125, no. 4, 2010, pp. 905–15. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41058288. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
3. Culler, Jonathan. “Problems in the ‘History’ of Contemporary Criticism.” The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, vol. 17, no. 1, 1984, pp. 3–15. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1315457. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
4. Culler, Jonathan. “Lyric, History, and Genre.” New Literary History, vol. 40, no. 4, 2009, pp. 879–99. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40666452. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.

Introduction: “On The Sublime” By Longinus translated by W. H. Fyfe

“On The Sublime” by Longinus, translated by W.H. Fyfe and revised by Donald Russell, first appeared in 1995 under Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England. As a foundational work of literary criticism, “On The Sublime” explores the nature and sources of elevated writing, providing profound insights into how sublimity in literature transcends persuasion to transport readers or listeners into a state of exalted emotional and intellectual experience. The text critiques earlier treatments of the sublime, particularly those lacking practical guidance, emphasizing that true greatness in literature combines innate genius with methodical refinement. This blend of nature and art enables expressions that are not merely convincing but transformative. Longinus discusses essential elements of the sublime, such as grandeur of conception, emotional intensity, and stylistic excellence, alongside practical techniques like figurative language and rhythmical harmony. The treatise remains a cornerstone of literary theory, influencing the Romantic era’s emphasis on imagination and elevating the pursuit of literary excellence as a means of touching the divine in human expression.

Summary of “On The Sublime” By Longinus translated by W. H. Fyfe

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “On The Sublime” By Longinus translated by W. H. Fyfe

Contribution of “On The Sublime” By Longinus translated by W. H. Fyfe to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “On The Sublime” By Longinus translated by W. H. Fyfe

Criticism Against “On The Sublime” By Longinus translated by W. H. Fyfe

• Subjectivity in Defining Sublimity: Critics argue that Longinus’ definition of sublimity relies heavily on subjective criteria, such as personal emotional response, making it less applicable as a universal standard.
• Ambiguity in Core Concepts: The treatise lacks a clear and systematic definition of what constitutes sublimity, blending moral, intellectual, and aesthetic elements without clear boundaries.
• Fragmented Structure: The incomplete nature of the text leaves many ideas undeveloped, leading to interpretive challenges and speculation about Longinus’ full intentions.
• Overemphasis on Rhetoric: Some scholars critique Longinus for focusing predominantly on rhetorical texts, thus marginalizing other forms of literary sublimity, such as narrative or drama.

Criticism Against Its Relevance

• Limited Scope in Literary Application: The examples and analysis are largely confined to classical texts, making the principles less directly applicable to diverse literary traditions and modern works.
• Neglect of Non-Western Traditions: Critics point out that Longinus’ framework excludes or fails to address the aesthetic and literary traditions of non-Western cultures, reflecting a Eurocentric bias.

Criticism Against The Translation by W. H. Fyfe

• Loss of Nuance in Translation: Some scholars believe that Fyfe’s translation, while eloquent, occasionally sacrifices the precision of Longinus’ original Greek phrasing.
• Historical Contextualization: Fyfe’s interpretation of Longinus has been critiqued for not adequately situating the work within its broader historical and philosophical context, potentially altering its meaning.

Criticism Against Methodology

• Overreliance on Classical Exemplars: Longinus’ repeated citation of classical authors, such as Homer and Plato, may alienate readers seeking examples beyond the Greek and Roman literary canon.
• Moralistic Undertones: The association of sublimity with moral greatness is seen as problematic by some, as it conflates aesthetic judgment with ethical considerations.

