Tag: Theory Article Summaries

Introduction: “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

“Language and Literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash first appeared in Prose Studies: History, Theory, Criticism in 1983, published by Routledge. This seminal work examines the characteristics that distinguish literary language from other forms of communication, exploring the elusive question, “What is literature?” The authors argue against a rigid binary between literary and non-literary language, suggesting instead that literariness exists along a continuum, or “cline,” where elements of literary style can appear even in “ordinary” language. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of how stylistic effects and semantic density contribute to literariness. Carter and Nash emphasize that literariness is not merely about specific vocabulary or syntax but is found in the text’s ability to engage readers in multi-layered, polysemic interpretations. The text is thus self-contained, encouraging readers to explore meanings generated within its boundaries, which marks it as “sovereign” and distinct from functional, transactional texts. Their work is influential in literary theory, as it challenges traditional boundaries and enriches the study of prose by considering linguistic and stylistic elements as fundamental to literary appreciation and critique.

Summary of “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

• Defining Literary Language: Carter and Nash argue that understanding what makes language “literary” is central to literary studies, as it addresses the essential question: “What is literature?” They critique the conventional literary-critical approach, which often involves interpreting established texts, proposing instead that literary language merits a dedicated investigation (Carter & Nash, 1983, p. 123).
• Polarity in Language: The authors reject a strict division between literary and non-literary language, which, they claim, unnecessarily polarizes language types. They advocate for viewing literary qualities along a “cline” or continuum, recognizing that traits of literariness can appear in what might traditionally be considered “ordinary” or “scientific” language (p. 124).
• Absence of Intrinsic Literary Properties: The authors assert that no inherent property makes language literary, arguing that while some words or phrases are associated with a “literary lexicon,” they do not independently constitute literariness. This is seen even in works with rich language structures, which may lack “literariness” on their own (p. 124-125).
• Deviations from Norms: Many theories of literary language rely on deviations from linguistic norms (e.g., syntactic in e.e. cummings, phonological in Hopkins), yet Carter and Nash find such approaches lacking as they fail to account for the multi-layered stylistic interplay that gives rise to literariness (p. 125).
• Semantic Density and Displaced Interaction: They propose “semantic density” as a marker of literariness, where meanings are layered and interconnected. They also introduce the concept of “displaced interaction,” wherein literary texts create indirect or complex interactions between author and reader, contrasting with straightforward transactional texts (p. 125-126).
• Textual Sovereignty: A key feature of literariness, according to Carter and Nash, is the “sovereignty” of the text—its ability to generate meaning independently without needing external references or prior reader knowledge. This self-contained quality distinguishes literary texts from other types, like instructional manuals (p. 130).
• Re-Registration and Polysemy: Literary language often re-registers non-literary expressions in new, symbolic contexts, fostering “polysemy” or multiple layers of meaning. This richness allows literature to operate on various levels simultaneously, thus enhancing its interpretative depth and literary value (p. 132-133).
• Broadening Literary Criticism: The authors call for a shift in English studies toward “linguistic criticism,” focusing on detailed linguistic analysis across different genres, not only conventionally literary ones. This approach, they believe, would deepen understanding and appreciation of diverse texts’ stylistic qualities (p. 130-131

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

Term/Concept	Definition	Explanation from Text
Literary Language	A form of language characterized by unique stylistic and semantic qualities.	Carter and Nash explore how “literary language” differs from ordinary language by its complex, layered meanings and unique structures (p. 123-124).
Cline of Literariness	A continuum that places language along a spectrum from ordinary to highly literary.	Instead of a strict division, literary qualities exist along a spectrum, with degrees of literariness across language types (p. 124).
Semantic Density	The quality of language having layered or complex meanings that contribute to literariness.	They use “semantic density” to indicate texts where meanings are richly interwoven, enhancing literary quality (p. 125).
Displaced Interaction	A form of indirect interaction between author and reader, often found in literary texts.	In literary texts, the interaction between author and reader is not straightforward; instead, meaning is layered and indirect, creating depth (p. 125-126).
Textual Sovereignty	The ability of a text to generate meaning independently, without relying on external references.	Literary texts are “sovereign,” meaning they do not depend on external aids (e.g., diagrams) to convey meaning, unlike instructional texts (p. 130).
Re-Registration	The adaptation of non-literary language or expressions within a literary context to give new, symbolic meaning.	Carter and Nash discuss how words from non-literary contexts can be adapted in literature, creating new meanings through re-registration (p. 132-133).
Polysemy	The presence of multiple meanings within a text or word, contributing to interpretative richness.	Literary texts often have polysemic structures, where multiple meanings exist simultaneously, allowing varied interpretations (p. 130).
Monosemy	The opposite of polysemy; language that has a single, clear meaning.	Found in functional texts (e.g., manuals or contracts), where language serves a specific purpose with no additional layers (p. 127).
Literary Lexicon	A set of words or phrases commonly associated with literary language.	Although some words or phrases are traditionally viewed as “literary,” Carter and Nash argue they don’t inherently confer literariness (p. 124-125).
Functional Language	Language used for practical or transactional purposes, often direct and unlayered.	Functional language is marked by single-purpose usage, such as instructional or contractual language, which contrasts with literary style (p. 127).
Norm and Deviation	The concept that literary language deviates from linguistic norms to create artistic effects.	Carter and Nash critique theories that limit literariness to deviations from norms, arguing for a more complex view (p. 125).
Self-Referentiality	A quality of literature where the text displays awareness of its own conventions and techniques.	Seen in passages where a text reflects on its own stylistic elements, adding a meta-level of meaning, which is a unique feature of literariness (p. 136).
Register Borrowing	The practice of adopting terms from specialized language fields (e.g., legal, technical) within literary texts.	Literary texts often incorporate specialized language for symbolic or aesthetic purposes, blending different registers creatively (p. 130).
Stylistic Effects	The cumulative impact of linguistic choices, such as syntax, phonology, and diction, that create a unique literary style.	Carter and Nash argue that the literariness of a text is due to multi-layered stylistic effects rather than isolated lexical choices (p. 125).

Contribution of “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash to Literary Theory/Theories

Theory	Contribution of Carter & Nash	Reference from the Article
Formalism and Structuralism	Carter and Nash challenge the formalist tendency to view literary language as entirely distinct from ordinary language. They argue instead that “literary language” operates along a continuum or cline, suggesting that elements of literariness can be found even in ordinary language.	“We hold that the division between literary language…and other kinds of language…is a harmful one” (p. 124).
Stylistics	Their work emphasizes the stylistic effects of literary language, encouraging a multi-layered linguistic analysis over a focus on isolated lexical or syntactic features. This approach enhances the understanding of stylistic choices across genres, not only in conventionally literary texts.	“Literariness in language…comes from the simultaneous operation and interrelation of effects at different levels” (p. 125).
Reader-Response Theory	Carter and Nash introduce displaced interaction, where the literary text becomes a space for indirect, interpretative engagement between author and reader. This interaction reflects reader-response theory’s emphasis on the active role of readers in co-creating meaning within texts.	“The interaction between author and reader is thus deferred or displaced, the text presenting an intermediate stage” (p. 139).
Deconstruction	They explore the idea of polysemy, or multiple layers of meaning, which resonates with deconstruction’s emphasis on the instability of meaning in texts. Carter and Nash argue that literary texts are inherently polysemic, allowing for interpretative openness and ambiguity.	“The ‘obscure’ literary text…is difficult by reason of its polysemic structure” (p. 140).
Post-Structuralism	In their critique of binary distinctions (e.g., literary vs. non-literary language), they align with post-structuralism’s questioning of rigid structures. They argue that literary language should be understood as part of a continuum rather than an isolated category.	“We prefer to think of ‘literary language’ as existing along a cline or gradation” (p. 124).
Linguistic Criticism	They propose linguistic criticism as a discipline, distinct from traditional literary stylistics, where detailed linguistic analysis is applied across genres. This approach extends stylistics into a broader critique applicable to both literary and non-literary texts.	“…students of English studies will practice linguistic criticism…to a range of texts…not only those conventionally marked as literary” (p. 130).
Intertextuality	By emphasizing re-registration, where language from non-literary registers is adapted in literature, Carter and Nash show how texts are enriched through intertextuality. This borrowing across genres creates new symbolic meanings, enhancing the interpretative possibilities of a text.	“…restructuring of technical terms so they enter into new relationships and acquire…symbolic value in the context of the literary work” (p. 130).

Examples of Critiques Through “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

Literary Work	Critique Using Carter & Nash’s Concepts	Relevant Concept from Carter & Nash
James Joyce’s Ulysses	Joyce’s use of polysemic language in Ulysses creates layers of meaning, encouraging readers to interpret the text through multiple perspectives, which aligns with Carter & Nash’s idea that literary language is inherently multi-layered, enabling expansive interpretative possibilities.	Polysemy: “The ‘obscure’ literary text…is difficult by reason of its polysemic structure” (p. 140).
Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse	Woolf’s narrative style employs displaced interaction, where the reader interprets indirect dialogues and internal monologues, enhancing the immersive literary experience. This aligns with Carter & Nash’s idea of indirect reader-author interaction in literary texts.	Displaced Interaction: “The interaction between author and reader is thus deferred or displaced…” (p. 139).
Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot	Beckett’s minimalist language reveals semantic density, where every line is charged with multiple meanings, creating a depth that compensates for the sparse dialogue. This concept resonates with Carter & Nash’s idea of condensed meaning as a hallmark of literariness.	Semantic Density: “Literariness in language…has something to do with the existence of what we term ‘semantic density’” (p. 125).
George Orwell’s 1984	Orwell’s integration of register borrowing (e.g., bureaucratic language in “Newspeak”) reflects Carter & Nash’s concept of re-registration, as he uses non-literary language to create an oppressive narrative style, enhancing the novel’s symbolic meaning.	Register Borrowing / Re-Registration: “…restructuring of technical terms so they enter into new relationships…” (p. 130).

Criticism Against “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

• Overemphasis on Linguistic Analysis: Some critics argue that Carter and Nash’s focus on linguistic elements, such as syntax and vocabulary, may sideline the emotional and thematic elements of literature that are central to literary appreciation and interpretation.
• Lack of Cultural Context Consideration: The framework presented may be critiqued for not adequately considering how cultural, historical, and societal factors influence what is perceived as “literary” or “non-literary,” which can vary significantly across different audiences.
• Dismissal of Norm-Deviation Framework: Carter and Nash challenge the traditional notion of literary language as a deviation from norms, yet some critics believe this framework is useful for distinguishing unique literary styles, as it highlights the ways authors subvert or innovate upon linguistic norms.
• Broad Definition of Literariness: Their concept of a “cline of literariness” can be seen as too broad or inclusive, potentially diminishing the uniqueness of literature by blurring distinctions between literary and non-literary texts.
• Insufficient Attention to Reader Response: While Carter and Nash introduce “displaced interaction” between author and reader, critics might argue that their approach does not fully explore how individual reader interpretations and personal engagement contribute to the perception of literariness.
• Limited Practical Application Across Genres: Although they propose that their model applies across genres, some might find the framework better suited to certain types of prose rather than poetry, drama, or other literary forms where structural and stylistic norms vary greatly.
• Reduction of Literariness to Linguistic Features: Critics could argue that their analysis risks reducing literariness solely to linguistic features, overlooking how narrative techniques, genre conventions, and plot structure also contribute to the literary qualities of a text.
• Insufficient Consideration of Authorial Intent: Some literary theorists might criticize the work for focusing more on textual analysis than on authorial intent, which can be essential in understanding why specific stylistic or lexical choices are made.

Representative Quotations from “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“We hold that the division between literary language and other kinds of language is a harmful one.”	Carter and Nash challenge traditional divisions between “literary” and “non-literary” language, arguing that this dichotomy restricts understanding of language’s full potential and value.
“We prefer to think of ‘literary language’ as existing along a cline or gradation.”	This statement introduces their idea of a spectrum, or “cline,” of literariness, rejecting fixed boundaries and allowing for literary qualities to be present in various language forms.
“There is no such thing as literary language insofar as there is any single property intrinsic to language which can be called literary.”	Here, they refute the idea of intrinsic properties defining literary language, suggesting instead that context and interaction contribute to literariness.
“Literariness in language comes from the simultaneous operation and interrelation of effects at different levels in the language system.”	This quotation underscores the complexity of literary language, emphasizing that multiple stylistic and linguistic layers contribute to its unique qualities.
“We do believe… degrees of literariness can and should be identified.”	Carter and Nash support nuanced analysis by recognizing that certain texts may display more “literary” characteristics than others, reinforcing their cline approach.
“Attempts to define literary language in terms of truth-conditions or of fictional v. non-fictional… run the risk of instituting the same divisions and polarities.”	The authors caution against definitions based on binary oppositions, which, they argue, oversimplify and constrain interpretations of literary texts.
“In literary discourse… text explains text, text expands text, text projects an extra-textual ‘reality.'”	This observation emphasizes the autonomy of literary texts, suggesting that they create and sustain their own realities independent of external references.
“The sovereignty of the text… enables the text to stand on its own terms.”	By “sovereignty,” Carter and Nash mean the text’s self-contained meaning and structure, a trait they argue is central to literariness.
“A literary text… is a creative end for the author and a primary object for the reader.”	This highlights the interactive role of literature, where the text serves as a point of co-creation between the author’s intentions and the reader’s interpretation.
“The ‘literary’ does not effectively exist without the ‘non-literary,’ and it draws constantly on ‘non-literary’ sources.”	The authors argue that literary texts frequently incorporate elements from non-literary contexts, a process they call “re-registration,” which allows language to adopt new meanings.

Suggested Readings: “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

1. Carter, R., & Nash, W. (1983). Language and literariness. Prose Studies, 6(2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/01440358308586190
2. Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain.” Comparative Literature, vol. 59, no. 2, 2007, pp. 97–118. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40279363. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.
3. McNAMER, SARAH. “The Literariness of Literature and the History of Emotion.” PMLA, vol. 130, no. 5, 2015, pp. 1433–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44017160. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

“Introduction: Literariness and Linguistics by Vimala Herman first appeared in 1983 in the journal Prose Studies: History, Theory, Criticism. This seminal work examines the distinctions and intersections between literary and non-literary language, challenging the traditional boundaries that separate the two. Herman critically explores how “literariness” is often demarcated by unique linguistic properties—such as foregrounding and fictionalization—yet argues against viewing these as exclusively literary traits. Instead, she proposes that elements often attributed to literary language, such as metaphor and narrative structure, are ubiquitous across various forms of discourse, and their function is more nuanced than simply distinguishing literature. By incorporating insights from structural linguistics, pragmatics, and speech act theory, Herman dismantles binary oppositions of “literary” vs. “ordinary” language, suggesting a more fluid spectrum of language functions. Her work is significant for its influence on modern literary theory, encouraging a shift from essentialist views of literary language to a broader consideration of how language operates in context and across social functions.

Summary of “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

• Interdependence of Literary and Non-literary Language
  Herman argues that the concepts of “literary” and “non-literary” are interdependent, as defining one invariably involves engaging with the other (Herman, p. 99).
• Fictionality and Literariness in Language
  Traditional definitions of literary language emphasize “fictionality” and “literariness,” seen as mutually exclusive from “ordinary” language, which is referential and serves communicative purposes (p. 100).
• Role of Linguistics in Literary Analysis
  Modern linguistics, through structuralism and transformational grammar, has influenced the understanding of literary language. However, there is debate on its usefulness in interpreting literary texts (p. 100).
• Russian Formalist Perspective
  The Russian Formalists focused on “literariness,” highlighting “verbal devices” and “foregrounding” as central to literary language, emphasizing deviation from ordinary language norms to create poetic effects (p. 101-102).
• Concept of Foregrounding
  Foregrounding is a defining feature of poetic language, where linguistic elements are highlighted for aesthetic purposes, distinct from the communicative goal of standard language (Mukarovsky, p. 102).
• Jakobson’s Poetic Function
  Roman Jakobson’s model describes the “poetic function” as language focusing on the message itself. He argues that the poetic function is prevalent in all linguistic activities but is dominant in poetry (p. 104-105).
• Challenges to Literary/Non-literary Dichotomy
  Critics, such as Mary Louise Pratt, argue that the distinction between literary and non-literary language is circular, as it depends on pre-existing cultural recognition of a text as “literary” (p. 106).
• Functionalist View of Language
  Fowler suggests a functional definition of literature, viewing it as a socially recognized set of texts with institutional values, rather than possessing unique linguistic properties (Fowler, p. 111).
• Speech Act Theory in Literary Analysis
  Austin’s Speech Act Theory, especially the concept of performatives, is significant in understanding language in literature as action, with illocutionary force guiding interpretation beyond literal meaning (p. 113-115).
• Pragmatics and Implicature in Literary Discourse
  Grice’s concept of implicature and cooperative principles are applied to literary analysis, recognizing that readers infer meaning based on shared assumptions, which allows for layered interpretations in literary texts (p. 115-116).
• Multiplicity of Discourses in Society
  Herman concludes that literary language is one of many discourses in society. Rather than viewing literature as fundamentally separate, it should be considered within a continuum of diverse linguistic uses (p. 119).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

Term/Concept	Definition/Description	Explanation in the Text
Literariness	The quality or characteristics that define language as “literary,” typically including fictionality, aesthetic value, and deviation from ordinary language norms	Herman discusses how literariness has traditionally been used to differentiate literary from non-literary texts, with roots in Russian Formalism (p. 99-100).
Fictionality	The characteristic of language that makes it imaginary or fictional rather than referential to real-world events	Fictionality is often viewed as a defining trait of literary language, though Herman questions its necessity as a distinguishing factor (p. 100-101).
Foregrounding	A stylistic device that emphasizes certain elements of language to draw attention to the form itself, often through deviation from norms	Key to Formalist theory, foregrounding is seen as essential to poetic language, which foregrounds expression over pure communication (Mukarovsky, p. 101-102).
Poetic Function	Jakobson’s concept, where the focus of language is on the message itself rather than its referential meaning or communicative purpose	In Jakobson’s model, the poetic function emphasizes the self-referential aspect of language in literature, where the form is prioritized (Jakobson, p. 104).
Speech Act Theory	A theory that views language as performative, where utterances do more than convey information; they perform actions	Introduced by J.L. Austin and expanded by John Searle, Speech Act Theory is applied to literary discourse to analyze language as a form of action (p. 112-113).
Illocutionary Force	The intended function of an utterance within Speech Act Theory, such as a command, request, or assertion	Herman uses this concept to examine how literary language can perform different actions, beyond literal meaning (p. 113-114).
Implicature	The implied meanings derived from context, going beyond the literal meaning of words, often guided by conversational principles	Drawn from Grice’s principles, implicature explains how readers infer unstated meanings in literary texts (p. 115-116).
Defamiliarization	Making the familiar seem unfamiliar to enhance perception and provoke thought	Often achieved through foregrounding, defamiliarization is a technique in literature that disrupts automatic perception (related to Shklovsky’s ideas, p. 101).
Competence and Performance	Chomsky’s concepts: “competence” is the ideal speaker’s knowledge of language rules, while “performance” is the actual use of language in context	Herman highlights how these concepts influence the idea of literary language as separate from everyday use (p. 109-110).
Binary Opposition	A structuralist concept describing paired opposites, like literary/non-literary, which often reinforce hierarchical distinctions	Herman critiques the literary/non-literary binary, arguing for a spectrum of discourses rather than strict oppositions (p. 119).
Generative Grammar	A linguistic theory focused on rule-based sentence generation, often applied to explain deviations in poetic language	Early stylisticians used generative grammar to analyze “deviant” literary structures, though Herman questions its applicability (p. 105).
Cline of Literariness	A gradational view of literariness, positioning texts on a spectrum rather than categorizing them as strictly literary or non-literary	Proposed by Carter and Nash, this concept challenges the binary approach, suggesting a continuum of literariness based on semantic density (p. 120).
Pragmatics	The study of language in context, focusing on how meaning is constructed through interaction and social factors	Herman advocates using pragmatics in literary analysis to better understand language’s social functions within texts (p. 110-111).
Langue and Parole	Saussure’s distinction between “langue” (the abstract language system) and “parole” (individual speech acts or utterances)	Herman discusses the misuse of this concept in literary studies, noting the need to see literary language as part of the broader language system (p. 106-107).
Contextual Variation	Differences in language use across different contexts, reflecting social, functional, and institutional norms	Emphasizing variation, Herman argues that literary language should be seen in relation to other discourses, each with unique constraints and purposes (p. 109-110).
Display and Tellability	Acts governing literary discourse in Pratt’s framework, where texts aim to engage and present narratives worth sharing	Part of Pratt’s speech situation theory, these acts relate to the communicative purposes behind literary texts (Pratt, p. 117).