Representative Quotations from “On The Sublime” By Longinus translated by W. H. Fyfe with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “On The Sublime” By Longinus translated by W. H. Fyfe

1. Godolphin, F. R. B. “The Basic Critical Doctrine of ‘Longinus,’ On the Sublime.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, vol. 68, 1937, pp. 172–83. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/283262. Accessed 18 Dec. 2024.
2. Macksey, Richard. “Longinus Reconsidered.” MLN, vol. 108, no. 5, 1993, pp. 913–34. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2904883. Accessed 18 Dec. 2024.
3. O’Gorman, Ned. “Longinus’s Sublime Rhetoric, or How Rhetoric Came into Its Own.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 2, 2004, pp. 71–89. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40232412. Accessed 18 Dec. 2024.
4. de Jonge, Casper C., and Arjan A. Nijk. “Longinus, On the Sublime 12.4-5: Demosthenes and Cicero.” Mnemosyne, vol. 72, no. 5, 2019, pp. 766–90. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26787697. Accessed 18 Dec. 2024.
5. Campana, Joseph. “On Not Defending Poetry: Spenser, Suffering, and the Energy of Affect.” PMLA, vol. 120, no. 1, 2005, pp. 33–48. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25486143. Accessed 18 Dec. 2024.

Introduction: “Lyric Words, not Worlds” by Jonathan Culler

“Lyric Words, not Worlds” by Jonathan Culler, first appeared in Journal of Literary Theory in 2017 (Vol. 11, Issue 1, pp. 32–39), challenges the prevalent notion that lyric poetry creates a fictional world akin to narrative fiction, a model that risks misrepresenting the genre’s distinctiveness. Culler argues that lyrics should not be primarily interpreted as fictional constructs but rather as forms of epideictic discourse—akin to oratory—that assert truths about our world through poetic form. Highlighting the tension between fictional elements (e.g., characters, minimal plots) and the ritualistic dimensions of lyric, Culler proposes that the ritualistic, characterized by performative and iterative features, holds structural priority in lyric poetry. By emphasizing brevity, rhythmic patterning, and the capacity for reiteration, Culler situates lyric as an event itself rather than a representation of events. His insights reinvigorate discussions in literary theory by advocating for a framework that appreciates the lyric’s unique authority, distinct from the narrative or fictional modes. This work has significantly influenced debates on lyric’s nature, especially in reassessing its relationship with mimesis, speaker dynamics, and the formal conventions that empower its claims to truth and universality.

Summary of “Lyric Words, not Worlds” by Jonathan Culler

1. The Misapplication of Fictional World Theory to Lyric Poetry
   Culler critiques the trend of interpreting lyric poetry through the lens of narrative fiction, where poems are said to construct fictional worlds. He asserts that this approach risks trivializing lyric poetry by reducing its universal claims to the subjective expressions of a fictional persona (Culler, 2017, p. 33). He highlights the inadequacy of this framework for understanding the authority and intent of lyric poetry.
2. Lyric as Epideictic Discourse, Not Mimesis
   Drawing on classical theories, Culler aligns lyric poetry with epideictic discourse, a rhetorical form focused on praise or blame, rather than mimesis or imitation (Culler, 2017, p. 34). He argues that lyric poetry often strives to function as an event in itself, rather than as a representation of events.
3. The Role of Fictional Elements in Lyric
   While acknowledging the presence of fictional elements, such as personas or minimal narratives, Culler maintains that these are secondary to the ritualistic and performative dimensions of lyric poetry. The authority of a lyric stems from its form, not from the creation of a fictional speaker or world (Culler, 2017, p. 35).
4. The Ritualistic Dimension of Lyric Poetry
   Culler emphasizes the ritualistic aspects of lyric, including its iterative nature, performative unity, and ceremonial elements. These features invite readers to occupy the position of the lyric “I” and make the poem’s language memorable and repeatable (Culler, 2017, pp. 35–36).
5. Critique of the Dominant Lyric Model
   Culler challenges the dominance of the dramatic monologue model in lyric pedagogy, which posits that the speaker is always a constructed persona. He argues that this model obscures the unique qualities of lyric poetry, particularly its focus on rhythm, linguistic patterning, and ritual (Culler, 2017, p. 37).
6. Tension Between Fictional and Ritualistic Modes
   Drawing on Roland Greene’s analysis, Culler describes the interplay between fictional and ritualistic modes in lyric sequences, such as Shakespeare’s sonnets. While some sequences create a semblance of narrative, the ritualistic elements often dominate in isolated lyrics (Culler, 2017, pp. 36–37).
7. Lyric’s Brevity and Authority
   Culler underscores the brevity of lyric poetry, which resists narrative elaboration and fosters a focus on memorable language and epiphanic moments. This brevity supports the lyric’s authority, derived from its sensuous form and conventions rather than fictional coherence (Culler, 2017, p. 38).
8. Rejecting the Fictional World Hypothesis for Lyric
   Culler questions the utility of framing lyric as generating a fictional world, given its brevity and lack of narrative depth. Instead, he advocates for treating lyrics as assertions about our world, which are authorized by their poetic form (Culler, 2017, p. 38).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Lyric Words, not Worlds” by Jonathan Culler

Contribution of “Lyric Words, not Worlds” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Lyric Words, not Worlds” by Jonathan Culler

Criticism Against “Lyric Words, not Worlds” by Jonathan Culler

Representative Quotations from “Lyric Words, not Worlds” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Lyric Words, not Worlds” by Jonathan Culler

1. McHale, Brian. “Beginning to Think about Narrative in Poetry.” Narrative, vol. 17, no. 1, 2009, pp. 11–30. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30219288. Accessed 18 Dec. 2024.
2. CULLER, JONATHAN. “Introduction: Critical Paradigms.” PMLA, vol. 125, no. 4, 2010, pp. 905–15. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41058288. Accessed 18 Dec. 2024.
3. Culler, Jonathan. “Lyric Words, not Worlds.” Journal of Literary Theory 11.1 (2017): 32-39.

Introduction: “Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler

“Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in 2006 in Comparative Critical Studies (Volume 3, Issue 1–2, pp. 85–97), published by Edinburgh University Press. This seminal article critically examines the evolution and current state of comparative literature as an academic discipline. Culler traces its development from its origins in studying sources and influences to a broader engagement with intertextuality and theoretical discourse. He argues that comparative literature has historically challenged the boundaries of national literary studies by questioning the very units of literary analysis—genres, periods, or themes—that other disciplines often take for granted. Culler highlights the discipline’s dual role: a vanguard of literary theory and a space where transnational and interdisciplinary methodologies thrive. However, he also addresses the “crisis of identity” within comparative literature, as its once-unique methodologies have now permeated other fields. Culler critiques the global turn and the expansion into cultural studies, suggesting that while these shifts broaden the discipline’s scope, they also risk diluting its focus on literature. Ultimately, Culler envisions comparative literature as a space where literature remains central, approached as a transnational phenomenon and studied in diverse, theoretically innovative ways. The article remains influential for its reflections on the discipline’s triumphs, challenges, and its role in shaping the future of the humanities.

Summary of “Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler

Contribution of “Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler

Criticism Against “Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler

Representative Quotations from “Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Whither Comparative Literature” by Jonathan Culler

1. Hutcheon, Linda. “Productive Comparative Angst: Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism.” World Literature Today, vol. 69, no. 2, 1995, pp. 299–303. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/40151140. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
2. Yu, Pauline. “Comparative Literature in Question.” Daedalus, vol. 135, no. 2, 2006, pp. 38–53. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20028031. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
3. Strickland, Geoffrey R. “‘The Literary Competence’ of Jonathan Culler.” The Cambridge Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 2, 1984, pp. 164–77. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42966546. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
4. CULLER, JONATHAN, and Péter Csató. “AN INTERVIEW WITH JONATHAN CULLER.” Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HJEAS), vol. 8, no. 2, 2002, pp. 58–71. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41274187. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
5. Culler, Jonathan. “Whither comparative literature?.” Comparative Critical Studies 3.1-2 (2006): 85-97.