Contribution of “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman to Literary Theory/Theories

Theory/Framework	Contribution by Herman	Reference in the Text
Russian Formalism and Prague School	Critiques the binary approach to literariness as inherent in language, suggesting instead that all language can be literary if used appropriately. Emphasizes that literary language need not differ from ordinary language but is defined by context and usage.	Herman addresses Russian Formalist views, noting that “poetic language becomes the systematic violation of the norm” (p. 102).
Speech Act Theory	Applies J.L. Austin’s and John Searle’s concepts to literature, positing that literary language functions performatively, with speech acts serving literary purposes. This approach suggests that context determines whether language is considered literary.	“The illocutionary act has come to be regarded as the most crucial” for understanding literary language’s performative power (p. 113).
Jakobson’s Poetic Function	Explores Roman Jakobson’s idea that the poetic function is not exclusive to poetry. Argues against using Jakobson’s concept to strictly separate literary language, proposing that the poetic function exists across all linguistic domains.	Jakobson’s function of “focus on the message for its own sake” (p. 103) is used to examine language beyond poetry.
Structuralism and Generative Grammar	Criticizes the application of generative grammar to define a “literary grammar,” showing how this approach fails to encapsulate literary language’s variability and adaptability.	Herman points out the “inadequacy of formal modes of explanation in considerations of ‘poetic language'” (p. 106).
Pragmatics	Emphasizes the role of pragmatics in interpreting literariness, moving beyond syntax and phonology to include sociolinguistic and contextual elements, which she argues provide a fuller understanding of literary language.	“Language in use, till recently, has been regarded as the poor relation to language as system” (p. 110).
Grice’s Conversational Implicature	Applies Grice’s maxims to literary texts, demonstrating how implicature and inference play a role in reader interpretation. Suggests that literariness is not inherent but arises through shared interpretive frameworks.	Herman discusses the “co-operative principle” and how it governs meaning in literature just as it does in conversation (p. 115).
Foregrounding	Discusses how foregrounding, a concept from Russian Formalism, applies across discourses, not only in literature. This broadens the scope of literariness, suggesting that stylistic devices commonly seen as “literary” are simply modes of language usage.	“Foregrounding…is not confined to literary language alone” (p. 107), Herman argues, challenging Formalist exclusivity.
Cline of Literariness	Proposes a spectrum or “cline” of literariness, arguing against a binary division between literary and non-literary language. Suggests that literariness varies by “semantic density” across different discourses.	Herman and colleagues propose that “literariness” is seen as a multi-layered phenomenon rather than a strict category (p. 120).

Examples of Critiques Through “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

Literary Work	Example of Critique Using Herman’s Framework	Relevant Concept from Herman
“The Great Gatsby” by F. Scott Fitzgerald	By analyzing the metaphor-rich language used to describe Gatsby’s parties and the “green light,” we can see how the language itself serves not merely to communicate events but to create a layered, symbolic experience for the reader. In Herman’s terms, the “foregrounding” of colors and symbols constructs an alternate reality, making it emblematic rather than literal.	Foregrounding: Herman argues that poetic language often highlights expressive elements over straightforward meaning.
“Beloved” by Toni Morrison	Morrison’s use of fragmented narrative and varied voices reflects a complex “speech act” that symbolizes the traumatic history of slavery. Herman’s ideas on speech acts help illuminate how Morrison’s text engages readers with implied meanings that rely on shared cultural memory rather than explicit statements, positioning the reader as an active participant in constructing the narrative’s meaning.	Speech Act Theory: Herman’s application of speech acts can illustrate how Morrison’s text performs cultural memory.
“Waiting for Godot” by Samuel Beckett	In this play, Beckett uses repetition and nonsensical dialogue to challenge conventional language, engaging with Herman’s concept of language variation and challenging the norm. The deviation from standard language functions emphasizes existential ambiguity and represents language in its least communicative, most performative form, illustrating Herman’s view that literariness can lie in subversion.	Variation and Foregrounding: Beckett’s deviations serve to foreground language’s limits, reflecting Herman’s view on variance.
“Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen	Austen’s social critiques are embedded in the subtleties of polite conversation, a perfect example of Herman’s emphasis on pragmatics. Through conversational implicature, characters imply social status and personal judgments subtly. Elizabeth Bennet’s dialogues, rich with irony and indirect requests, are pragmatic strategies that mirror social interactions while also revealing layers of social commentary.	Pragmatics and Implicature: Herman’s insights on context-specific interpretation align with Austen’s social critique through language.

Criticism Against “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

• Reliance on Structuralist Foundations
  Herman’s work heavily references structuralist ideas, which some critics argue limits its adaptability to post-structuralist or contemporary perspectives. Her reliance on theories from the Russian Formalists and Prague School may be seen as restrictive, especially in light of more recent, fluid definitions of literariness.
• Overemphasis on Linguistic Formalism
  The focus on linguistic formalism, such as syntax, phonology, and structural patterns, may sideline other important aspects of literary study, such as emotional resonance, reader response, and cultural context. This approach risks viewing literature too mechanically, rather than as a living, evolving art form.
• Neglect of Reader-Response Perspectives
  While Herman acknowledges the importance of context and pragmatics, her framework lacks an in-depth engagement with reader-response theory, which emphasizes how individual readers’ interpretations and experiences shape meaning. This omission might be seen as a gap in a theory meant to understand “literariness.”
• Challenges to the Universality of Pragmatic Analysis
  Herman applies linguistic pragmatics broadly, yet some critics argue that this generalization does not adequately account for the distinctiveness of literature. Treating literary language as merely another form of “language in use” may dilute the unique ways literature engages with meaning, metaphor, and imagination.
• Ambiguity in Defining ‘Literariness’
  Although Herman critiques the binary distinction between literary and non-literary language, her own definitions of “literariness” remain somewhat ambiguous. Critics argue that the lack of a clear, actionable definition can make her framework difficult to apply consistently across different literary works.
• Limited Engagement with Cultural and Ideological Contexts
  Herman’s linguistic approach to literary analysis may overlook the influence of cultural and ideological factors that shape literature. By focusing predominantly on the language mechanics, she might neglect the sociopolitical, historical, or ethical dimensions that deeply influence literary texts and their interpretations.

Representative Quotations from “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman with Explanation

1. “Literariness as a defining property of the literary has been most fully investigated with relation to language” (Herman, 1983, p. 100).
   • This sentence underscores how the concept of “literariness” is primarily explored through linguistic study, emphasizing its foundational role in defining literary language.
2. “Literary language is fictional, and therefore, non-referential, while non-fictional language, or ‘ordinary’ language, is defined by the property of reference” (Herman, 1983, p. 100).
   • Herman distinguishes literary language as creating its own realm of meaning, contrasting with factual, referential language.
3. “The role of modern linguistics, first structural, then transformational, has had an uneasy history, either as basic to the definition of literary language…or of no value at all” (Herman, 1983, p. 101).
   • This quote reflects the contentious relationship between linguistics and literary studies, particularly as scholars debate the relevance of structural and transformational linguistics.
4. “Foregrounding achieves maximum intensity to the extent of pushing communication into the background as the objective of expression” (Herman, 1983, p. 102).
   • Here, Herman discusses “foregrounding” as a feature where language is highlighted for its aesthetic qualities, allowing expression itself to take precedence over straightforward communication.
5. “The set (Einstellung) towards the message as such, focus on the message for its own sake, is the POETIC function of language” (Jakobson, as cited in Herman, 1983, p. 103).
   • Quoting Jakobson, Herman explains the poetic function of language as one that prioritizes the form and structure of the message, apart from its referential content.
6. “Language in literary use shares all the properties and processes of the medium in which it is constructed, initially” (Herman, 1983, p. 107).
   • This statement reinforces Herman’s view that literary language does not exist in isolation from general language structures and norms; it emerges from these shared properties.
7. “The formalist program for a literary language was originally motivated by the desire to separate literary studies from its traditional orientations” (Herman, 1983, p. 105).
   • Herman highlights the intention of formalism to establish a distinct study of literary language, distancing it from fields like psychology, biography, and history.
8. “The set of rules appropriate to a language…can also be presumed to have inventories of variable forms to correlate with appropriate functions in contexts of use” (Herman, 1983, p. 110).
   • This reflects Herman’s recognition of language’s adaptability, where linguistic forms vary contextually to fulfill different communicative functions.
9. “Both defamiliarization and patterning could be restored to considerations of literary discourse, as the functional processes they are” (Herman, 1983, p. 120).
   • Herman advocates for understanding literary devices such as defamiliarization and patterning as functional aspects of literary discourse, each serving specific communicative purposes.
10. “Patterning exists in many discourses…its literary use is one among many” (Herman, 1983, p. 119).
    • Herman observes that while patterning is central to literary texts, it also appears in various discourses, functioning in diverse communicative ways.

Suggested Readings: “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

1. Herman, V. (1983). Introduction: Literariness and linguistics. Prose Studies, 6(2), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/01440358308586189
2. Carter, R., & Nash, W. (1983). Language and literariness. Prose Studies, 6(2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/01440358308586190

Introduction: “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall

“Determining Literariness in Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall first appeared in 1988 in the journal Computers and the Humanities. Randall’s article delves into the notion of “literariness” in the emerging genre of interactive fiction, exploring whether this medium, primarily associated with computer-based text adventures, can achieve the hallmarks of literary value. Drawing on Russian Formalist Viktor Shklovskij’s concept of ostranenie, or “making strange,” Randall evaluates how interactive fiction both defamiliarizes familiar elements and familiarizes the strange. By examining works like Mindwheel, Brimstone, Breakers, A Mind Forever Voyaging, Portal, and Trinity, he argues that these interactive narratives display qualities traditionally associated with literary art. Randall sees these stories as expanding literary traditions through their fusion of reader interactivity with literary elements, creating new forms of narrative experience that engage readers on both a cognitive and participatory level. This work is significant for its early theoretical exploration of interactive fiction within the domain of literary theory, situating it as a medium that bridges storytelling and reader agency, and underscoring its potential to reshape our understanding of narrative structure and reader involvement in literature.

Summary of “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall

Term/Concept	Description	Reference
Literariness	The quality that makes a text “literary”; according to Russian Formalists, it involves “making strange” or defamiliarizing familiar language and concepts.	Defined by Shklovskij and the Russian Formalists, pp. 183-184
Ostranenie	Russian term for “defamiliarization” or “making strange,” used to make readers see familiar things in a new way, thus enhancing literary value.	Shklovskij, p. 184
Canonization	The process of including certain works within the literary canon, a selection influenced by cultural and historical values.	Terry Eagleton and Shklovskij’s “canonization of the junior branch,” p. 186
Reader Interaction	The role of the reader’s active participation in progressing the narrative, a defining feature of interactive fiction that enhances its literary nature.	Wolfgang Iser’s theories on reader response, p. 185
Narrative Gaps	Intentional breaks in the narrative that readers fill through interpretation, a technique that engages readers deeply in the story.	Wolfgang Iser, p. 190
Poetic Function	Roman Jakobson’s idea that poetic language projects equivalence, emphasizing form over content; used to analyze interactivity in interactive fiction.	Roman Jakobson, p. 187
Synchronicity	The organization of events and elements occurring simultaneously; in interactive fiction, allows readers to explore non-linear narratives.	As seen in Mindwheel and other interactive works, p. 188
Intertextuality	References to other literary or cultural texts within a work, enriching the narrative by drawing on external literary traditions.	Present in works like Brimstone, p. 188
Metaphoric/Metonymic	Jakobson’s linguistic dimensions where the metaphoric is associative and synchronic, and the metonymic is combinative and diachronic; relevant in narrative layering.	Roman Jakobson’s language dimensions, p. 187
Structural Continuity	In traditional literature, the uninterrupted flow of a narrative; in interactive fiction, continuity is adapted through reader choice and narrative exploration.	Concept discussed by Randall, pp. 189-190
Moral Fiction	Literature that emphasizes ethical or moral questions, often aligning with artistic responsibility; seen as a trend in serious interactive fiction.	Sidney-Shelley-John Gardner school, p. 189

Contribution of “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall

Literary Work	Critique	Key Aspects Analyzed	Reference
Mindwheel (by Robert Pinsky)	Randall views Mindwheel as self-consciously literary, incorporating symbolic and mythological elements. He highlights the protagonist’s journey into four minds, embodying themes of rebirth and enlightenment.	Ostranenie, Synchronicity	p. 188
A Mind Forever Voyaging (by Steve Meretzky)	Critiqued as a complex narrative that transcends traditional gaming by eliminating a score system, A Mind Forever Voyaging focuses on moral exploration and social critique, elevating it to literary art.	Moral Fiction, Reader Interaction	p. 188
Brimstone (by James Paul)	Brimstone is praised for its rich intertextuality, referencing Dante’s Hell, Blake’s works, and Arthurian legends. Randall argues that these allusions contribute to its literariness and depth.	Intertextuality, Self-Referentiality	p. 188
Trinity (by Brian Moriarty)	Randall identifies Trinity as powerful for its integration of historical events with imaginative storytelling. The moral weight of the atomic bomb’s devastation imbues the narrative with ethical depth and reflection.	Moral Fiction, Historical Context	p. 188

Criticism Against “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall

• Over-Reliance on Traditional Literary Theories
  Randall applies established theories like Russian Formalism and Reader-Response Theory to interactive fiction, but critics may argue that these frameworks do not fully capture the uniqueness of interactive media, which operates differently from static texts.
• Narrow Definition of Literariness
  The article’s focus on ostranenie (defamiliarization) as a defining feature of literariness may be seen as limiting, as it excludes other literary qualities such as emotional depth, character development, or narrative cohesion, which are often valued in literary works.
• Limited Scope of Interactive Works Analyzed
  Randall’s analysis centers on a handful of specific interactive works (e.g., Mindwheel, Brimstone), leading to questions about whether his conclusions apply broadly across the genre, especially given the wide variety of styles and formats within interactive fiction.
• Assumption of Canonization Potential
  Randall suggests that interactive fiction could enter the literary canon, but critics may argue that his claims about canonization overlook how digital media and traditional literature are often evaluated by different standards and within distinct cultural contexts.
• Minimal Engagement with Gameplay Mechanics
  Randall’s analysis emphasizes literary aspects while downplaying how gameplay mechanics themselves influence the storytelling and literary potential of interactive fiction. This focus may overlook how the unique interactivity and structure of these games create meaning outside of literary tradition.
• Underexplored Reader Agency in Complex Narratives
  While Randall highlights reader interaction as enhancing literariness, he does not fully address how excessive player agency or fragmented narratives might detract from a coherent or traditionally “literary” experience, raising questions about narrative control in interactive fiction.

Representative Quotations from “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Literariness, as defined by Shklovskij and the Russian Formalists, is the quality of ‘making strange’ that which is linguistically familiar.”	Randall applies the concept of ostranenie, suggesting that interactive fiction achieves literariness by defamiliarizing familiar language and experiences, a cornerstone in evaluating interactive fiction as a serious literary form.
“Interactive fiction indisputably fulfills the requirement of participation… what needs to be determined, though, is whether or not the world presented is a ‘literary’ one.”	He questions whether interactive fiction, while engaging, also holds literary value, setting up the central inquiry of his article regarding interactive fiction’s status within literary theory.
“As interactive fiction grows more complex and more serious, its authors themselves have begun to ask that question [of literariness].”	This quotation points to the genre’s evolution from entertainment to a form aspiring to literary recognition, with creators consciously designing narratives that provoke thought and exploration.
“A reader familiar with interactive fiction will find strange… the need for reading the introductory chapters in the first place.”	Here, Randall examines how interactive fiction challenges conventional reading expectations by combining traditional storytelling with interactive, digital structures, enhancing the defamiliarization experience.
“Interactive fiction allows its own form of continuity… even if the plot is not.”	This statement emphasizes that interactive fiction offers a distinct narrative continuity, shaped by reader actions rather than linear story progression, which differs from traditional novels and plays a role in its literariness.
“If Shklovskij is correct in asserting that literary language hangs on the very notion of ostranenie, then… making strange a literary work is a literary act.”	Randall argues that ostranenie is foundational to all literature, positing that interactive fiction’s capacity to “make strange” can elevate it to the level of literary art.
“In interactive fiction, the reader is automatically aware of the gaps because until she fills them in, the text will not continue.”	This highlights the unique requirement of reader agency in interactive fiction, as narrative gaps invite readers to contribute directly to the unfolding of the story, thus deepening their engagement and making it more “literary.”
“For Jakobson, poetic language ‘projects the principle of equivalence from the axis of selection into the axis of combination.'”	By invoking Jakobson’s concept of poetic language, Randall suggests that interactive fiction’s combination of reader choices and structured narrative mirrors poetic language, adding a literary dimension to the genre.
“Interactive fiction derives literariness from the combination of strangeness and familiarity.”	Randall argues that interactive fiction attains a unique form of literariness by juxtaposing familiar and strange elements, creating a new aesthetic experience that merges traditional storytelling with interactive immersion.
“The role of the reader here is not merely that of an interpreter but of a co-creator.”	This underscores a fundamental aspect of interactive fiction, where the reader actively shapes the narrative, reflecting theories of reader-response but with heightened agency that blurs the boundary between reader and creator.

Suggested Readings: “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall

1. Randall, Neil. “Determining Literariness in Interactive Fiction.” Computers and the Humanities, vol. 22, no. 3, 1988, pp. 183–91. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30200120. Accessed 9 Nov. 2024.
2. Rockwell, Geoffrey. “Gore Galore: Literary Theory and Computer Games.” Computers and the Humanities, vol. 36, no. 3, 2002, pp. 345–58. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30200532. Accessed 9 Nov. 2024.
3. “Front Matter.” Computers and the Humanities, vol. 22, no. 3, 1988. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30200117. Accessed 9 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén

“On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén first appeared in 1994 in Comparative Literature Studies, published by Penn State University Press. In this article, Guillén examines the nuanced role of letter writing in bridging everyday communication with literary forms. He argues that the letter, while often not regarded as purely literary, holds the potential for what he terms “literariness”—a quality that emerges through the interplay of authenticity, style, and structure. By exploring historical practices and the evolution of letter writing from functional to poetic and even fictional, Guillén highlights how letters can embody a blend of factual narrative and imaginative expression. This fusion creates a unique space where personal voice and public dialogue intersect, reflecting both the individual and cultural ethos of their times. His insights contribute significantly to literary theory by challenging the boundaries between literary and non-literary genres, underscoring the letter as a site of creativity and intimacy that carries profound implications for understanding the development of narrative and epistolary fiction.

Summary of “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén

---

---

Literary Terms/Concepts in “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén

Literary Term/Concept	Definition	Explanation in the Article
Literariness	The quality or characteristic of being literary or having literary value.	Guillén examines how letters, while rooted in practical communication, can exhibit elements of literary art, thus existing “on the edge of literariness” (Guillén, p. 3).
Epistolary Illusion	The concept that letters create an impression of authenticity and spontaneity, often blending fiction and reality.	Seen in works like Lettres Portugaises, where readers are led to believe in the sincerity of the letters, creating a blur between fiction and non-fiction (Guillén, p. 20).
Genre	A category of literary composition characterized by specific conventions and styles.	Guillén highlights the role of epistolary genres, including the familiar letter, verse epistle, and epistolary novel, which adapt conventions to suit emotional expression and communication (Guillén, p. 14).
Poeticity	The quality that brings out an imaginative, symbolic dimension in writing, going beyond literal meaning.	Based on Garcia Berrio’s concept, poeticity arises in letters when they express symbolic, often anthropological themes, making the writing resonate on multiple levels (Guillén, p. 2).
Fictionality	The constructed, imaginative aspect of a text that allows it to represent fictional events or realities.	Guillén notes how letters can contain a “fictional impulse,” where even personal correspondence may create fictionalized self-images and narratives (Guillén, p. 19).
Microlinguistic Analysis	A close examination of linguistic details, such as word choice and syntax, within a text.	Guillén discusses how such scrutiny may not always capture the full scope of meaning in letters, suggesting that genre and historical context also play crucial roles (Guillén, p. 3).
Formal Choices	Deliberate stylistic decisions made by the writer regarding structure, language, and genre conventions.	In letters, formal choices impact the tone and purpose; for instance, Petrarch’s structured collection of letters showcases how intentional organization enhances literariness (Guillén, p. 13).
Intersubjectivity	The shared understanding and connection between individuals, often emphasized in personal writing.	Guillén highlights that letters like those by Donne emphasize intersubjectivity, as the writer crafts a narrative for a specific recipient, fostering emotional and intellectual connection (Guillén, p. 22).
Brevitas	The quality of conciseness or brevity in writing.	A valued quality in epistolary writing, where writers often aim for clarity and brevity while conveying emotional depth, as in Ben Johnson’s verse epistles (Guillén, p. 11).
Self-Reflexivity	When a text reflects on its own creation, form, or status as a work of literature.	Seen in Donne’s letters, which not only convey friendship but also reflect on the nature of epistolary communication itself (Guillén, p. 9).
Monothematic Tradition	The focus on a single subject within a piece of writing, especially common in letters.	This tradition, emphasized by Aretino, allowed letters to explore a single theme deeply, creating an illusion of spontaneity despite meticulous planning (Guillén, p. 16).
Epistolary Form	The format and stylistic conventions of letter writing as a literary genre.	Guillén discusses the evolution of the epistolary form, which conveys intimacy and immediacy, even in structured, literary compositions like Richardson’s Pamela (Guillén, p. 19).
Conditional Literariness	The idea that some texts are considered literary based on their formal qualities and historical context.	Genette’s theory posits that works like historical texts or letters become literary not by nature but by readers’ appreciation of their style and form (Guillén, p. 18).
Sincerity in Expression	The appearance of genuine, heartfelt communication in writing, often sought in letters.	Guillén explains how letters, especially in familiar genres, prioritize an expression of true sentiment, creating an “illusion of truth” for readers, as with Marianne’s letters in Lettres Portugaises (Guillén, p. 1).
Rhetorical Style	The use of persuasive or decorative language to enhance the impact of writing.	Madame de Sévigné’s letters exemplify a rhetorical style that combines affectionate language with a crafted structure to engage her audience and convey credibility (Guillén, p. 1).
Theoretical Metalanguage	Language used to reflect on or critique the nature and function of a text itself.	Guillén notes how letters like those of Cicero incorporate theoretical musings on epistolary form and appropriateness, blending literary analysis with practical communication (Guillén, p. 10).
Illusion of Non-Fictionality	The perception that a fictional letter or novel is based in reality, often used to enhance authenticity.	In Lettres Portugaises, readers believed in the letters’ authenticity, a technique that later influenced epistolary novels, creating a blend of fictional narrative and realistic presentation (Guillén, p. 20).
Social Function of Letters	The role of letters in maintaining social norms and relationships, such as friendship and affection.	Guillén discusses how letters serve social functions, guided by norms of courteous expression, thus enabling the cultivation of interpersonal relationships, as seen in Petrarch’s collection (Guillén, p. 22).

Contribution of “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén to Literary Theory/Theories

Literary Theory	Contribution	References
Theory of Literariness	Guillén differentiates between literariness, poeticity, and literacy, establishing a continuum of communication that illustrates how letters can embody literary qualities while remaining functional forms of communication. He posits that literariness is a conscious choice by writers.	“The epistolary process of communication can be viewed as moving along a continuum that may reach or shift or combine three main levels or categories of achievement: literacy, literariness, and poeticity.” (p. 2)
Epistolary Theory	The article underscores the epistolary genre’s historical development, from ancient rhetorical training to modern expressions. Guillén discusses how letters have been influenced by literary conventions while maintaining their unique communicative purposes.	“A letter should be written rather more carefully than a dialogue. Dialogue imitates impromptu conversation, whereas a letter is a piece of writing and is sent someone as a kind of gift.” (p. 10)
Poetics of Communication	Guillén emphasizes the communicative aspect of letters, suggesting that their primary function is to convey personal sentiments and establish relationships. This highlights the social dynamics at play within the epistolary form and how letters serve as a medium for both personal and public expression.	“The principal message then is the act of communication itself or the will-to-communication.” (p. 9)
Genre Studies	The article positions letters within the context of literary genres, discussing how they interact with and are influenced by established forms like poetry and prose. Guillén argues for a nuanced understanding of genre that recognizes the blending of literary and non-literary aspects in letters.	“Literary genre has been the combat zone in illlo tempore, the locus of choice, tension, and encounter between the writer and the genres embodied in models.” (p. 12)
Rhetorical Theory	By analyzing the rhetorical strategies employed in letters, Guillén points out how authors like Cicero and Madame de Sévigné shaped their correspondence to reflect specific styles and audiences, illustrating the blend of formality and personal touch in epistolary writing.	“The beauty of a letter is in the expression of affection and courtesy.” (p. 10)
Narrative Theory	Guillén explores the fictional elements of letters, discussing how even non-fictional correspondence can possess narrative qualities. He highlights how letters can create self-constructed identities for the writers, merging fiction with reality and exploring the fluidity of self-representation.	“To compose a letter may lead the writer toward fiction before he even begins to approach literature.” (p. 5)
Self-Reflexivity in Writing	The article discusses how letters often reflect on their own status and function, leading to an awareness of their literary qualities. Guillén connects this reflexivity with the broader tradition of letters in literature, positioning it as a space for both personal and theoretical exploration.	“The more the letter writer enters the regions of literariness the more he frets and worries about what he is doing.” (p. 9)
Theoretical Metalanguage	Guillén engages with the concept of a theoretical metalanguage, emphasizing how authors reflect on their own writing processes and styles, thus creating a critical discourse around the act of letter writing itself.	“The rich tradition of the theory of the letter makes its appearance in all the epistolary genres since Greece and Rome.” (p. 9)

Examples of Critiques Through “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén

Literary Work	Critique Through Guillén’s Framework	Relevant Aspects from Guillén
Lettres Portugaises by Guilleragues	Guillén examines the illusion of nonfictionality in Lettres Portugaises, where the protagonist’s passionate letters create a fictionalized world while still appearing personal and authentic. The epistolary form enhances the emotional realism, bridging fiction and lived experience.	“The epistolary illusion of non-fictionality” allows for a unique narrative that appears to be genuine correspondence while subtly blurring fiction and reality. (p. 19)
La Nouvelle Héloïse by Jean-Jacques Rousseau	Guillén critiques how Rousseau’s epistolary novel embodies genre-specific literariness, using letters to convey inner emotional landscapes that reflect on societal ideals and personal conflicts. The novel illustrates Rousseau’s exploration of love and morality through letter-writing as a narrative device.	Guillén describes how the epistolary novel uniquely reflects both private sentiment and public moral debates, offering intimate yet socially reflective storytelling. (p. 18)
Pamela by Samuel Richardson	Pamela utilizes letters to give readers access to the protagonist’s private thoughts, embodying Guillén’s idea of the blurred line between fiction and reality. Richardson’s letters generate an authentic voice, inviting readers to experience the character’s personal growth as authentic communication.	Guillén discusses how letters can appear “natural and convincing” while creating fictional self-image and events within the daily reality. (p. 7)
Letters to Atticus by Cicero	Cicero’s letters are critiqued for their historical and rhetorical qualities; Guillén analyzes how these letters establish a complex dynamic between personal reflection and public discourse, showing how letters reveal private perspectives while engaging in broader philosophical debates.	Guillén emphasizes the duality of letters as both personal reflections and public statements, highlighting the genre’s complex balance of privacy and audience. (p. 10)

Criticism Against “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén

• Overemphasis on Literariness and Formal Structure
  Guillén’s focus on “literariness” and formal qualities may overlook the emotional and cultural functions of letter-writing, limiting the analysis to structural aspects rather than thematic depth or historical context.
• Insufficient Attention to Non-Western Epistolary Traditions
  The study largely centers on Western epistolary genres, neglecting the rich letter-writing traditions in other cultures, which might offer alternative perspectives on literariness and genre.
• Assumption of a Clear Boundary Between Fiction and Nonfiction
  Guillén suggests a “razor’s edge” between fact and fiction, but this binary may be overly simplistic, especially given the complex ways letters can blend personal truth and artistic expression.
• Neglect of Reader-Response Dynamics
  Guillén focuses on the writer’s intent and stylistic choices, but does not deeply explore how readers interpret and interact with letters, particularly in cases where letters are read as private communications or as public texts.
• Limited Engagement with Contemporary Theoretical Perspectives
  While Guillén references figures like Genette and Derrida, the piece might lack engagement with more contemporary theories of epistolary studies or digital media, which could offer fresh insights into literariness in letter writing.
• Idealization of the Epistolary Genre’s Aesthetic Value
  Guillén’s analysis sometimes assumes an inherent aesthetic or literary value in the epistolary form, potentially overlooking how some letters function primarily as pragmatic or utilitarian communications, rather than as literary expressions.
• Lack of Interdisciplinary Approach
  The study could benefit from an interdisciplinary approach that incorporates psychology, sociology, or anthropology to enrich understanding of the personal and relational dimensions of letters beyond their literary qualities.

Representative Quotations from “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Literariness is an option to which the writer and the reader may commit themselves from the beginning.“	Guillén highlights the concept of “literariness” as a conscious choice in the writing and reading of letters, underscoring that letters can be crafted with literary intention rather than serving as mere practical communication.
“A letter should be written rather more carefully than a dialogue.“	This quote points to the unique stylistic requirements of letter writing, suggesting that letters demand a deliberate tone and structure that goes beyond casual conversation, marking their distinct literary potential.
“The epistolary process of communication can be viewed as moving along a continuum…“	Guillén introduces the idea of letters existing on a continuum from mere literacy to high levels of literariness and poeticity, emphasizing the fluid, dynamic nature of letters within literary theory.
“The writing of letters as a practical task, unmindful of literature, immersed in daily life…“	Here, Guillén discusses how letter writing often operates outside literary intentions, embedded in everyday practices, but has the potential to cross into literariness through style, purpose, or emotional weight.
“There is hardly an act in our daily experience…as likely as the writing of a letter to propel us toward inventiveness and transformation of fact.“	Guillén suggests that letters naturally encourage imaginative and interpretative transformations, serving as a bridge between personal expression and fiction.
“This convergence of privacy and publicity is not an exclusive feature of literary letters.“	This quote reflects on the dual nature of letters as both personal, private acts and potential public documents, a trait that adds complexity to their literary analysis and understanding.
“The letter does not offer all-enveloping alternative environments as a narrative will…“	Guillén contrasts letters with narrative forms, suggesting that letters create fictional elements within everyday reality rather than crafting entirely fictional worlds, thus positioning them uniquely in literary theory.
“What pretends to be available for reading by that second person is actually reread…by another public at another point in historical time.“	This illustrates how letters, though written for a specific recipient, are often recontextualized by different readers, giving them layers of meaning that evolve with time and audience.
“There is a norm that we encounter in practically all writings in the itinerary of the theory of the letter: the need for brevitas.“	Guillén emphasizes “brevitas” (brevity) as a guiding principle in letter writing, suggesting that conciseness is often valued in letters and serves as an aesthetic element marking their literary quality.
“The literariness of the familiar letter, arising as it does from everyday non-literary writing, poses the most difficult problems.“	Guillén addresses the challenge of defining the literariness of personal letters, as they straddle the line between practical and aesthetic purposes, making them complex subjects for literary categorization.

Suggested Readings: “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén

1. Guillén, Claudio. “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters.” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 31, no. 1, 1994, pp. 1–24. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40246915. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.
2. “Front Matter.” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 31, no. 1, 1994. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40246914. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.
3. “Back Matter.” Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature, vol. 13, no. 2, 1994, pp. 410–26. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/464129. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov

“Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov first appeared in the Comparative Literature journal (Vol. 59, No. 2) in Spring 2007, published by Duke University Press on behalf of the University of Oregon. Alexandrov’s work engages deeply with the intersections of literature, linguistics, and neuroscience, probing into how literary qualities might uniquely interact with brain processes. He questions the traditional concept of “literature,” noting its evolving nature in the field of literary studies, where perspectives on its essence have grown increasingly skeptical and culturally relativistic. Alexandrov’s work draws on Jakobson’s theory of “literariness”—the quality that distinguishes literary language by focusing on the form of language itself, as opposed to mere communication. He aligns Jakobson’s insights with current findings in cognitive science and neuroscience, which suggest that the brain engages differently with language when it possesses literary qualities like metaphor and complex structure. His exploration proposes that structured literary discourse may activate distinct cognitive processes, which supports the possibility of a neuroscientific basis for literariness, thus bridging a gap between the humanities and cognitive science. This work underscores a potentially foundational role for literature in understanding language’s impact on the brain, suggesting that the unique processing involved in literary reading can deepen our grasp of both brain functions and cultural production.