Introduction: “In Defence Of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler

“In Defence of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in 1992 as part of the volume Interpretation and Overinterpretation, edited by Stefan Collini and published by Cambridge University Press. The essay critically engages with Umberto Eco’s lectures on the boundaries of interpretation and Richard Rorty’s commentary, offering a robust defence of “overinterpretation” as a valuable intellectual exercise. Culler argues that interpretation becomes meaningful and insightful when it pushes beyond moderation and conventional readings, often uncovering previously unnoticed connections and implications within a text. He introduces the idea of “overstanding” (a term borrowed from Wayne Booth), which entails asking questions that a text does not directly invite, thereby deepening our understanding of literature and its broader cultural and semiotic mechanisms. Culler’s work is significant in literary theory as it challenges the limits imposed by moderate interpretation and defends the role of critical inquiry, even when it risks being labeled excessive. By advocating for rigorous and imaginative readings, Culler underscores the importance of interpretation in revealing the dynamic and often ambiguous interplay of meaning in literary texts, thus fostering continued intellectual engagement with literature.

Summary of “In Defence Of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler

• Introduction and Context
  Jonathan Culler’s essay “In Defence of Overinterpretation” appeared in the volume Interpretation and Overinterpretation (1992), edited by Stefan Collini. It responds to Umberto Eco’s lectures on the limits of interpretation and Richard Rorty’s critique. Culler defends “overinterpretation” as a legitimate and productive aspect of literary criticism, rejecting simplistic pragmatist positions that dismiss critical inquiry into texts’ structures and functions (Culler, 1992).
• Extreme Interpretations vs. Moderate Interpretations
  Culler argues that interpretation gains intellectual value when it is “extreme,” rather than moderate. While consensus-driven interpretations may have merit, they lack the potential to uncover new insights or connections. He states, “if critics are going to spend their time working out and proposing interpretations, then they should apply as much interpretive pressure as they can” (Culler, 1992, p. 110).
• Eco’s Lectures and Rossetti’s Dante Interpretation
  Culler critiques Eco’s examples of “overinterpretation” and clarifies that certain flawed interpretations, like Rossetti’s Rosicrucian analysis of Dante, are instances of underinterpretation rather than overextension. Rossetti failed to sufficiently interpret all textual elements or establish valid connections (Culler, 1992, p. 111).
• Defending Overstanding
  Culler borrows Wayne Booth’s concept of “overstanding,” which entails asking questions that the text does not explicitly encourage. Such inquiries — for example, analyzing the ideological or cultural implications of stories like The Three Little Pigs — can reveal latent meanings or overlooked structures (Culler, 1992, p. 113).
• Criticism of Pragmatist Views (Rorty)
  Culler critiques Richard Rorty’s pragmatist stance, which reduces all textual engagement to “use.” Rorty suggests we abandon structural analysis and “simply enjoy” texts, much like using software without understanding its code. Culler counters that academic inquiry into how texts function is essential, just as linguistics studies language systems (Culler, 1992, p. 117).
• The Role of Deconstruction
  Addressing Eco and Rorty’s shared dismissal of deconstruction, Culler clarifies that deconstruction reveals textual structures and undermines rigid limits to meaning. It demonstrates that meaning is context-dependent and endlessly generative, not a reader’s arbitrary creation (Culler, 1992, p. 120).
• Overinterpretation as Discovery
  Culler embraces the “excess of wonder” that comes with overinterpretation, defending it as a vital tool for literary criticism. He invokes Roland Barthes’ idea that systematic re-reading and puzzling over textual elements often lead to discoveries about the text and the systems enabling meaning production (Culler, 1992, p. 122).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “In Defence Of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler

Contribution of “In Defence Of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Defence of Overinterpretation as Intellectual Exploration
   • Culler argues that extreme interpretations push the boundaries of textual meaning, revealing connections and implications that moderate readings might miss. This stance challenges the traditional limits of interpretative theory.
   • “Interpretation itself needs no defence… but like most intellectual activities, interpretation is interesting only when it is extreme” (Culler, 1992, p. 110).
2. Challenging Eco’s Limits of Interpretation
   • Culler critiques Umberto Eco’s model of a “sound” interpretation and pushes back against Eco’s dismissal of extreme readings, suggesting that overinterpretation uncovers textual complexities and cultural implications.
   • “The idea of ‘overinterpretation’… fails to capture the problems Professor Eco himself wishes to address” (Culler, 1992, p. 111).
3. Introduction of Booth’s Overstanding
   • Culler incorporates Wayne Booth’s concept of “overstanding,” where critics ask questions the text does not explicitly pose. This expands literary theory by valuing inquiries about ideology, culture, and suppressed meanings.
   • “Overstanding… consists of pursuing questions that the text does not pose to its model reader” (Culler, 1992, p. 113).
4. Critique of Pragmatism and Rorty’s ‘Use’ Theory
   • Culler challenges Richard Rorty’s pragmatist claim that texts should merely be used for practical purposes. He insists that literary studies require an analysis of how texts function structurally and semiotically.
   • “To tell people they should give up attempting to identify underlying structures… is to attempt to block other people from doing work” (Culler, 1992, p. 118).
5. Reaffirming Deconstruction’s Role
   • Culler clarifies the contribution of deconstruction, which emphasizes the endless generation of meaning and challenges fixed interpretive limits. This reaffirms deconstruction’s value in literary theory.
   • “Deconstruction… stresses that meaning is context bound… but that context itself is boundless” (Culler, 1992, p. 120).
6. Highlighting Semiotics as Critical Inquiry
   • Culler underscores semiotics (the science of signs) as central to literary theory, advocating for the analysis of meaning-making systems within texts and broader cultural practices.
   • “Semiotics… is precisely the attempt to identify the codes and mechanisms through which meaning is produced” (Culler, 1992, p. 116).
7. Rejection of Moderate Criticism in Favor of Textual Pressure
   • By advocating for interpretive extremes, Culler contributes to literary theories that value intellectual risk and deep inquiry, rejecting consensus-driven, moderate criticism.
   • “If critics… propose interpretations, then they should apply as much interpretive pressure as they can” (Culler, 1992, p. 110).
8. Rediscovery of Wonder in Interpretation
   • Culler promotes the “excess of wonder” in literary analysis, encouraging critics to puzzle over seemingly insignificant elements of texts as a pathway to deeper understanding.
   • “This deformation professionnelle… seems to me the best source of insights into language and literature that we seek” (Culler, 1992, p. 122).

Examples of Critiques Through “In Defence Of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler

Criticism Against “In Defence Of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler

1. Ambiguity of Overinterpretation
   • Critics argue that Culler does not clearly define where overinterpretation becomes unproductive or nonsensical. The boundary between valuable inquiry and frivolous excess remains blurred.
2. Neglect of Authorial Intention
   • Culler’s defense of extreme interpretations sidelines the importance of authorial intention, which remains central to traditional literary studies and reader-focused approaches.
3. Overreliance on Overstanding
   • While Culler praises Wayne Booth’s concept of “overstanding,” critics argue that asking questions the text does not propose risks irrelevance and distracts from the text’s inherent meanings.
4. Dismissal of Moderate Interpretation
   • Culler’s critique of moderate interpretations as “uninteresting” is seen as overly dismissive. Moderate readings often establish foundational understandings necessary for deeper inquiry.
5. Potential for Misreading
   • By advocating for interpretative extremes, Culler risks encouraging arbitrary or misguided readings that may distort rather than illuminate the text.
6. Undermining Pragmatism’s Practicality
   • Critics of Culler suggest that his rejection of Richard Rorty’s pragmatic approach overlooks the practical value of engaging with texts for immediate understanding rather than academic analysis.
7. Lack of Clear Methodology
   • Culler’s argument for “interpretive pressure” lacks a structured method for applying overinterpretation effectively, leaving its application open-ended and subjective.
8. Excessive Emphasis on Semiotics
   • While semiotics plays a central role in Culler’s argument, critics claim it prioritizes theoretical frameworks over the literary experience, potentially alienating readers and scholars less inclined to theoretical analysis.
9. Risk of Paranoia in Interpretation
   • Culler’s defense of paranoid or excessive interpretation risks legitimizing unsubstantiated claims, creating unnecessary complexity in literary studies.