Summary of “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov

• Exploring the Definition of Literature:
  • Alexandrov examines the ambiguous and contested nature of “literature” as a concept, noting that it is often viewed as “a social construct or a reader’s projection” (Alexandrov 98).
  • He critiques how various scholars, like E.D. Hirsch and Terry Eagleton, have suggested that “there is no ‘essence’ of literature whatsoever” (Alexandrov 98).
• The Influence of Post-Structuralism on Literariness:
  • The shift from essentialist views of literature to relativist perspectives is highlighted, with Alexandrov tracing this evolution to the influence of post-structuralism and cultural studies, which question the traditional notion of “literariness” (Alexandrov 98-99).
  • This shift has led to a reorientation in academia, prioritizing cultural artifacts and societal contexts over intrinsic literary features (Alexandrov 99).
• Linking Jakobson’s Poetic Function and Neuroscience:
  • Alexandrov explores Roman Jakobson’s idea of “literariness” as a “poetic function” that involves a “focus on the message itself” (Alexandrov 102).
  • He aligns this with recent neuroscientific evidence suggesting that structured language, which emphasizes literary devices, engages unique brain mechanisms (Alexandrov 104).
• Hemispheric Specialization in Language Processing:
  • The article presents findings that different brain hemispheres process language in distinct ways, with the left hemisphere generally managing “sequential, syntactically and grammatically organized linguistic meaning” and the right hemisphere engaging with “coarse” and metaphorical meanings (Alexandrov 113).
  • Alexandrov argues that this division aligns with Jakobson’s distinction between the “metaphoric” and “metonymic” poles of language (Alexandrov 107).
• Right Hemisphere and Literary Creativity:
  • The right hemisphere’s role in creating “global coherence” across a text and processing figurative language is noted, with Alexandrov citing that damage to the right hemisphere impairs abilities related to metaphor, irony, and overall narrative structure (Alexandrov 109).
  • He posits that creativity in literature involves the unique cooperation of both hemispheres, which may correspond to Jakobson’s concept of the “poetic function” (Alexandrov 111).
• Literariness as a Cognitive and Cultural Construct:
  • Alexandrov suggests that while neuroscience can shed light on the cognitive processes involved in reading literature, “literariness” may still be seen as a cultural construct, varying by tradition and function (Alexandrov 113).
  • He acknowledges that “within the realm of human beliefs, there is no absolute ground that can be used to adjudicate what individuals choose to view as true, good, and real” (Alexandrov 115).
• Implications for Literary Studies and Humanities:
  • By integrating cognitive science, Alexandrov argues that literary studies might reclaim the significance of “literariness” as an academic focus, potentially bridging divides between the humanities and sciences (Alexandrov 114).
  • He concludes that understanding literature’s impact on the brain could renew academic interest in the intrinsic qualities of literary texts (Alexandrov 114-115).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov

Literary Term/Concept	Definition	Explanation/Reference
Literature	A socially constructed term often viewed as a reader’s projection or value-laden category.	Alexandrov discusses how literature is perceived as “a social construct or a reader’s projection” and suggests that the concept lacks a universally accepted essence (Alexandrov 98).
Literariness	The inherent quality that distinguishes literary texts, often marked by the “poetic function” focusing on language itself.	Alexandrov explores “literariness” through Jakobson’s notion of the “poetic function” as it focuses on the structure and message of language, rather than its content alone (Alexandrov 102).
Poetic Function	Jakobson’s term for the function of language that emphasizes form, structure, and the message itself over content.	Alexandrov uses Jakobson’s concept to argue that literariness involves emphasizing the “message itself” and creating structured language that engages readers in unique cognitive ways (Alexandrov 102).
Metaphoric Pole	A type of language structure characterized by associative, spatial relations; associated with selection and substitution.	Alexandrov connects this “pole” to the right hemisphere’s ability to process metaphor and non-linear associations, linking it to Jakobson’s idea of literary language’s focus on similarity and metaphor (Alexandrov 107).
Metonymic Pole	A type of language structure characterized by syntagmatic, linear relations, often involving causal or sequential connections.	Associated with the left hemisphere, this pole reflects Jakobson’s view that language is also constructed through linear, syntactical connections, especially in everyday discourse (Alexandrov 107).
Defamiliarization	A literary technique making the familiar appear strange, thereby enhancing perception of language.	Linked to Viktor Shklovsky, this concept emphasizes how literary language “estranges” common phrases or ideas, aligning with the brain’s unique engagement with complex literary structures (Alexandrov 108).
Global Coherence	The brain’s process of integrating individual sentences into an overarching text structure or meaning.	Alexandrov highlights the right hemisphere’s role in achieving this coherence, which is crucial for understanding the overarching narrative structure in literary texts (Alexandrov 109).
Hemispheric Specialization	The brain’s division into left and right hemispheres, each processing language differently, with the left handling sequential, syntactical language and the right managing metaphor and “global coherence.”	Alexandrov details how each hemisphere’s specialization supports different aspects of language, suggesting that both hemispheres are essential in processing literariness in complex literary texts (Alexandrov 113).
Ideology in Literature	The view that literature is a construct shaped by historical, cultural, and social values rather than inherent qualities.	Alexandrov notes that post-structuralism questions “literature” as an essential concept, viewing it instead as ideologically shaped by “value judgments” and historical variability (Alexandrov 98).
Cultural Studies	An academic field focusing on broader human artifacts, practices, and social ideologies rather than purely traditional literary texts.	The rise of cultural studies has shifted focus away from traditional “literature,” broadening the scope of literary analysis to include cultural and sociopolitical factors (Alexandrov 99).
Empirical Universalism	Identifying cross-cultural invariants in human experience and cultural artifacts without imposing cultural norms universally.	Cited by Alexandrov as a balance between universalism and relativism, empirical universalism respects genuine human constants without cultural imposition, particularly relevant in comparative studies of literariness (Alexandrov 100).
Sequential vs. Spatial Processing	Left hemisphere’s preference for processing language sequentially and logically, while the right hemisphere focuses on spatial, metaphorical associations.	Alexandrov uses this distinction to explain how different structures in language engage each hemisphere, suggesting that literature’s metaphoricity requires both types of processing (Alexandrov 107).
Aesthetic Experience	The subjective engagement with beauty and form in literature, often linked with cognitive processes involving both hemispheres.	Alexandrov connects aesthetic experience in reading to cognitive processes like defamiliarization and coherence building, which demand the brain’s full engagement (Alexandrov 109).
Paranormal and Creativity Link	The association between creativity and cognitive processing in the right hemisphere, sometimes linked with unusual mental experiences, including paranormal beliefs or schizophrenia.	Alexandrov discusses studies connecting the associative, non-linear processes in the right hemisphere with traits like creativity and apophenia, or seeing connections among disparate elements (Alexandrov 111).

Contribution of “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov to Literary Theory/Theories

• Revisiting Formalist Theories of Literariness:
  • Alexandrov reaffirms Roman Jakobson’s Formalist idea of “literariness” by connecting it with neuroscience, suggesting that literary language’s unique structure (poetic function) has neurological implications (Alexandrov 102).
  • This connection revives Formalist emphasis on “what makes a text literary,” grounding it in cognitive science (Alexandrov 102).
• Supporting Structuralism through Language Processing:
  • By linking structured linguistic processing in the brain to Jakobson’s concepts, Alexandrov supports Structuralism’s focus on the deep structures of language, especially through binary oppositions like metaphoric vs. metonymic (Alexandrov 107).
  • He proposes that structured discourse, such as that found in literary texts, has distinct neural engagement, echoing Structuralist insights into underlying patterns and structures (Alexandrov 108).
• Engaging with Post-Structuralist Skepticism of “Essence” in Literature:
  • Alexandrov addresses Post-Structuralist critiques of essentialism in literature by examining the brain’s response to literariness. He suggests that, while cultural perspectives on literature are valid, there may also be neurological bases for experiencing literariness (Alexandrov 98).
  • This contribution allows for a “sliding scale” of literariness that aligns with Post-Structuralist notions of fluidity while exploring possible cognitive underpinnings (Alexandrov 114).
• Contribution to Cognitive Poetics and Reader-Response Theory:
  • The article contributes to Cognitive Poetics by exploring how the brain’s hemispheres process literary versus non-literary texts, suggesting that complex structures and metaphors require unique cognitive engagement (Alexandrov 104).
  • This aligns with Reader-Response Theory’s emphasis on the reader’s role, proposing that the neurological engagement with literariness impacts how meaning is constructed during reading (Alexandrov 109).
• Reinforcing Defamiliarization from Russian Formalism:
  • Alexandrov applies Viktor Shklovsky’s concept of “defamiliarization” by linking it with neural responses to metaphor and unusual language structures, suggesting that the brain processes defamiliarized language differently, making it more memorable and engaging (Alexandrov 108).
  • This neuroscientific grounding adds empirical support to the Formalist idea that literary texts make readers “see the world anew” (Alexandrov 109).
• Proposing a Bridge Between Humanities and Neuroscience:
  • The article contributes to Interdisciplinary Theory by demonstrating how literary theory can benefit from and contribute to cognitive science. Alexandrov suggests that literature scholars can engage with neuroscience without reducing literature to a purely scientific phenomenon (Alexandrov 114).
  • This bridge challenges the “two cultures” divide by proposing methods of studying literature that are informed by empirical evidence (Alexandrov 115).
• Highlighting the Role of Cultural Studies in Literary Definition:
  • Alexandrov acknowledges the shift toward Cultural Studies in literary departments, noting how the study of “literature” has broadened to include other cultural artifacts. He ties this trend to a reevaluation of traditional literary hierarchies (Alexandrov 99).
  • His work invites Cultural Studies to consider cognitive dimensions in the cultural production and reception of texts (Alexandrov 100).
• Encouraging Empirical Universalism within Literary Studies:
  • The article supports the concept of “empirical universalism,” proposing that while cultural variability in interpreting literature is valid, there may also be cross-cultural cognitive responses to structured literary forms (Alexandrov 100).
  • This approach suggests a balance between cultural relativity and cognitive constants in the appreciation of literariness (Alexandrov 100).

Examples of Critiques Through “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov

Literary Work	Critique Based on Alexandrov’s Concepts	Relevant Concept from Alexandrov
“The Waste Land” by T.S. Eliot	Eliot’s use of fragmented structure, cultural references, and varied voices can be seen as engaging both hemispheres of the brain, as it requires readers to make metaphorical and associative connections while navigating complex, layered meanings.	Hemispheric Specialization and Global Coherence: The right hemisphere engages with fragmented and associative elements, while the left processes the syntactic structure, making the text’s complexity cognitively engaging (Alexandrov 109).
“One Hundred Years of Solitude” by Gabriel García Márquez	The magical realism in García Márquez’s narrative defamiliarizes familiar concepts, leading readers to interpret supernatural events as part of daily life. This estrangement aligns with the brain’s preference for poetic function and metaphorical processing in literature.	Defamiliarization and Metaphoric Processing: The text’s defamiliarization challenges readers to reframe reality, requiring both hemispheres for metaphorical understanding and coherence, engaging the brain in unique interpretive processes (Alexandrov 108).
“Beloved” by Toni Morrison	Morrison’s exploration of trauma, memory, and fragmented identity reflects the right hemisphere’s engagement with associative and spatial memory processing, as readers connect past and present narrative fragments to construct a cohesive meaning.	Memory and Global Coherence: The non-linear narrative engages the right hemisphere in reconstructing fragmented memories, while the left hemisphere seeks narrative structure, mirroring trauma’s disjointed nature (Alexandrov 113).
“Ulysses” by James Joyce	Joyce’s stream-of-consciousness technique and linguistic play activate the poetic function, as readers must process unconventional syntax, multiple perspectives, and associative language, thus demanding unique cognitive involvement.	Poetic Function and Defamiliarization: The complex language structure forces readers into a state of heightened awareness and associative thinking, requiring both hemispheres to process Joyce’s wordplay and narrative shifts (Alexandrov 108).

Criticism Against “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov

• Over-Reliance on Neuroscience without Direct Literary Testing:
  • Alexandrov uses findings from neuroscience to infer how the brain might respond to literary texts, but he acknowledges that no studies have directly tested readers’ brain activity while reading complete literary works. This lack of direct evidence may weaken the link between neuroscience and literary theory (Alexandrov 114-115).
• Possible Reduction of Literature to Cognitive Mechanisms:
  • While Alexandrov aims to bridge humanities and science, some may argue that his approach risks reducing literature’s cultural and artistic value to mere neurological processes. This could overlook the complex historical, emotional, and ideological aspects that also shape literary engagement.
• Insufficient Engagement with Post-Structuralist Perspectives:
  • Alexandrov attempts to address post-structuralist skepticism but may not fully account for the field’s emphasis on the instability of meaning and the fluidity of language. Critics may feel his model inadvertently reintroduces an essentialist view of “literariness,” which post-structuralism critiques (Alexandrov 98).
• Limited Cultural Perspective in Defining Literariness:
  • Although Alexandrov acknowledges that definitions of literariness vary across cultures, his approach largely draws on Western literary traditions and theories, like Jakobson’s formalism. Critics might argue this narrow scope fails to account for diverse literary traditions where “literariness” could be defined differently (Alexandrov 113).
• Challenges in Applying Findings to Diverse Literary Genres:
  • Alexandrov’s focus on structured, metaphor-rich texts may not easily extend to all literary forms, such as minimalist prose or genre fiction, which don’t necessarily rely on dense linguistic complexity. This may limit his theory’s applicability across the broad spectrum of literary styles.

Representative Quotations from “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“What relevance, if any, does this work have for those of us who study what is customarily called ‘literature’?” (p. 97)	Alexandrov opens by questioning the connection between cognitive science and literary studies, setting the stage for his exploration of how neuroscience might inform our understanding of literariness.
“A widespread…view today…is that ‘literature’ is a social construct or a reader’s projection and thus a mystification.” (p. 98)	This quotation highlights the modern skepticism about the concept of literature, emphasizing how contemporary theory often sees literature as socially and culturally constructed rather than intrinsic.
“The ‘poetic function’ projects the principle of equivalence from the axis of selection into the axis of combination.” (p. 102)	Citing Roman Jakobson, Alexandrov uses the poetic function to explain how literary language emphasizes structure and form, which can affect cognitive processing differently than everyday language.
“If certain kinds of structured discourse are shown to engage the human brain in ways that others do not, then there may be justification for…’literary.'” (p. 104)	Alexandrov suggests that if neuroscientific evidence shows distinct brain engagement with structured, literary language, it may support re-establishing “literariness” as a meaningful category, potentially giving literary theory a new empirical foundation.
“The right hemisphere quickly activates a loose or ‘coarse’ range of meanings associated with a word…while the left focuses on the most probable meaning.” (p. 113)	Here, Alexandrov explains how each hemisphere processes language differently, with the right handling broader, associative meanings and the left focusing on specific, contextually appropriate meanings—key for understanding how readers interpret layered literary language.
“Defamiliarization…can be seen as prefiguring Jakobson’s concept of the ‘poetic function.'” (p. 108)	Alexandrov links Viktor Shklovsky’s concept of defamiliarization with Jakobson’s poetic function, suggesting that making language strange or unfamiliar can deepen readers’ engagement, echoing Formalist theory.
“A literary work is one in which the poetic function dominates the other five but does not necessarily eliminate any of them.” (p. 102)	Alexandrov notes that literariness is marked by the dominance of the poetic function, but other language functions remain present, indicating that literary language is distinct in emphasis rather than fundamentally different.
“The success of literature professors in undermining ‘literature’ as a defining concept has resulted in their cutting off the academic branch they were sitting on.” (p. 99)	This critical observation suggests that by questioning the concept of “literature” so thoroughly, literary scholars have inadvertently weakened the foundations of their own field, leaving it vulnerable to challenges within academia.
“Beauty is information.” (p. 113)	Quoting Yuri Lotman, Alexandrov implies that literariness is not just about aesthetic pleasure but also about a densely layered structure of meaning, which cognitively enriches the reader’s experience.
“In short, a more prominent role for the right hemisphere would presumably cause an utterance to be structured differently.” (p. 107)	Alexandrov suggests that the right hemisphere’s associative processing might influence how literary language is structured, offering insights into how cognitive processing affects literary composition and style.

Suggested Readings: “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov

1. Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain.” Comparative Literature, vol. 59, no. 2, 2007, pp. 97–118. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40279363. Accessed 6 Nov. 2024.
2. McNAMER, SARAH. “The Literariness of Literature and the History of Emotion.” PMLA, vol. 130, no. 5, 2015, pp. 1433–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44017160. Accessed 6 Nov. 2024.
3. Zamora, Margarita. “Historicity and Literariness: Problems in the Literary Criticism of Spanish American Colonial Texts.” MLN, vol. 102, no. 2, 1987, pp. 334–46. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2905693. Accessed 6 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Factuality And Literariness” by Anders Pettersson

“Factuality And Literariness” by Anders Pettersson first appeared in Handbook of Narratology (2016) and examines the complex interplay between factual narratives and literary value. In this chapter, Pettersson explores why factual accounts are traditionally seen as lacking literary merit, yet posits that historical and contextual shifts in literary theory have nuanced this perception. He proposes a dual perspective: one that recognizes a stable literary aesthetic, traditionally favoring fictional, imaginative texts, and another that considers how cultural contexts affect which narratives are valued as literature. Pettersson argues that factual discourse, often defined by its reliance on verifiable truth and assertion, is distinct from literature, which invites imaginative engagement and subjective experience. However, he suggests that some factual works, such as Churchill’s speeches and Alexievich’s documentary narratives, may transcend their informational basis and attain a form of literariness by inviting emotional and reflective experiences. This work is significant in literary theory as it expands the boundaries of literariness, highlighting the fluidity of literary categories and the subjective nature of what is deemed “literary” over time.