Representative Quotations from “In Defence Of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “In Defence Of Overinterpretation” by Jonathan Culler

1. Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
2. Kaminski, Johannes. “Joys and Sorrows of Interpretation.” Lives and Deaths of Werther: Interpretation, Translation, and Adaptation in Europe and East Asia, The British Academy, 2023, pp. 21–69. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.20829393.4. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
3. Culler, Jonathan. “READERS AND READING.” On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism, Cornell University Press, 1982, pp. 31–84. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt1ffjph5.6. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
4. Culler, Jonathan. “In Defence of Overinterpretation, dalam Umberto Eco, Interpretation and Overinterpretation.” (1992).

Introduction: “Between Author And Text” By Umberto Eco

“Between Author and Text” by Umberto Eco first appeared in 1990 as part of a series of lectures delivered at Cambridge University and was subsequently included in his collection Interpretation and Overinterpretation. In this seminal essay, Eco explores the nuanced relationship between the author’s intention, the text itself, and the reader’s interpretation. He critically engages with post-structuralist theories, particularly those of Jacques Derrida, while advocating for a balance between respecting the historical and cultural context of a text and acknowledging the role of the reader’s interpretative freedom. Eco introduces concepts such as the “Model Author” and the “Liminal Author,” emphasizing that while the empirical author’s intention may be inaccessible or irrelevant, the text’s internal structure and strategy guide interpretation. He warns against overinterpretation, highlighting the importance of “economy” in reading, whereby plausible interpretations align with the textual evidence. The essay is significant in literary theory as it bridges structuralist rigor and reader-response theory, offering a pragmatic approach to understanding texts as dynamic yet bounded entities. Eco’s work remains a crucial contribution to debates about textual meaning, interpretation, and the interplay between authorial intent and reader response.

Summary of “Between Author And Text” By Umberto Eco

1. Empirical Author vs. Textual Intentions
   • Eco questions the relevance of the empirical author—the actual person who wrote the text—arguing that meaning is constructed through the text itself and its interaction with readers (Eco, 2010, p. 67). He references Derrida’s deconstructionist approach, which downplays the author’s intended meaning in favor of the text’s independence.
2. The “Bottle Message” and Social Treasury
   • Eco compares texts to messages placed in a bottle, emphasizing that once written, texts are open to diverse interpretations. Readers decode texts not solely by the author’s intention but through shared cultural conventions and the “social treasury” of language and history (Eco, 2010, p. 67-68).
3. Model Author and Liminal Author
   • Eco introduces the concept of the Model Author as the textual strategy that guides the reader’s interpretation. Additionally, he discusses the Liminal Author, a “ghostly” figure that bridges the empirical author’s subconscious influences and the text’s intentionality (Eco, 2010, p. 69-70).
4. Interpretation vs. Use of Texts
   • Eco differentiates between interpreting and using texts. Interpretation respects the text’s historical and cultural background, while use adapts texts for parody or personal purposes (Eco, 2010, p. 68).
5. Economic Interpretation and Overinterpretation
   • Eco argues for economy in interpretation, where plausible meanings are derived from textual evidence without unnecessary overreading. He warns against “grasshopper-criticism”, where readers impose hidden meanings disconnected from the text’s logic (Eco, 2010, p. 71).
6. Historical and Cultural Context
   • The reader’s role is to engage with the text’s cultural and historical context, ensuring interpretations are consistent with linguistic norms at the time of writing. Eco cites Wordsworth’s use of the word “gay” as an example of how modern misreadings can arise without this awareness (Eco, 2010, p. 68-69).
7. The Text’s Transparent Intention
   • Eco discusses instances where textual meaning is clear and independent of the author’s intent. For example, the line “happiness lies in having what you have” gains meaning from its textual context rather than Eco’s conscious input (Eco, 2010, p. 78).
8. Empirical Author’s Limits in Interpretation
   • The empirical author, Eco argues, cannot control all interpretations of their work. While some interpretations align with the text’s strategy, others (e.g., overinterpretations) lack textual economy and coherence (Eco, 2010, p. 79-83).
9. Creative Process and Serendipity
   • Eco acknowledges the role of serendipity and unconscious processes in textual creation. He shares personal anecdotes, such as discovering a book that unconsciously inspired his description of a poisoned manuscript in The Name of the Rose (Eco, 2010, p. 86-88).
10. The Rights of the Text
    • Eco concludes by affirming the “rights of the text” over the empirical author, emphasizing that texts exist independently and generate meaning through their structure and interaction with readers (Eco, 2010, p. 88).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Between Author And Text” By Umberto Eco