Summary of “Factuality And Literariness” by Anders Pettersson

• Objective and Scope: Pettersson’s chapter discusses why factual narratives are often viewed as non-literary, while also examining how historical and cultural contexts can alter perceptions of literariness. He notes that a “fixed literary perspective” traditionally downplays the value of factual narratives in literature but suggests that “historical and contextual variability” (p. 602) impacts how we understand literature across time.
• Complexity of Factuality and Literariness: Pettersson identifies both factuality and literariness as complex concepts, noting that factual discourse involves assertions vouched for by the speaker or writer, which are aimed at conveying truth (p. 602). In contrast, literature often includes elements of imagination and subjective engagement, highlighting an inherent difference between these types of discourse.
• Literature as a Social Construct: He asserts that literature lacks a definitive, universally accepted essence; rather, “the concept of literature is a category introduced by individuals and societies” (p. 603) and varies widely in its application over time and across societies. Thus, what qualifies as literature has no “true manner” of classification dictated by cultural reality alone.
• Historical Shifts in the Concept of Literature: The idea of what constitutes literature has evolved, especially during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when “poetry, fictional prose, and drama” came to be viewed as central forms of literary art (p. 604). However, in earlier periods, genres such as oratory, history, and philosophy were also considered part of literature, reflecting a “wider conception of literature” (p. 605).
• Literariness Beyond Fictionality and Style: Pettersson downplays fictionality and stylistic craftsmanship as primary attributes of literariness, emphasizing instead the notion of “experience-inviting” discourse. He describes this as a use of language that allows readers to “reflect on, ponder over, and explore” representations, thus engaging with texts on a deeper, more personal level (p. 607).
• Factual Narratives with Literary Value: Despite the usual separation of factual discourse from literary value, Pettersson explains that factual texts can acquire literariness when they also invite significant experiences. Using Winston Churchill’s speech “Give Us the Tools” and Svetlana Alexievich’s The Unwomanly Face of War, he illustrates how factual narratives can resonate emotionally, inviting readers to “form a kind of cognitive and emotional perspective on wider issues” (p. 610).
• Cultural and Institutional Influences on Literariness: Pettersson notes that the perception of literariness often depends on institutional and cultural contexts, such as libraries, literary awards, and literary studies, which apply varying degrees of inclusiveness (p. 606). This flexibility can result in works of factual discourse being awarded literary recognition, even as libraries might classify the same works differently.
• Conclusion: Pettersson concludes by emphasizing the variability of the concept of literature, especially in Western culture. He suggests that “experience-inviting discourse” encapsulates a key quality of what contemporary society considers literary, but acknowledges that literariness remains a question of definition, context, and evolving cultural standards (p. 611).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Factuality And Literariness” by Anders Pettersson

Literary Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Reference/Explanation in Pettersson’s Work
Factuality	The quality of a narrative that asserts or presents information as verifiable truth.	Pettersson defines factual discourse as “dominated by assertion,” where the writer or speaker vouches for the truth of the statements (p. 602).
Literariness	The quality or characteristic that makes a text literary, often through imaginative or stylistic features.	Pettersson notes the challenge of defining literariness, suggesting it varies historically and culturally, shaped by societal standards (p. 602).
Experience-Inviting Discourse	Language use that encourages readers to engage in emotional and reflective experiences beyond the factual content.	He describes this as discourse that allows readers to “reflect on, ponder over, and explore” representations, fostering personal engagement (p. 607).
Social Construction of Literature	The idea that literature is not a fixed category but is shaped by cultural and historical contexts.	Literature is “a category introduced by individuals and societies for sorting texts” and lacks a “true manner” of distinguishing between literary and non-literary (p. 603).
Historical Variability of Literature	The concept that the boundaries of what is considered literature have shifted over time.	Pettersson discusses how genres like oratory, history, and philosophy were once central to literature but gradually narrowed to imaginative forms (p. 604).
Fictionality	The quality of being fictional or imaginary, often associated with literature but not essential to it.	Pettersson downplays fictionality as a defining characteristic of literature, arguing that non-fictional texts can also possess literary value if experience-inviting (p. 607).
Institutional Context	The role of cultural institutions, like libraries and literary awards, in defining and categorizing literature.	He explains that institutions apply varying standards, with literary awards sometimes recognizing factual works as literary based on inclusive criteria (p. 606).
Classical and Modern Literature	The contrast between early broad definitions of literature and modern narrowed conceptions focusing on imagination.	Originally, literature encompassed poetry, oratory, history, and philosophy; modern views align more with fiction, poetry, and drama (p. 604-605).
Assertion	The act of presenting statements as truth, a key feature of factual discourse.	Factual discourse is “dominated by assertion” where the author vouches for truth, as opposed to inviting imaginative interpretation (p. 602).
Core Idea of Literary Value	The central quality that defines literature as valuable, often subjective and influenced by cultural expectations.	Pettersson argues that literary value may center around the potential to invite meaningful, reflective experiences rather than strictly fictional or aesthetic elements (p. 607).

Contribution of “Factuality And Literariness” by Anders Pettersson to Literary Theory/Theories

Literary Theory	Contribution	References in Pettersson’s Work
Formalism	Challenges formalism by suggesting that literariness is not solely dependent on formal or stylistic elements but also on context and reader engagement with experience-inviting discourse.	Pettersson downplays the idea of “a ‘literary’ style or form as a really crucial element” of literature (p. 607).
Structuralism	Contrasts structuralist rigidity in defining literature by proposing that definitions of literariness vary by historical and social contexts, rejecting a universal literary structure.	He argues against a fixed definition of literature, emphasizing that it’s “socially and historically constructed” (p. 603).
Reception Theory	Aligns with Reception Theory by focusing on the reader’s engagement and the cognitive-emotional impact, or experience-inviting nature, of the text.	Pettersson describes experience-inviting discourse as inviting readers “to reflect on, ponder over” the representations (p. 607).
Historicism	Reinforces Historicism by examining how the concept of literariness has evolved over time, influenced by the cultural and social contexts of different eras.	He reviews the “historical alterability of the concept of the literary” and its varying criteria through the centuries (p. 603-604).
Poststructuralism	Engages with Poststructuralist views on language and meaning by emphasizing that literature is a fluid concept constructed by social and cultural influences, without inherent essence.	Pettersson argues that literature “is a category introduced by individuals and societies for sorting texts” rather than an inherent truth (p. 603).
Genre Theory	Broadens Genre Theory by exploring how factual narratives can cross into literary territory under certain criteria, blurring traditional genre boundaries.	He illustrates that “factual discourse” can achieve “more or less of a literary character” depending on context and intention (p. 611).
Reader-Response Theory	Supports Reader-Response Theory by emphasizing the active role of the reader in finding value and meaning within texts, particularly factual ones that engage on a personal level.	Pettersson’s idea of “experience-inviting discourse” emphasizes reader interaction over the inherent qualities of the text (p. 607).
Literary Canon Theory	Questions the fixed boundaries of the literary canon by examining how certain factual works, like those by Churchill and Alexievich, can be recognized as literary depending on institutional contexts.	He highlights how Nobel awards and library classifications apply “fairly strict criteria,” yet these vary significantly (p. 606).
Narratology	Contributes to Narratology by offering a nuanced approach to factual narratives, recognizing that narrativity and literariness can intersect in unexpected ways.	Pettersson’s exploration of factual narratives with “literary quality” suggests narrative structure alone doesn’t define literature (p. 611).

Examples of Critiques Through “Factuality And Literariness” by Anders Pettersson

Literary Work	Critique Through Pettersson’s Framework	Explanation
Winston Churchill’s “Give Us the Tools”	While primarily a factual speech, it achieves literary quality by inviting audiences to emotionally engage with Britain’s WWII resilience.	Pettersson suggests that factual narratives like Churchill’s speech can acquire literariness through “experience-inviting discourse” (p. 607).
Svetlana Alexievich’s The Unwomanly Face of War	Alexievich’s oral history combines factual testimonies with deeply personal perspectives, transforming historical facts into emotionally resonant literature.	Pettersson argues that factual works, though centered on assertion, can reach literary status when they invite reflective experiences (p. 611).
Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood	Capote’s blending of factual reporting with novelistic techniques creates a hybrid form that pushes traditional boundaries between fact and literature.	Pettersson’s critique would likely recognize Capote’s work as “factual discourse with literary quality,” crossing genre lines (p. 611).
Elie Wiesel’s Night	Wiesel’s factual recounting of the Holocaust invites readers to confront profound human suffering, balancing documentation with emotional depth.	By Pettersson’s standards, Night exemplifies how factual narratives can carry “experience-inviting” qualities, adding literary depth (p. 607).

Criticism Against “Factuality And Literariness” by Anders Pettersson

• Ambiguity in Defining Literariness: Pettersson’s concept of “experience-inviting discourse” as a marker of literariness can be criticized as overly vague, leaving too much room for subjective interpretation. This ambiguity may undermine his attempt to provide a clearer framework for what constitutes literary quality.
• Overreliance on Contextual Variability: By emphasizing historical and cultural variability, Pettersson’s framework may risk relativism, making it difficult to apply consistent standards across literary analysis. This could make his model less practical for distinguishing between literary and non-literary texts.
• Downplaying the Role of Fictionality and Style: Critics might argue that Pettersson undervalues fictionality and stylistic qualities, which have been traditionally central to defining literature. By minimizing these elements, he may neglect essential aspects that many believe contribute to the uniqueness and appeal of literature.
• Limited Scope in Western Contexts: Pettersson explicitly focuses on Western literary traditions, which could be seen as limiting. His framework may not effectively address literariness in non-Western cultures, where oral traditions, diverse narrative forms, and other cultural factors play significant roles in defining literature.
• Insufficient Engagement with Alternative Literary Theories: Some may argue that Pettersson does not sufficiently address established theories like Formalism, Structuralism, or Poststructuralism, potentially weakening his position by not engaging in a more detailed critique of these perspectives.
• Potential for Over-Expansion of the Literary Canon: Pettersson’s inclusive approach could lead to an over-expansion of the literary canon, where nearly any factual discourse could be deemed literary. This could dilute the concept of literariness, making it challenging to maintain meaningful distinctions between different types of discourse.

Representative Quotations from “Factuality And Literariness” by Anders Pettersson with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The concept of literature is a category introduced by individuals and societies for sorting texts…” (p. 603)	Pettersson emphasizes that literature is a social construct, shaped by collective cultural definitions rather than intrinsic qualities.
“The distinction between what is to be considered literature and what not is socially and historically constructed.” (p. 603)	This highlights the fluidity of literary categorization, implying that what counts as literature varies over time and by context.
“I will take it for granted that the distinction…has been applied in different ways and for different purposes.” (p. 603)	Pettersson acknowledges that literature’s boundaries are flexible and have served different roles across historical periods.
“Experience-inviting use of language as a particularly important element in our current ideas about what constitutes the literary.” (p. 607)	He introduces “experience-inviting” discourse as a central criterion for literariness, focusing on emotional and cognitive engagement.
“Factual discourse… is dominated by assertion… the speaker or writer vouches for the truth.” (p. 602)	Here, Pettersson defines factual discourse as truth-claiming, which contrasts with literature’s imaginative and reflective qualities.
“Literature, like all human utterance, comes with a presumption of relevance to the addressee.” (p. 607)	He suggests that literature is inherently meant to engage readers, providing relevance beyond mere information.
“Nothing prevents factual discourse from also entertaining the ambition to incite… a literary character.” (p. 611)	Pettersson argues that factual works can achieve literary value if they invite broader reflections, blurring traditional genre lines.
“I have consistently confined myself to Western culture.” (p. 611)	This limitation acknowledges that his conclusions may not apply universally, especially in non-Western literary traditions.
“Today, the general sentiment in the humanities is far more relativistic…” (p. 605)	He observes that contemporary literary studies are increasingly open to diverse interpretations, moving away from strict definitions.
“A more liberal understanding of what is literary comes into play in the presentation of literary awards…” (p. 606)	Pettersson notes that institutions like literary awards often use broader criteria for literariness, impacting what is considered literary.

Suggested Readings: “Factuality And Literariness” by Anders Pettersson

1. Pettersson, Anders. “Narrative Factuality: A Handbook.” In Narrative Factuality: A Handbook, edited by Monika Fludernik and Marie-Laure Ryan, 601-612. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2020.
2. Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain.” Comparative Literature, vol. 59, no. 2, 2007, pp. 97–118. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40279363. Accessed 6 Nov. 2024.
3. McNAMER, SARAH. “The Literariness of Literature and the History of Emotion.” PMLA, vol. 130, no. 5, 2015, pp. 1433–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44017160. Accessed 6 Nov. 2024.
4. Ramchand, Kenneth. “West Indian Literary History: Literariness, Orality and Periodization.” Callaloo, no. 34, 1988, pp. 95–110. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2931112. Accessed 6 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc

“On Reading and Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc first appeared in 2022 in the journal SRAZ, contributing a critical discourse to the ongoing evolution of literary theory. Dolenc’s work re-evaluates the significance of literariness, especially as it is framed by the philosophies of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze. She addresses the dynamic and often conflicting definitions of “literariness,” a concept foundational to understanding what makes a text “literary.” By examining how Derrida’s deconstructive reading and Deleuze’s event-based approach open possibilities for interpreting literariness, Dolenc suggests a shift away from rigid institutional definitions of literature. Her study implies that reading should move beyond merely verifying theoretical postulates and instead approach the text as a unique linguistic event. This reconceptualization challenges literary theory to continuously redefine its purpose, given the unsettled nature of what constitutes “literary” work, thus keeping theory itself in a state of becoming. This work is pivotal for its contribution to literary scholarship, as it underscores the necessity of theory to adapt and embrace the inherent indeterminacies within literary texts, expanding the discourse on how literature can be understood and valued within academia.

Summary of “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc

• Literary Theory’s Evolution and Limitations
  Barbara Dolenc examines the concept of literariness and its foundational role in literary theory, particularly through the lens of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze. She addresses how traditional, institutionalized literary theory often struggles with defining its core objectives, partly due to the varying and conflicting approaches within the field. According to Dolenc, the complexity of literariness challenges literary theory’s sustainability, highlighting an inherent tension in defining “what is literature” amidst a “stiff competition” of theories (Dolenc, 2022, p. 35).
• The Concept of Literariness
  Dolenc delves into the genealogy of literariness, referencing Roman Jakobson’s view that “the subject of literary scholarship is not literature but literariness,” which underscores the search for what inherently makes a work literary. This focus, rooted in Russian formalism and structuralism, aims to isolate literariness from general aesthetics or philosophy, legitimizing literary study through specific methodologies (Jakobson, 1997, p. 179; Dolenc, 2022, p. 36). However, the latter half of the 20th century, influenced by deconstruction, questioned literary theory’s authority to define literature’s essence, suggesting that “literary theories cannot seem to agree” on fundamental principles (Solar, 2014, p. 30).
• Deconstruction and the Literary Text
  The work discusses Derrida’s deconstructive perspective, which reframes literariness not as an intrinsic property of the text but as a construct of the “experience of literature.” Derrida insists that literature is defined through its openness to interpretation and connection to other discourses, challenging readers to see literariness as “a correlative of an intentional relation to the text” that evolves with each reading (Derrida, 1992b, p. 45; Dolenc, 2022, p. 38). This iterative and context-sensitive approach to texts allows literature to resist definitive categorization within the “literary institution.”
• Deleuze’s Sense of Event and Literariness
  Dolenc also explores Deleuze’s notion of “event” as a key component of literariness, viewing literature as a “bloc of sensations,” inherently dynamic and always in a state of “becoming” through the reader’s interaction. This idea positions literature as an experience of constantly shifting interpretations, produced rather than discovered, and driven by a “logic of inventing a style in literature” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994, p. 164; Dolenc, 2022, p. 39). According to Deleuze, the literary text, through its unique style and syntax, creates a “foreign language within language,” offering an eventful space for continuous and limitless reading.
• Redefining Literary Theory
  Ultimately, Dolenc calls for a literary theory that acknowledges its own instability and capacity for “deconstruction in aporetic experience,” which resists predefined methods and embraces the undecidable nature of literariness (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41). She argues that a renewed literary theory would prioritize the text’s singularity, focusing on how each reading becomes an event in itself, rather than reducing it to a fixed methodological framework. This perspective asserts that the potential of literary theory lies in its openness to reformation, embracing each reading as a unique encounter with the “unreadable” aspects of literariness.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc

Term/Concept	Definition	Explanation in Context
Literariness	The quality that makes a text “literary”; introduced by Roman Jakobson as “that which makes of a given work a work of literature.”	Dolenc examines literariness as a central focus in literary theory, suggesting that it distinguishes literary texts from non-literary ones through their unique qualities.
Deconstruction	A philosophical approach, primarily developed by Jacques Derrida, that critiques the notion of fixed meaning and emphasizes the fluidity of interpretation.	Dolenc explores how deconstruction questions the foundations of literariness, challenging the idea of static literary definitions and encouraging interpretive openness.
Event	A concept by Deleuze, referring to the occurrence within language that creates meaning; it is not an essence but an effect of language in action.	Dolenc suggests that literariness is an “event” that happens in the act of reading, where meaning arises through dynamic interaction with the text rather than static elements.
Iterability	The capacity for a text to be read and reinterpreted in different contexts, central to Derrida’s concept of textuality.	Dolenc argues that iterability allows literary texts to transcend their original contexts, providing a basis for continuous and evolving interpretations.
Singularity	The unique, one-time occurrence or characteristic of a text or reading experience.	For Dolenc, each reading is a singular experience, a unique encounter with the text that cannot be replicated or standardized.
Institutionalization	The process by which theories and approaches become formalized and accepted within academic structures.	Dolenc critiques how institutionalized literary theory can sometimes limit the scope of interpretation, creating rigid frameworks around what constitutes “literary theory.”
Interdisciplinarity	Integrating methods or insights from multiple academic disciplines to enrich understanding.	Dolenc highlights interdisciplinary approaches, particularly through Derrida and Deleuze’s philosophies, to address the multifaceted nature of literariness.
Aporia	A state of puzzlement or unresolved contradiction, especially relevant in deconstructive readings.	Dolenc sees literary theory in an “aporetic” state, suggesting that its inherent contradictions provide an impetus for ongoing theoretical exploration and re-evaluation.
Mimetologism	Derrida’s term related to the concept of mimesis, critiquing representations of reality as inherently limited or flawed.	Dolenc uses mimetologism to discuss how literary theory navigates the balance between reflecting “truth” and embracing interpretation beyond mere replication of reality.
Countersignature	The act of responding to a text in a way that acknowledges its singular event while creating a new, unique response.	Dolenc suggests that reading and interpretation are countersignatures, where each reading reaffirms and uniquely engages with the text.
Foreign Language within Language	The transformation of language to convey new meanings within an existing language framework, as described by Deleuze.	In the context of literary texts, Dolenc argues that the creation of new syntaxes or expressions within language reflects a becoming-other, creating layers of meaning.
Canon	A collection of works considered authoritative or representative in a given field.	Dolenc refers to the canon as a traditional way to define literariness, critiquing its limitations in recognizing the evolving nature of what constitutes literature.
Formalism	An approach to literary analysis that emphasizes structural elements of the text rather than contextual factors like authorial intent or historical setting.	Dolenc discusses formalism’s focus on the “aesthetic function” and literariness, noting its influence on literary theory despite its limitations.

Contribution of “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Deconstruction
   Dolenc extends Derrida’s principles of deconstruction to argue that literariness itself resists definitive categorization, asserting that literature is best understood as an “experience” rather than an essence. Through deconstruction, she challenges the institutionalized structure of literary theory, arguing that fixed methodologies limit the interpretive possibilities of texts. Instead, deconstruction enables a fluid, open-ended reading that values the singularity and unique event of each text (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41; Derrida, 1992b, p. 45).
2. Formalism and Russian Formalism
   Building on the Russian Formalists’ notion of literariness, particularly Roman Jakobson’s idea that literariness is “that which makes of a given work a work of literature,” Dolenc critiques the limitations of purely formalist approaches. She acknowledges the value of formalism’s focus on intrinsic elements within the text but critiques its inadequacy in addressing the dynamic interaction between text and reader. Dolenc’s perspective thus challenges formalism to accommodate the shifting and relational aspects of literariness (Jakobson, 1997, p. 179; Dolenc, 2022, p. 36).
3. Reader-Response Theory
   Dolenc’s emphasis on the role of the reader aligns with reader-response theory, which sees meaning as co-created through the act of reading. She argues that literariness is realized in the “intentional relation to the text,” highlighting the reader’s active role in creating meaning. This perspective reinforces the idea that literariness is not a fixed property but an event occurring through each unique engagement with the text, suggesting a reorientation of literary theory to foreground the reader’s interpretive experience (Dolenc, 2022, p. 38; Derrida, 1992b, p. 44).
4. Post-Structuralism and the Concept of Iterability
   Dolenc engages with Derrida’s concept of iterability, or the idea that a text can be detached from its original context and reinterpreted infinitely. By supporting the iterative nature of texts, Dolenc situates her argument within post-structuralism, which recognizes the openness of texts to various interpretations. Her focus on iterability highlights that literariness is not confined to the text’s original context, but instead gains significance through its potential for reinterpretation and transformation across contexts (Dolenc, 2022, p. 39; Derrida, 1982, p. 315).
5. Interdisciplinary Approaches and Cultural Studies
   Dolenc’s work advocates for an interdisciplinary approach, considering insights from philosophy, linguistics, and cultural studies. She argues that literary theory can benefit from embracing interdisciplinary methodologies, especially given how theories from Derrida and Deleuze challenge traditional literary norms. This openness to other fields reflects the evolving landscape of literary studies, where cultural studies, in particular, have reshaped literary theory to include broader social, ideological, and cultural contexts (Dolenc, 2022, p. 36).
6. Aporia and Institutional Critique
   Reflecting Derrida’s concept of aporia, or unresolved contradictions, Dolenc critiques the institutionalized literary theory for limiting interpretive possibilities by imposing rigid structures. She argues that literary theory’s current state, caught in an “aporetic experience of re-evaluation,” needs to evolve by embracing the uncertainties of interpretation rather than adhering to standardized methodologies. This perspective aligns with the critique of institutionalized literary studies and supports a more flexible, adaptive theoretical approach (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41; Derrida, 1981a, p. 70).
7. Theories of the Literary Canon
   Dolenc’s critique of canonical approaches in literary theory questions the traditional selection of texts deemed “literary” based on historical or aesthetic conventions. Her discussion opens up the canon to texts that may challenge or expand definitions of literariness, supporting a move toward inclusivity and responsiveness to contemporary cultural shifts. This re-evaluation encourages literary theory to reconsider its criteria for canon formation, enabling new texts and interpretations to gain recognition (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41).

Examples of Critiques Through “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc

Literary Work	Dolenc’s Theoretical Perspective	Example Critique
Hamlet by William Shakespeare	Deconstruction & Iterability: Dolenc emphasizes Derrida’s notion of iterability, suggesting that a text’s meaning evolves with each reading and context.	Through Dolenc’s lens, Hamlet is not confined to any single interpretation but is perpetually open to re-interpretation. Each reading may emphasize different aspects—such as existential questions, political implications, or psychological depth—highlighting the play’s “iterative structure” (Derrida, 1982, p. 315).
To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf	Reader-Response Theory & Event of Reading: Dolenc values the reader’s role in creating meaning, positioning the reading experience as an “event” where literariness is realized.	Through Dolenc’s framework, To the Lighthouse becomes a literary “event,” as each reader’s unique experience constructs different meanings, whether focusing on themes of memory, time, or identity. Woolf’s text thus invites the reader to engage actively, making the text’s literariness contingent on this engagement (Dolenc, 2022, p. 38).
Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett	Aporia & Unresolved Meaning: Dolenc’s approach incorporates Derrida’s idea of aporia, suggesting that unresolved questions can be integral to a text’s literariness.	Waiting for Godot exemplifies an aporetic text through its cyclical dialogue and lack of resolution. Dolenc’s approach would critique the play’s deliberate ambiguity, asserting that its meaning is found within the tension of its unanswered questions, challenging readers to engage with its existential uncertainties (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41).
The Waste Land by T.S. Eliot	Interdisciplinarity & Cultural Studies: Dolenc advocates for an interdisciplinary approach, allowing multiple contexts and discourses to inform a text’s literariness.	Applying Dolenc’s perspective, The Waste Land can be analyzed as a “bloc of sensations,” drawing on diverse cultural, historical, and religious references. This approach allows readers to interpret Eliot’s fragmented style and layered allusions as a reflection of cultural disintegration, making the poem an event in cultural critique (Deleuze/Guattari, 1994, p. 164).

Criticism Against “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc

• Overemphasis on Deconstruction
  Critics may argue that Dolenc’s heavy reliance on Derridean deconstruction limits her analysis, potentially overshadowing other valuable theoretical approaches. By focusing mainly on deconstruction and iterability, the text might neglect more concrete methods that could enhance practical literary analysis.
• Lack of Practical Application
  Dolenc’s theoretical discussions on literariness as an “event” or “experience” may feel abstract and difficult to apply practically. Critics might contend that her approach lacks clear guidelines or frameworks for real-world literary analysis, making it challenging for students or scholars seeking actionable insights.
• Marginalization of Traditional Literary Theory
  By critiquing formalist and canonical approaches, Dolenc risks sidelining established literary theories that many believe still hold relevance. Some may argue that her approach disregards the value of formalism, structuralism, and other traditional frameworks that continue to be instrumental in literary studies.
• Potential for Relativism
  Dolenc’s embrace of an open, reader-centered interpretation may lead to an “anything goes” mentality, where interpretations lack stability or accountability. This perspective could risk reducing literary theory to a subjective exercise, weakening its rigor and making it harder to establish any shared, objective understanding of texts.
• Challenges in Institutional Contexts
  Her critique of institutionalized literary theory might be seen as impractical, given that academic frameworks require structure and methodology. Critics could argue that Dolenc’s ideal of a continuously evolving theory disregards the need for standardized practices in educational settings, potentially complicating the teaching and assessment of literature.

Representative Quotations from “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Literariness is not a natural essence, an intrinsic property of the text.” (Derrida 1992b: 44)	Dolenc underscores that literariness does not inherently reside within a text itself but emerges from the interpretive act of reading, challenging static or essentialist views of what constitutes “literary” in a work.
“The subject of literary scholarship is not literature but literariness.” (Jakobson, 1997, p. 179)	Dolenc references Jakobson to highlight that literary studies should focus on the distinctive qualities that make a work “literary,” suggesting that literariness itself, rather than the text alone, is the true subject of literary theory.
“Theory’s answer is still, of course, a reading.” (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41)	For Dolenc, literary theory remains tied to the act of reading, implying that each interpretive engagement with a text reaffirms theory’s purpose and prevents it from becoming static or overly methodological.
“Deconstruction…does not settle for methodical procedures but opens up a passageway.” (Derrida, 1992a, p. 337)	Dolenc uses Derrida’s description of deconstruction to emphasize its capacity to disrupt and redefine fixed interpretive methods, enabling literary theory to be flexible and inventive rather than rigid and prescriptive.
“Is it necessary to read works by Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze… given that the theory has been institutionalized?”	Dolenc questions whether literary theory benefits from returning to Derrida and Deleuze, critiquing the constraints that institutionalized approaches place on theoretical innovation and the potential enrichment these thinkers bring to theory.
“If the imperative of literary theory is reading literary texts, the state of undecidability is a challenge.” (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41)	Dolenc posits that literary theory must embrace the inherent ambiguities in reading, which challenges the discipline to evolve and continually question the limitations and possibilities of interpretation.
“The event of the literary text happens in reading.” (Dolenc, 2022, p. 38)	This statement reflects Dolenc’s view that literariness arises dynamically during the act of reading, emphasizing that the literary text is not a static object but a participatory event created through interpretation.
“It is possible to re-evaluate the objectives and the purpose of a theoretical approach to a literary text.”	Dolenc advocates for a continual reassessment of literary theory’s goals, particularly as theories like deconstruction and reader-response challenge conventional methodologies and encourage more adaptable frameworks.
“Formal analysis belongs to the order of calculable guarantees and decidable evidence.” (Derrida, 2005, p. 152)	Dolenc echoes Derrida’s critique of formal analysis, suggesting that literary theory should move beyond rigid, calculable approaches that limit interpretive richness and often ignore the evolving nature of literariness.
“Writing is always incomplete, always in the midst of being formed.” (Deleuze, 1998, p. 1)	Through Deleuze’s words, Dolenc emphasizes the fluid and ongoing nature of writing and literature, presenting literary texts as unfinished and perpetually open to interpretation, in contrast to finalized or definitive readings.

Suggested Readings: “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc

1. Dolenc, Barbara. “On reading and literariness: The (im) possibility of literary theory.” Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia: Revue publiée par les Sections romane, italienne et anglaise de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Zagreb 67 (2022): 35-42.
2. Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain.” Comparative Literature, vol. 59, no. 2, 2007, pp. 97–118. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40279363. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.
3. Zamora, Margarita. “Historicity and Literariness: Problems in the Literary Criticism of Spanish American Colonial Texts.” MLN, vol. 102, no. 2, 1987, pp. 334–46. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2905693. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.
4. McNAMER, SARAH. “The Literariness of Literature and the History of Emotion.” PMLA, vol. 130, no. 5, 2015, pp. 1433–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44017160. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán

“Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán first appeared in 1999, as part of the scholarly discourse around literary theory and its intersections with literary expression. Presented during the “Literatures of Theory” conference at Janus Pannonius University, Kálmán’s work delves into the fundamental ambiguity between literature and theory, questioning if and how theoretical texts can be read as literary works and vice versa. Kálmán explores this boundary by examining the stylistic and rhetorical features that could attribute a sense of “literariness” to theoretical discourse. His approach is notably inspired by Russian Formalism’s concept of literariness (“literaturnost”) but extends beyond by acknowledging the paradoxes that this theoretical-literary interplay evokes. Through examples such as Roland Barthes’s “Systeme de la Mode” and Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s “Loose Canons,” Kálmán illustrates the spectrum where theoretical texts can possess literary qualities and literary texts can engage with theoretical concerns. The importance of Kálmán’s insights lies in his assertion that analyzing the literary techniques in theoretical writing—such as metaphor, narrative form, and rhetorical structures—can reveal new dimensions of understanding. This work highlights the layered complexity in categorizing texts strictly as literary or theoretical and emphasizes that readers’ perceptions and interpretative frameworks play a significant role in such classifications.

Summary of “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán

• Conceptual Tension between Literature and Theory: Kálmán discusses the unavoidable “conceptual essentialism or fundamentalism” that arises when distinguishing between literature and theory. He suggests that boundaries exist but are often blurred, with theoretical texts possessing “textual, tropical or generic” qualities that can give them a literary essence.
• Literariness as a Construct: Drawing from Russian Formalism’s concept of literaturnost (literariness), Kálmán posits that while literariness is a “disqualified concept,” it still offers valuable insights. He proposes exploring “several levels of literariness” in theoretical texts, despite the lack of a definitive “core” of what makes a text literary.
• Blurred Boundaries in Theoretical Texts: Kálmán explores how certain theoretical works embody literary traits, suggesting that both literary and theoretical texts are crafted in a manner that may “deconstruct the distinction” between the two.
• Case Studies of Literary-Theoretical Texts: Using Roland Barthes’s “Systeme de la Mode” and Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s “Loose Canons” as examples, Kálmán shows how seemingly theoretical texts employ “highly poetized and rhetorized” language or narrative devices, suggesting a literary nature within theoretical discourse.
• Influence of Interpretative Traditions: Kálmán emphasizes the role of readers’ expectations and scholarly conventions in defining a text’s status, arguing that sometimes “it is the history of their interpretation, the tradition of understanding” that grants theoretical value to certain literary texts.
• Multiplicity of Reading Conventions: The paper examines the interpretative flexibility that allows texts like Nietzsche or Derrida’s works to be viewed through both literary and theoretical lenses. Kálmán highlights the “simultaneous function” of different reading conventions when engaging with such works.
• Exploration of Genre and Stylistic Choices in Theory: Kálmán points out the presence of genre elements—such as “dialogue in Plato or Diderot” or “lyrical structures in Barthes”—in theoretical texts, underscoring how these choices affect their reception as either literary or academic works.
• Challenges of Identifying Literariness: Kálmán notes the inherent challenges in categorizing a text as literary or theoretical, acknowledging that “we can never find the gist of literariness” due to the subjective nature of interpretation and the communicative context of each reading.
• Educational and Scholarly Implications: Lastly, Kálmán reflects on how emphasizing the literary nature of theoretical texts in academic settings may lead students to adopt more “subjective accounts” or “literary intertextuality” in their analyses, impacting traditional literary studies.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán

Literary Term/Concept	Description	Significance in “Literariness of Theory”
Literariness (Literaturnost)	A concept from Russian Formalism referring to the qualities that make a text “literary” as opposed to other forms of writing.	Kálmán builds upon this concept to analyze theoretical texts for “literary” characteristics, suggesting that theory can adopt literary elements without becoming strictly “literature.” He critiques the disqualification of this term yet argues for its usefulness in understanding theoretical discourse.
Conceptual Essentialism	The philosophical tendency to define concepts like “literature” or “theory” with inherent, unchanging boundaries.	Kálmán argues that this tendency limits understanding, as these boundaries are often blurred in practice. He suggests that it is more productive to acknowledge the fluidity between literature and theory rather than adhering to strict definitions.
Textual Tropes	Figurative or rhetorical devices, such as metaphors or irony, that are typically associated with literary texts.	Kálmán explores how theoretical texts may employ these tropes, intentionally or otherwise, to engage readers, and argues that these tropes can lend a literary quality to theoretical writing, as seen in Barthes’s use of rhetorical style.
Intertextuality	The relationship between texts, where one text references or builds upon the ideas or style of another.	Kálmán notes the role of intertextuality in blending literature with theory, as theoretical texts often reference literary works (e.g., Derrida’s engagement with Nietzsche). He suggests that intertextual references can enrich theoretical texts, lending them layers traditionally associated with literature.
Genre Blurring	The merging or crossover of genres, such as the overlap between narrative, lyrical, and theoretical forms.	Kálmán highlights this concept by pointing to works like Gates’s “Loose Canons” and Barthes’s “Systeme de la Mode”, which incorporate narrative or poetic elements within theoretical arguments, challenging clear genre distinctions and enhancing the text’s complexity.
Narrative Structures	Traditional storytelling techniques, including plot, character, and temporality, typically found in literary texts.	Kálmán suggests that theoretical texts sometimes adopt narrative structures, making them more engaging and possibly literary. He examines whether historical narratives (like those of Tacitus) can be seen as literary due to their narrative qualities, despite being classified as non-literary by conventional standards.
Metaphorical Language	The use of metaphor to express ideas indirectly or symbolically, often found in poetic and literary language.	Kálmán identifies metaphor as a feature in theoretical texts that adds a literary dimension, citing examples where theorists, such as Hayden White, use metaphorical language, which shapes readers’ perceptions and interpretations in ways similar to literature.
Rhetorical Devices	Techniques of persuasion and emphasis, such as repetition, irony, and rhetorical questions, often used in literary writing.	Kálmán discusses how rhetorical devices can render theoretical texts literary in feel. Barthes’s use of “highly poetized and rhetorized paragraphs” exemplifies this, demonstrating how rhetorical style can make theoretical discourse appear literary.
Aestheticism of Theory	The notion that theoretical writing can be appreciated for its aesthetic or artistic qualities, not just its intellectual content.	Kálmán raises this concept to discuss how theoretical texts may be valued similarly to literature for their style, language, and presentation, citing examples of theorists like Barthes and Sontag, whose works are often seen as both intellectually and aesthetically enriching.
Reception Theory	A framework that focuses on the reader’s role in interpreting a text, based on their expectations and interpretive history.	Kálmán emphasizes that a text’s classification as literary or theoretical can be influenced by “the history of interpretation” and readers’ perceptions. He highlights how interpretive traditions shape our understanding of texts like Borges’s “Pierre Ménard”, demonstrating how reception can impact a text’s categorization.
Irony	A rhetorical device where meaning is conveyed through contradiction or contrast, often to highlight complexity or ambiguity.	Kálmán discusses irony as a tool in theoretical discourse that can blur the line between literature and theory. He mentions Berel Lang’s ironic take on reading a telephone book as literary, which illustrates how irony can challenge or subvert conventional classifications of texts.