Contribution of “Between Author And Text” By Umberto Eco to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Reader-Response Theory
   • Eco acknowledges the role of the reader in constructing meaning, aligning with reader-response theory. He argues that readers interact with the text based on their “competence in language” and shared cultural norms, emphasizing that the text is a dialogue between itself and the reader (Eco, 2010, p. 67).
   • Reference: The metaphor of the “message in a bottle” highlights that the author cannot dictate the text’s meaning for a community of readers.
2. Post-Structuralism
   • Eco engages with post-structuralist ideas, particularly those of Jacques Derrida, by challenging the notion of stable meaning. He critiques overinterpretation but concedes that meaning emerges from the interplay of the reader, text, and cultural conventions, not the empirical author (Eco, 2010, p. 67-70).
   • Reference: Eco critiques Derrida’s jeu de massacre on John Searle’s text while acknowledging the importance of textual independence from the author (p. 67).
3. Intentional Fallacy
   • Eco supports the intentional fallacy, arguing that the empirical author’s intentions are irrelevant to textual interpretation. He asserts that meaning is derived from the Model Author, which represents the textual strategy embedded in the work (Eco, 2010, p. 69-70).
   • Reference: Eco’s example of Wordsworth’s use of “gay” emphasizes the need to respect linguistic norms rather than speculate on authorial intent.
4. Structuralism
   • Eco aligns with structuralism through his focus on textual strategies, which provide a framework for interpretation. He suggests that meaning is inherent in the structure and language of the text, enabling readers to identify plausible interpretations (Eco, 2010, p. 71-78).
   • Reference: Eco’s critique of Leopardi’s “Silvia” poem highlights the importance of textual structure and economy in meaning-making (p. 71).
5. Semiotics
   • Eco, as a semiotician, contributes to semiotic theory by exploring how texts operate as systems of signs. He introduces the concepts of the “Model Author” and the “Liminal Author,” demonstrating how texts generate meaning through their internal strategies and connections (Eco, 2010, p. 69-70).
   • Reference: Eco’s analysis of Leopardi’s anagrams and Petrarch’s poetry illustrates how readers uncover patterns in texts (p. 70-72).
6. Hermeneutics
   • Eco’s exploration of the relationship between text and reader aligns with hermeneutics, the theory of interpretation. He emphasizes that understanding requires engagement with the text’s cultural and historical background, not subjective speculation (Eco, 2010, p. 68-69).
   • Reference: Eco’s discussion of Lorenzo Valla’s philological analysis of Constitutum Constantini exemplifies responsible hermeneutic practices (p. 69).
7. Deconstruction
   • While Eco critiques radical deconstruction, he acknowledges the unconscious and multiple layers of meaning within a text. The “Liminal Author” reflects a deconstructionist view that meaning may escape the empirical author’s control (Eco, 2010, p. 69-70).
   • Reference: Eco’s reflections on unintended meanings in his novels (The Name of the Rose and Foucault’s Pendulum) illustrate how texts can produce unforeseen effects (p. 78-83).
8. Textual Autonomy
   • Eco emphasizes the autonomy of the text, asserting that the text exists independently of the author and produces its own meanings. Readers must interact with the text on its terms rather than rely on the author’s personal life or intent (Eco, 2010, p. 78).
   • Reference: Eco’s anecdote about the unintended connection between William and Bernard’s “haste” dialogue demonstrates how the text generates meaning on its own (p. 73-74).
9. Economy of Interpretation
   • Eco introduces the concept of “economic interpretation”, encouraging readers to avoid excessive or implausible interpretations. He warns against “grasshopper-criticism” that imposes hidden, irrelevant meanings on texts (Eco, 2010, p. 71).
   • Reference: Eco critiques students’ attempts to find improbable acrostics in Leopardi’s poetry as uneconomical and unproductive (p. 71-72).