Contribution of “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Russian Formalism and Literariness
   Kálmán revives and reinterprets the Russian Formalist concept of literariness (literaturnost’), arguing that theoretical texts can exhibit characteristics traditionally associated with literature. By suggesting that theoretical writing can be analyzed for “several levels of literariness”, Kálmán provides a framework where formalist concepts, such as textual structure and stylistic devices, can be applied to non-literary works, broadening the scope of Russian Formalism.
2. Structuralism and Semiotics
   Through his discussion of Roland Barthes’s “Systeme de la Mode”, Kálmán contributes to structuralist and semiotic theories by showing how theoretical works can adopt structural literary forms. Barthes, a key figure in structuralism, is noted for his “long, sarmentose sentences” and “catalogues” that give his theoretical work a narrative-like flow. This suggests that structuralist approaches to meaning-making are themselves open to literary interpretation, expanding the way we view semiotic and structuralist texts as narrative-like constructs.
3. Deconstruction and Derridean Influence
   Kálmán’s work echoes Derrida’s deconstruction by challenging the essentialist binary of literature vs. theory. He notes that theoretical texts often blur the “distinction between discourses,” suggesting an inherent “deconstructive” quality within certain theoretical works. This aligns with Derrida’s view that textual meaning is always deferred and context-dependent, implying that the boundary between literary and theoretical texts is fluid and interpretively constructed.
4. Reception Theory and Reader-Response
   By highlighting the “history of interpretation” and “tradition of understanding” in how we classify texts, Kálmán’s work contributes to Reception Theory. He argues that our perception of a text as literary or theoretical is influenced by “reading conventions” and the interpretive history surrounding it. This aligns with Reception Theory, which asserts that meaning is created by the reader, not fixed within the text. Kálmán’s examples, such as Borges’s “Pierre Ménard”, reinforce the idea that reader perception plays a central role in determining a text’s classification.
5. Intertextuality and Dialogism
   Kálmán’s notion that theoretical texts incorporate “intertextual references” resonates with Bakhtin’s dialogism, where all texts are viewed as interconnected dialogues with other texts. By examining how theoretical texts reference literary works and genres (e.g., Nietzsche and Derrida), Kálmán illustrates the dialogic nature of theory and its dependence on other texts for meaning, suggesting that theoretical texts are not isolated but part of a broader literary conversation.
6. Aesthetic Theory and the Essay Tradition
   Kálmán explores the aesthetic dimension of theoretical writing, drawing on the essay tradition from Montaigne to Barthes. By examining the “artistic qualities” in theoretical texts, he contributes to Aesthetic Theory, positing that theory can be appreciated not only for intellectual content but also for form and beauty. This aligns theoretical discourse with the aesthetic focus of literature, allowing theoretical works to be seen as stylistically sophisticated artifacts.
7. Postmodernism and Genre Blurring
   Kálmán’s analysis aligns with postmodernism, especially its skepticism toward rigid genre classifications. By discussing how texts like Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s “Canon Confidential” can be both a “theoretical work” and a “pastime entertainment”, he supports a postmodern view that challenges the separation of high and low culture, theory and fiction, and narrative and exposition, encouraging a more integrated understanding of textual forms.

Examples of Critiques Through “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán

Literary Work	Critique through “Literariness of Theory”	Explanation of Kálmán’s Approach
Roland Barthes’s “Systeme de la Mode”	Kálmán argues that Barthes’s text exhibits literary qualities such as “long, sarmentose sentences,” use of colons and semi-colons, and cataloguing, which lend it a poetic, almost narrative structure.**	Kálmán’s critique highlights the blurred line between literature and theory, suggesting that Barthes’s theoretical writing incorporates stylistic and rhetorical elements that make it readable as a literary text. By examining Barthes’s language and structure, Kálmán shows that theoretical texts can adopt characteristics of narrative and poetic forms.
Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s “Canon Confidential”	Kálmán examines Gates’s work as a detective story that parodies academic canon debates. He notes the intertextual references to Raymond Chandler and the use of first-person narrative typical of detective fiction.	Through this example, Kálmán illustrates genre blending in theoretical texts. Gates’s text is both a reflection on canon formation and an engaging story, suggesting that theoretical arguments can be constructed within familiar literary genres, challenging the strict division between fiction and academic discourse.
Borges’s “Pierre Ménard, Author of the Quixote”	Kálmán uses Borges’s story to show how theoretical ideas can be embedded in fiction, arguing that the story explores interpretive history and intertextuality.	By examining Borges’s fictional engagement with literary theory, Kálmán demonstrates the dialogic relationship between literature and theory. The story’s focus on authorship and interpretation aligns with theoretical questions, revealing how fiction can serve as a medium for philosophical and theoretical reflection.
Susan Sontag’s “Against Interpretation”	Kálmán suggests that Sontag’s essay, while a piece of criticism, possesses an aesthetic and rhetorical style that makes it engaging as a literary text. The lyrical prose in her essay elevates it beyond standard criticism.	Through Sontag’s work, Kálmán explores the aesthetic potential in critical writing. He argues that Sontag’s style demonstrates how essays can be both intellectually rigorous and artistically compelling, thus challenging the boundaries of literary theory by framing criticism itself as an art form.

Criticism Against “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán

• Ambiguity in Defining Literariness: Kálmán’s exploration relies on the concept of “literariness” from Russian Formalism, which he acknowledges as “disqualified.” Critics argue that this undefined and ambiguous concept weakens his analysis, making it difficult to establish a clear distinction between literary and theoretical elements.
• Overextension of Literary Qualities to Theory: Kálmán’s attempt to find literary qualities in theoretical texts is sometimes seen as forced or overstretched. Some critics suggest that not all rhetorical or structural elements in theory equate to literariness and that his approach may exaggerate the artistic aspects of theoretical writing.
• Lack of Practical Application or Typology: Although Kálmán proposes that theoretical texts can be systematically reviewed for their literary traits, he does not offer a concrete typology or framework to evaluate these traits consistently. This omission limits the practical applicability of his ideas, leaving readers without a clear method for analysis.
• Potential Undermining of Theoretical Rigor: By emphasizing aesthetic and stylistic aspects in theoretical works, Kálmán risks downplaying the primary intellectual and logical functions of theory. Critics argue that this approach may lead to the perception that theory is judged more on style than on substantive content or argumentative rigor.
• Subjectivity in Reader Reception: Kálmán’s argument heavily relies on reader-response perspectives, suggesting that reader interpretation determines whether a text is perceived as literary or theoretical. This subjective approach may undermine the objective analysis of texts, as it implies that categorization is more dependent on personal perception than textual qualities.
• Challenges to Academic Boundaries: Kálmán’s blurring of literature and theory has faced criticism for potentially eroding academic boundaries. Some scholars argue that distinct disciplines serve important purposes, and merging them could dilute the unique methodologies and epistemological frameworks of both literary and theoretical studies.

Representative Quotations from “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The very terms literature and theory cannot avoid the conceptual essentialism or fundamentalism…”	Kálmán critiques the inherent essentialism in defining literature and theory as separate entities. This statement introduces his argument about the blurred boundaries and the complexity in distinguishing between literary and theoretical texts.
“There may be a systematic review of how a theoretical text is formed in order to be taken as a more or less literary one.”	Here, Kálmán proposes the possibility of systematically analyzing theoretical texts for literary qualities, suggesting a new approach to literary theory that considers aesthetics and style alongside intellectual content.
“The concept of literariness (literaturnost’) remains useful even if disqualified.”	Despite acknowledging its disqualification, Kálmán finds value in the Russian Formalist concept of literariness, using it to explore literary qualities in theoretical texts, thus reinterpreting an old concept for contemporary analysis.
“The reader… always has some theories of what he or she is up to with his or her reading activity.”	This reflects Kálmán’s engagement with reception theory, emphasizing that readers bring interpretive frameworks that influence their experience and understanding of texts, bridging literary and theoretical interpretations.
“Do not take this sentence too seriously; here I must make a number of qualifications.”	Kálmán’s ironic tone reveals his awareness of the complexity and limitations of his own argument, acknowledging that the boundaries between literature and theory are more nuanced and require qualifications.
“The idea rests on the disqualified concept of Russian Formalism of literariness.”	Kálmán reiterates the foundation of his argument, connecting his exploration to the Russian Formalist notion of literariness, which focuses on stylistic and structural elements that distinguish literary texts from other forms of writing.
“We could perhaps take Gates’s funny story as nothing more than a funny story, a pastime entertainment of an academic.”	This quotation highlights Kálmán’s perspective on genre blending, where even seemingly simple or humorous texts can hold theoretical significance, challenging the notion that theory must be serious or detached from literary techniques.
“All we can perhaps do is to give account of our own conventions.”	Here, Kálmán reflects on the subjective nature of literary analysis, suggesting that our interpretations are influenced by personal or cultural conventions rather than an objective evaluation of a text’s qualities.
“Theoretical texts can be literary in form without abandoning their intellectual rigor.”	Kálmán argues that theory does not lose its validity or depth by adopting literary characteristics, presenting a balanced view that values both form and substance in theoretical discourse.
“It may become apparent that Barthes’ sentences are extremely long… the terms written with capitals dangerously resemble the characters of a story.”	This description of Barthes’s style exemplifies Kálmán’s point that certain theoretical texts exhibit stylistic features of literary texts, illustrating the potential for narrative or character-like qualities in theoretical writing.

Suggested Readings: “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán

1. Jauss, Hans Robert, and Elizabeth Benzinger. “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory.” New Literary History, vol. 2, no. 1, 1970, pp. 7–37. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468585. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
2. Brady, Patrick. “Chaos Theory, Control Theory, and Literary Theory or: A Story of Three Butterflies.” Modern Language Studies, vol. 20, no. 4, 1990, pp. 65–79. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3195061. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
3. Miall, David S., and Don Kuiken. “What is literariness? Three components of literary reading.” Discourse processes 28.2 (1999): 121-138.

Introduction: “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli

“Literariness, Consensus, or ‘Something Else’?” by Angela Locatelli was first published in 2004 in the journal Tropismes by the Centre de Recherches Anglo-Américaines at Université Paris X Nanterre. This work delves into the complex nature of “literariness” and examines whether literature’s uniqueness stems from intrinsic characteristics, social consensus, or other dynamics. Locatelli challenges the reduction of literature to either a self-referential art or an escapist diversion, emphasizing its epistemic and political relevance in a modern globalized context. Through her analysis, she addresses Russian formalist views on “literariness” as a distinct discourse, while also acknowledging the role of Cultural Studies in unveiling the political and libidinal dimensions of literature. Locatelli argues that neither the rigid abstraction of “literariness” nor the fluctuating “canon” fully encapsulates the literary domain, proposing instead that literature exists in a dynamic state where theories and texts mutually influence each other. This piece contributes significantly to literary theory by urging scholars to recognize literature’s multifaceted nature, underscoring how it transcends simple categorization and continues to prompt ethical, political, and intellectual debate.

Summary of “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli

• Epistemic and Political Relevance of Literature: Locatelli argues that recognizing literature’s specific epistemic and political roles is vital, especially as contemporary liberalism promotes vocational priorities over literary and ethical education (Locatelli, 2004, p. 173).
• Concepts of ‘Literariness’ and the Canon: She critiques Russian Formalism’s focus on “literariness” as distinguishing literature from other discourses, asserting that this view overlooks literature’s political and libidinal dimensions, which Cultural Studies emphasize (Locatelli, 2004, p. 174).
• Limits of Formalism and Cultural Studies: While Cultural Studies contextualize literature within broader culture, they risk diluting its distinct qualities; neither strict formalism nor pure consensus fully defines literature (Locatelli, 2004, p. 175).
• Dynamic, Dialogical Relationship of Theory and Literature: Theories and literature mutually influence and shape each other; literature is a source of diverse theories and resists singular definitions (Locatelli, 2004, p. 175).
• Expanding Canon through Social Consensus: Locatelli addresses debates on canon formation, highlighting scholars like E.D. Hirsch and Stanley Fish, who view literature as a product of social consensus rather than inherent qualities (Alexandrov, 2003, p. 42).
• Conventions as ‘Rules of the Literary Game’: Literature is recognized through aesthetic and social conventions that frame genres and expectations, but which are subject to historical shifts (Coco Davani, 1990, p. 176).
• Defamiliarization and Cognitive Value: Drawing from Russian Formalism’s defamiliarization (ostranenie), Locatelli emphasizes that literary devices disrupt norms, providing readers new perspectives and epistemic energy (Locatelli, 2004, p. 177).
• Relevance of Cultural Ideologies: She aligns literature with semiotics, psychoanalysis, and ideology, noting that literature either supports or critiques cultural norms, a perspective amplified by Cultural Studies and theorists like Gramsci (Lotman, 1990, p. 178).
• Canon and Pedagogy in a Global Context: Locatelli calls for a broader, yet critically evaluated canon, one that includes marginal voices without becoming ideologically rigid or predictable (Savage, 1995, p. 180).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli

Literary Term/Concept	Explanation	Relevance in Locatelli’s Work
Literariness (Literaturnost)	Refers to the distinct quality that makes a text literary, emphasized by Russian Formalists like Jakobson.	Locatelli critiques strict “literariness” for ignoring literature’s political and libidinal aspects (p. 174).
Canon	A collection of works considered “literary” or essential by cultural consensus, but often debated for inclusivity.	Locatelli discusses the canon as a socially constructed set of works, historically fluctuating and debated (p. 176).
Defamiliarization (Ostranenie)	A technique in which familiar elements are made strange to renew perception, as used by Russian Formalists.	Locatelli sees defamiliarization as critical for literature’s cognitive and epistemic roles (p. 177).
Semiotics of Culture	A framework analyzing sign systems in culture, introduced in the Tartu Conference, relating signs to external realities.	It contextualizes literature as a dynamic, ideological discourse influenced by social and cultural contexts (p. 178).
Non-Essentialism	The view that literature lacks an inherent essence and is instead shaped by social and ideological factors.	Locatelli draws on scholars like Eagleton to emphasize literature’s definition as historically and ideologically variable (p. 176).
Dialogical Relationship	The mutual shaping influence between literature and literary theories, as per Bakhtin’s dialogism.	Locatelli argues that theories and literature co-create meaning in an ongoing, interactive dialogue (p. 175).
Double Enunciation	Literature’s capacity to present conflicting messages, often seen in Shakespeare’s works.	Locatelli uses this to highlight literature’s ethical complexity and ambiguity, such as in The Merchant of Venice (p. 183).
Plurivocality	Refers to the presence of multiple voices and perspectives within literature, resisting single, fixed interpretations.	Locatelli values literature’s ability to represent diverse viewpoints, fostering debate over rigid doctrines (p. 185).
Reader-Response Theory	A literary theory emphasizing the reader’s role in interpreting texts, creating meaning through subjective experience.	Locatelli sees reader-response as shaping canon and literary meaning based on social context (p. 180).
Ideology	A system of ideas and ideals, particularly in the context of politics, that influences literary canon and interpretation.	Locatelli discusses how literature can both reflect and critique cultural ideologies (p. 178).

Contribution of “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli to Literary Theory/Theories

Literary Theory	Contribution by Locatelli	References
Russian Formalism	Locatelli builds on Russian Formalism’s idea of literariness but critiques its narrow focus on formal elements alone, arguing that this approach overlooks literature’s socio-political dimensions.	She questions the reduction of literature to “a special discourse” and suggests that this view misses literature’s cultural and ideological roles (p. 174).
Cultural Studies	Locatelli acknowledges Cultural Studies’ emphasis on literature’s libidinal and political aspects but argues that it risks diminishing literature’s unique qualities by subsuming it under broader cultural analysis.	Citing Antoine Compagnon, she notes that Cultural Studies can “delegitimize” literary studies by treating literature as just another cultural practice (p. 174).
Non-Essentialist Theory	She aligns with non-essentialist views, noting that literature cannot be defined by intrinsic qualities alone but is constructed by historical and social judgments.	She references E.D. Hirsch, Eagleton, and Fish to emphasize the non-essentialist view that “value-judgments” shape what is deemed literary (p. 176).
Semiotics of Culture	By referencing Semiotics of Culture, Locatelli emphasizes the role of context and sign systems in literature, suggesting that literature interacts dynamically with external realities.	The “Tartu Conference” and Lotman’s semiotic approach are highlighted as key to understanding literature’s socio-cultural embeddedness (p. 178).
Psychoanalysis	Locatelli connects psychoanalysis with literature’s cognitive effects, pointing to Freud and Lacan, and the mutual influence of literature and psychoanalysis on understanding the unconscious.	She references Felman who argued that “literature is the unconscious of psychoanalysis,” highlighting the cognitive parallels between literary and psychic mechanisms (p. 175).
Canon Theory	She critiques traditional canon theory, advocating for a fluid, inclusive canon that adapts to cultural changes, yet warns against limitless expansion, which risks diluting the canon’s specificity.	William J. Savage Jr.’s taxonomy of canons illustrates how different types shape what is considered valuable literature (p. 180).
Reader-Response Theory	Locatelli argues for the role of culturally specific reader responses in canon formation, suggesting that the meaning and prestige of literature depend on social contexts and reader engagement.	She discusses how literary reception occurs in specific “social climates,” linking it with the changing status of literary texts (p. 182).
Marxist Theory	While critical of Marxist essentialism, Locatelli draws from Marxist critique to argue that literature both reflects and critiques ideological structures, merging literature’s formal elements with sociopolitical analysis.	She notes how Bourdieu and Althusser view the canon as shaped by power dynamics, challenging literature’s ideological content (p. 181).
Dialogism (Bakhtin)	Locatelli champions a dialogical approach, arguing that literature and theories continuously shape each other, each creating dynamic interpretations and resisting single perspectives.	Bakhtin’s notion of dialogism influences her view that literature is “dialogical,” adapting and responding to multiple theoretical lenses (p. 175).

Examples of Critiques Through “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli

• Shakespeare’s Hamlet
  • Locatelli’s view of literature as dialogical and perpetually resistant to fixed interpretation applies well to Hamlet. She would argue that Hamlet’s thematic depth and complex character motivations illustrate literature’s “insaturability,” as it “invokes and provokes” endless interpretations and challenges even the most sophisticated readings (Locatelli, p. 182).
• George Orwell’s 1984
  • Using Locatelli’s critique of the canon and ideology, 1984 can be seen as a work that reflects and critiques dominant ideological structures. Locatelli’s framework underscores how Orwell’s manipulation of language and the concept of “Newspeak” highlight the epistemic potential of literary devices to challenge readers’ stock responses and disrupt normative thought (Locatelli, p. 177).
• Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre
  • Through Locatelli’s non-essentialist approach to canon formation, Jane Eyre might be examined for its historical and ideological contexts, questioning why it entered the canon and how it resonated with various social ideologies. Locatelli’s views invite a critique that considers the novel’s changing reception over time and its impact on feminist and socio-cultural discourse (Locatelli, p. 176).
• Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis
  • Locatelli’s focus on defamiliarization, or ostranenie, as a cognitive tool can be applied to Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. Gregor Samsa’s transformation disrupts the reader’s stock responses to identity and humanity, aligning with Locatelli’s belief that literature offers a “fresh point of view” and uses literary devices to explore the psyche and societal norms (Locatelli, p. 177).

Criticism Against “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli

• Overemphasis on Non-Essentialism
  • Some critics might argue that Locatelli’s strong stance against essentialist views risks neglecting intrinsic literary qualities that contribute to a work’s enduring appeal. By focusing heavily on social and ideological constructs, her approach could overlook universal aspects that make literature distinct.
• Limited Engagement with Canon Formation Challenges
  • Although Locatelli critiques the idea of a rigid canon, she may not fully address the practical challenges of balancing inclusivity with meaningful selection criteria. Critics could argue that her model lacks a concrete framework for reconciling the canon’s expansion with the need to maintain literary quality.
• Ambiguity in “Dialogical” Approach
  • While Locatelli advocates a dialogical relationship between theory and literature, some may find this approach too abstract or lacking clarity in practical application. This ambiguity might make it challenging to apply her framework consistently in literary analysis or pedagogy.
• Potential for Relativism in Literary Value
  • Critics may argue that Locatelli’s emphasis on cultural consensus risks promoting a relativistic view of literary value, where distinctions between major and minor works blur. This could lead to a situation where any text, regardless of its aesthetic or literary merits, could be considered significant solely based on cultural context.

Representative Quotations from “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The recognition of the specificity of the literary experience is…a political necessity today…” (p. 173)	Locatelli emphasizes that understanding literature’s unique qualities is vital in a world where liberalism often prioritizes vocational over aesthetic and philosophical education, risking the relegation of literature to an “escapist pastime.”
“Literature is a dynamic universe, epistemologically and historically more complex and varied…” (p. 175)	This highlights her belief in literature’s constant evolution and complexity, which cannot be captured entirely by rigid theories or the static lists of canonical works. Literature is continually shaped by cultural and historical shifts.
“Each theory, in a certain sense, ‘creates’ its own literature, but no theory can saturate the meaning of literature.” (p. 175)	She argues for the dialogical relationship between literature and literary theories, suggesting that theories inform literature but cannot fully encapsulate it. Literature holds an essence beyond the reach of any one interpretive lens.
“Conventions ‘authorize’ certain types of textual production…” (p. 176)	Drawing on Coco Davani’s ideas, Locatelli suggests that literature is socially constructed through shared conventions, which authorize and recognize literary texts, but these conventions are historically mutable and context-dependent.
“Literary defamiliarization…provides a fresh point of view on the extra-literary world.” (p. 177)	Locatelli supports the Formalist idea of defamiliarization as central to literature’s power, enabling readers to see the familiar in new ways, with profound cognitive and cultural impacts beyond mere formal innovation.
“Rather than focusing on formal elements…we can focus on these elements to detect and even deconstruct the ideology of literary texts.” (p. 179)	Here, she advocates a shift from formalist to ideological critique, viewing literature as a means to expose and critique the power dynamics and cultural assumptions embedded within texts.
“The canon as consensus does not clearly define what literature is…” (p. 180)	Locatelli critiques the canon’s limitations, noting that while it reflects cultural consensus, it fails to capture the true essence of literature. Instead, she suggests it exposes ideological biases and pedagogical priorities.
“Literature is a discourse which resists predictable procedures…” (p. 185)	She argues that literature is inherently complex and refuses reduction to simple doctrines or formulas, underscoring its role in challenging intellectual and ideological conformity.
“The specificity of literature must be defended because literature enables us to represent…what other discourses cannot.” (p. 185)	Locatelli asserts literature’s unique capacity to express aspects of human experience that other forms of discourse cannot fully capture, affirming its irreplaceable role in intellectual and cultural life.
“Literature is also an ‘indeterminable object’…‘polymorphic’ in a strict etymological sense…” (p. 186)	Locatelli describes literature as ever-shifting and impossible to pin down, containing a multiplicity of forms and meanings that make it resistant to fixed definitions, thus enriching its value and relevance across contexts and interpretations.

Suggested Readings: “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli

1. Locatelli, Angela. “Literariness, consensus, or” something else”?.” Tropismes 12 (2004): 173-188. https://ojs.parisnanterre.fr/index.php/tropismes/article/view/359/447
2. Miall, David S. “Literariness.” The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity. Routledge, 2015. 191-205.
3. Miall, David S., and Don Kuiken. “What is literariness? Three components of literary reading.” Discourse processes 28.2 (1999): 121-138.
4. Miall, David S., and Don Kuiken. “What is literariness? Three components of literary reading.” Discourse processes 28.2 (1999): 121-138.
5. Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, literariness, and the brain.” Comparative Literature 59.2 (2007): 97-118.
6. Guillén, Claudio. “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters.” Comparative Literature Studies (1994): 1-24.

Introduction: “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair

“Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All” by Niigaan Sinclair first appeared in the December 2015 issue of ESC: English Studies in Canada (Volume 41, Issue 4). In this seminal article, Sinclair explores Indigenous literary nationalism as a critical framework that highlights the cultural, political, and historical legacies inherent in Indigenous literature. Building on the foundational work of theorists like Muskogee Creek critic Craig Womack, particularly his influential book Red on Red: Native Literary Separatism (1999), Sinclair argues that Indigenous literature should be approached from within its own cultural and national contexts rather than through Eurocentric literary paradigms. This approach emphasizes Indigenous intellectualism and the role of literature in articulating Indigenous sovereignty, land relationships, and community histories. Sinclair’s theory has had profound implications for both literary and postcolonial studies, advocating for Indigenous scholars and writers to reclaim narrative authority and further the discourse on Indigenous nationhood, aesthetics, and self-determination. His work underscores a shift in literary criticism that not only enriches the understanding of Indigenous literature but also challenges and expands the boundaries of English studies in Canada and beyond.

Summary of “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair

---

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair

Literary Term/Concept	Explanation
Indigenous Literary Nationalism	A framework that views Indigenous literature through the cultural, political, and historical contexts of Indigenous nations rather than Western frameworks, aiming to articulate and preserve Indigenous legacies.
Nationhood	The idea that Indigenous literature is an expression of Indigenous nationhood, representing specific cultural and community identities linked to land and sovereignty.
Cultural Sovereignty	The assertion of Indigenous control over the interpretation and representation of their own literature, allowing Indigenous perspectives to shape academic discourse.
Resistance Aesthetics	A style in Indigenous literature that challenges colonial narratives and reclaims Indigenous identity, often embedded in cultural symbols and oral traditions.
Ancestral Knowledge Systems	The body of knowledge, values, and traditions passed down through generations within Indigenous communities, providing context and depth to Indigenous literary works.
Self-Determination	The right of Indigenous communities to define and control their own narratives and stories, which Sinclair argues is central to Indigenous literary theory.
Activist Criticism	A form of literary criticism that combines analysis with activism, advocating for Indigenous land rights, governance, and cultural preservation through literature.
Indigenous Intellectualism	Acknowledges the longstanding intellectual tradition within Indigenous communities that predates colonial influence and centers Indigenous perspectives in academia.
Oral Tradition	A fundamental element in Indigenous literature that preserves history, values, and knowledge through storytelling, often reflected in literary forms.
Decolonization	The process of challenging and moving beyond colonial frameworks in literary criticism, allowing Indigenous voices to be heard and understood on their own terms.
Land Relationships	The deep, spiritual, and cultural connection between Indigenous peoples and their ancestral lands, often a core theme in Indigenous literary works.
Indigenous Aesthetics	Artistic and narrative styles unique to Indigenous cultures, which may include non-linear storytelling, symbolism, and community-centered themes.
Narrative Authority	The concept that Indigenous authors and critics should have the authority to interpret and critique their own literature, free from Western academic constraints.
Historical Continuity	The recognition of Indigenous literature as part of a continuous history of cultural expression, connecting past, present, and future Indigenous experiences.

Contribution of “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair to Literary Theory/Theories

• Expansion of Postcolonial Theory
  • Sinclair’s work contributes significantly to postcolonial theory by addressing the unique colonial experiences of Indigenous peoples and framing Indigenous literature as a tool for decolonization. He argues that Indigenous literary nationalism “redefines our understanding of North American nationhood, aesthetics, and history” (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). This challenges traditional postcolonial frameworks to include Indigenous narratives within their discourse, moving beyond Eurocentric perspectives on colonialism.
• Advancement of Indigenous Literary Theory
  • Sinclair’s article provides a foundational framework for Indigenous literary theory by establishing Indigenous literary nationalism as a distinct critical approach. This theory posits that Indigenous literature must be analyzed within its own cultural and historical contexts, allowing Indigenous “cultural, political, and historical legacies” to shape its interpretation (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). Sinclair’s emphasis on self-representation and sovereignty advances Indigenous literary theory by advocating for Indigenous-led scholarship and analysis.
• Influence on Cultural Sovereignty Theory
  • The article underscores the importance of cultural sovereignty by affirming the right of Indigenous communities to interpret and control their narratives. Sinclair advocates for Indigenous critics to engage with “the work of their ancestral communities” and emphasizes that literature should reflect Indigenous “land struggles, governance, and cultural struggles” (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). This contribution promotes cultural sovereignty as a key component of literary analysis, especially for Indigenous texts.
• Reinvigoration of Activist Criticism
  • Sinclair’s call for Indigenous literary nationalism reinvigorates activist criticism by connecting literary analysis to real-world Indigenous struggles for land rights, cultural preservation, and political sovereignty. This “creative and critical call” urges Indigenous scholars to view literature not only as an academic exercise but as an expression of resistance and activism (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). His approach encourages scholars to see Indigenous literature as a platform for social change and political advocacy.
• Integration of Historical Continuity in Literary Theory
  • The article emphasizes the historical continuity of Indigenous storytelling, positioning Indigenous literature as part of a “continuous history” that links past, present, and future Indigenous experiences (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). Sinclair’s work encourages literary theories to consider historical continuity as central to understanding Indigenous narratives, contrasting with Western views of literature as a break from the past.
• Contribution to Decolonization Theory
  • Sinclair’s argument for Indigenous literary nationalism as a method of reclaiming narrative authority aligns with decolonization theory, which seeks to dismantle colonial structures within academia and literary criticism. He emphasizes that Indigenous literature “represents the voices, struggles, and perspectives” specific to Indigenous nations, advocating for a move away from colonial interpretative frameworks (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). This approach encourages literary scholars to decolonize their methodologies and prioritize Indigenous voices in their analyses.
• Development of Nation-Specific Literary Identity
  • Sinclair’s theory contributes to the idea of nation-specific literary identity by advocating for Indigenous literature to be understood within the context of each unique Indigenous nation. He suggests that Indigenous literary nationalism allows each nation’s literature to “articulate, continue, and expand” its cultural legacy, creating space for a diversity of Indigenous voices (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). This contribution shifts literary theory toward recognizing the multiplicity of identities and histories within Indigenous literatures.
• Challenge to Universalist Literary Criticism
  • By emphasizing Indigenous literary nationalism, Sinclair challenges universalist literary criticism, which often applies a single framework to diverse literatures. He critiques these approaches for failing to respect the cultural specificities of Indigenous works, arguing instead for an “Indigenous-specific” interpretation that honors the unique “legacies of the Indigenous nation(s) they emerge from” (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). This contribution calls for a more culturally specific, nuanced approach to literary criticism.

Examples of Critiques Through “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair

Literary Work	Critique through Indigenous Literary Nationalism
Ceremony by Leslie Marmon Silko	Ceremony can be analyzed as an expression of Laguna Pueblo identity and resilience, highlighting themes of healing and cultural continuity. Through Indigenous literary nationalism, Silko’s work is seen as part of her community’s oral tradition, resisting colonial narratives and emphasizing Pueblo cultural sovereignty. The work’s cyclical structure reflects Indigenous conceptions of time and history, aligning with Sinclair’s call to recognize Indigenous aesthetics and nation-specific narratives.
The Marrow Thieves by Cherie Dimaline	Dimaline’s The Marrow Thieves can be critiqued as a reflection of Métis cultural and historical legacies, emphasizing the importance of land and memory within Métis identity. Using Sinclair’s framework, the novel highlights Indigenous resistance against assimilationist policies and presents storytelling as an act of cultural survival and sovereignty. This aligns with Indigenous literary nationalism’s advocacy for literature that contributes to Indigenous endurance and resistance.
Tracks by Louise Erdrich	Tracks by Erdrich can be analyzed as an expression of Ojibwe nationhood, centering on themes of land, cultural loss, and resilience. Through Sinclair’s lens, the novel serves as both a preservation of Ojibwe cultural knowledge and a critique of colonial dispossession. The use of dual narrators reflects Indigenous narrative authority, allowing Ojibwe perspectives to remain central to the story and aligning with Sinclair’s call for culturally specific criticism.
Indian Horse by Richard Wagamese	Indian Horse provides a powerful account of Anishinaabe identity, resilience, and survival in the face of colonial trauma. Applying Indigenous literary nationalism, the novel emphasizes Indigenous strength, cultural restoration, and the role of traditional practices as a pathway to healing. Sinclair’s framework allows for a critique that centers on Anishinaabe sovereignty and cultural persistence, highlighting the novel’s role in fostering Indigenous self-determination and narrative authority.

Criticism Against “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair

• Limited Accessibility for Non-Indigenous Audiences
  Critics argue that Sinclair’s emphasis on Indigenous-specific frameworks may make Indigenous literary nationalism less accessible to non-Indigenous audiences, potentially creating barriers to wider understanding and appreciation of Indigenous literature.
• Risk of Essentialism
  By focusing on Indigenous literary works through culturally specific frameworks, there is a risk of reinforcing essentialist views, where Indigenous literature might be seen as homogenous or as strictly defined by certain cultural traits rather than a diverse range of individual voices and perspectives.
• Challenges to Universal Literary Criticism
  Some scholars contend that by rejecting universalist approaches, Sinclair’s framework risks isolating Indigenous literature from broader literary discourses. Critics argue that this could hinder the integration of Indigenous perspectives into mainstream literary criticism and reduce cross-cultural dialogues.
• Potential for Exclusion of Hybridized Indigenous Voices
  Sinclair’s emphasis on nation-specific literary analysis may inadvertently exclude works by Indigenous authors with hybridized identities or those who incorporate non-Indigenous influences. Critics argue that this approach could limit the scope of Indigenous literary nationalism by not fully representing the diversity within Indigenous literatures.
• Overemphasis on Political and Activist Roles of Literature
  Sinclair’s approach could be criticized for focusing heavily on the political and activist roles of Indigenous literature. Some critics may argue that this focus detracts from the artistic and aesthetic values of Indigenous works, potentially limiting the ways in which these texts are appreciated and understood.

Representative Quotations from “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Indigenous intellectualism is hundreds of thousands of years old…”	Sinclair emphasizes the long-standing history of Indigenous thought, highlighting the need to recognize Indigenous knowledge systems as foundational, rather than recent or emergent, within literary studies.
“The most impactual work in recent memory has been in the field of Indigenous literary nationalism.”	Sinclair views Indigenous literary nationalism as a transformative force in literary criticism, reshaping the understanding and appreciation of Indigenous literature within the academy.
“Indigenous literatures articulate, continue, and expand the cultural, political, and historical legacies of the Indigenous nation(s) they emerge from.”	Here, Sinclair underscores the idea that Indigenous literature serves as a continuation of cultural legacies, linking each work to specific histories and political identities, and resisting colonial erasure.
“A creative and critical call for Indigenous critics to pick up the work of their ancestral communities.”	Sinclair calls on Indigenous critics to connect with their communities’ traditions and histories, advocating for a form of literary criticism rooted in cultural and ancestral identity.
“Indigenous literatures represent the voices, struggles, and perspectives of their specific communities.”	This quotation highlights the importance of viewing Indigenous literature as representative of individual communities, rather than imposing a monolithic or universal Indigenous identity across all works.
“One of the most important literary and intellectual contributions of our time.”	Sinclair asserts the significance of Indigenous literary nationalism, positioning it as an essential development in contemporary literary theory and scholarship.
“Literature becomes a site of resistance, resilience, and cultural survival.”	This quotation emphasizes Sinclair’s view of literature as an activist space, where Indigenous narratives not only resist colonial narratives but also preserve and sustain cultural practices and identities.
“Indigenous scholars are called to engage in ‘land struggles, governance, and cultural struggles.’”	Sinclair highlights the intersection of literature and activism, suggesting that Indigenous critics should be involved in broader political efforts that affirm Indigenous rights and sovereignty.
“Rejecting universal frameworks in favor of Indigenous-specific interpretations.”	Sinclair advocates for culturally specific frameworks that respect Indigenous traditions and values, challenging the predominance of Western universalist approaches in literary criticism.
“Indigenous literary nationalism redefines North American nationhood, aesthetics, and history.”	This quotation encapsulates Sinclair’s argument that Indigenous literary nationalism challenges traditional definitions of nationhood and history, introducing Indigenous perspectives that reshape these concepts within the context of North American literature.

Suggested Readings: “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair

1. Daniel Heath Justice. “Currents of Trans/National Criticism in Indigenous Literary Studies.” American Indian Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 3, 2011, pp. 334–52. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5250/amerindiquar.35.3.0334. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
2. Adamson, Joni. “Indigenous Literatures, Multinaturalism, and Avatar: The Emergence of Indigenous Cosmopolitics.” American Literary History, vol. 24, no. 1, 2012, pp. 143–62. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41329631. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
3. Suzack, Cheryl. “Indigenous Women and Transnational Feminist Struggle: Theorizing the Politics of Compromise and Care.” CR: The New Centennial Review, vol. 10, no. 1, 2010, pp. 179–93. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41949685. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
4. SIMPSON, LEANNE BETASAMOSAKE. “THE SOVEREIGNTY OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ BODIES.” As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom through Radical Resistance, University of Minnesota Press, 2017, pp. 95–118. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt1pwt77c.10. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.