Examples of Critiques Through “Between Author And Text” By Umberto Eco

Criticism Against “Between Author And Text” By Umberto Eco

1. Limited Role of the Author
   • Critics argue that Eco excessively diminishes the role of the empirical author in determining meaning, which may disregard the author’s creative intent and context.
   • The dismissal of the author’s voice may undervalue their role in shaping textual meaning.
2. Overemphasis on Textual Strategy
   • Eco’s focus on the Model Author and textual strategy can be criticized for being overly formalistic and structuralist, neglecting the emotional, personal, or historical aspects of authorship.
   • Some scholars argue this approach prioritizes the text’s structure over the creative process.
3. Ambiguity of the “Liminal Author”
   • The introduction of the Liminal Author—a ghostly figure bridging authorial intent and textual strategy—has been criticized for being conceptually vague and lacking clear boundaries.
   • This complicates Eco’s framework and may blur the line between text and author.
4. Conflict with Reader-Response Theory
   • While Eco acknowledges the role of the reader, critics claim he limits interpretive freedom by emphasizing economic interpretation.
   • This conflicts with reader-response theory, which supports a broader spectrum of subjective readings.
5. Dismissal of Deconstructionist Potential
   • Eco criticizes overinterpretation and aligns with economic interpretations but dismisses deconstructionist readings that explore multiple layers of meaning.
   • Some critics argue this stance restricts interpretive possibilities and ignores valuable insights into language’s instability.
6. Selective Engagement with Historical Context
   • Eco stresses the importance of historical and cultural background but does not provide clear guidelines for its application, leading to inconsistencies in interpretation.
   • Critics argue this can oversimplify the hermeneutic process.
7. Practicality of “Economic Interpretation”
   • The notion of “economic interpretation”—avoiding unnecessary complexity—has been criticized as subjective and difficult to quantify.
   • What is considered “plausible” or “uneconomical” may vary greatly among readers and critics.
8. Potential for Authorial Bias
   • Eco’s examples often draw from his own novels, leading critics to argue that his framework may reflect biases or self-validation rather than universally applicable principles.
9. Undermining Creative Reading
   • By cautioning against overinterpretation, Eco’s theories risk discouraging innovative, imaginative, or unconventional readings of texts that can offer new insights.

Representative Quotations from “Between Author And Text” By Umberto Eco with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Between Author And Text” By Umberto Eco

1. Capozzi, Rocco. “Umberto Eco: Acute Observer of Our Social and Cultural History.” Italica, vol. 93, no. 1, 2016, pp. 5–22. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43896080. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
2. Eco, Umberto. “Reading My Readers.” MLN, vol. 107, no. 5, 1992, pp. 819–27. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2904818. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
3. Eco, Umberto. “Two Problems in Textual Interpretation.” Poetics Today, vol. 2, no. 1a, 1980, pp. 145–61. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1772358. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.
4. Eco, Umberto. Six walks in the fictional woods. Harvard University Press, 1994.
5. Eco, U. (2010). Between Author and Text. In Interpretation and Overinterpretation (pp. 67-88). Cambridge University Press.