“Text as It Happens: Literary Geography” by Sheila Hones: Summary and Critique

1. Text as a Spatial Event

• Hones argues that reading and writing are spatial, geographical events occurring in a specific context. This perspective moves beyond traditional reader-response theory by emphasizing how a text “happens” in space and time (p. 1302).
• “Our shared text event is happening now in place and time, at the intersection of all these things” (p. 1302).
• The reading of a text is a dynamic, relational act influenced by social, technological, and environmental factors, including the reader’s physical surroundings and social context.

2. Multiplicity of Interpretation in Literary Geography

• Literary geography benefits from an openness to multiple interpretations, recognizing that different readings arise based on varied social and spatial contexts.
• “Fictional text events are not only relational by nature and generated within social contexts to start with, but further only become publicly accessible when subsequently articulated within the mediating context of a particular social situation” (p. 1303).
• The multiplicity of literary geography accommodates varying interpretations rather than seeking a single definitive understanding.

3. Defining Literary Geography: Between Discipline and Subject Matter

• There has been an ongoing debate about whether literary geography is a distinct discipline or simply a methodological approach.
• Some scholars see geography and literature as separate fields, while others view them as interconnected texts that shape and inform each other.
• “Geography and literature [are] not as the conjunction of two essentially distinct, coherent disciplines, but as a field of textual genres – the novel, the poem, the travel guide, the map, and the regional monograph” (p. 1304).

4. Academic Divergence: Textual Analysis vs. Material Practices

• The field of literary geography has split into two main approaches:
  1. Textual Analysis: Close readings of texts using literary theory.
  2. Material Practices: Examining how texts are produced, disseminated, and consumed in the public sphere.
• “A gap appears to be opening up in literary geography between… ever more complex readings of the meanings of texts, spaces, and their conjunctions, and studies of the geographies of production and dissemination and embodied practices of reading and writing” (p. 1307).

5. Overcoming Disciplinary Boundaries

• A major challenge in literary geography is the disciplinary divide between geography and literary studies, as each field has different audiences, terminologies, and methodologies.
• Literary scholars incorporate geographical concepts but rarely engage with geographers’ work on literature, and vice versa.
• “Disciplinary differences – differences in purpose, context, vocabulary, and authorial audience – thus inhibit the development of ‘a genuinely interdisciplinary field’” (p. 1308).
• Hones suggests that recognizing academic criticism as one form of public interpretation could bridge these divides.

6. Location of Meaning in Texts

• There is no single, stable meaning within a text; instead, meaning emerges from interactions between author, reader, and context.
• Literary geography aligns with theories of place as relational and dynamic.
• “Schweickart and Flynn (2004) suggest that… the text is not a container of stable, objective meaning, that the reader is a producer of meaning, and that readings are necessarily various” (p. 1310).

7. Reading Across Borders in Literary Geography

• The organization of literary geography into categories such as author, text, and genre limits interdisciplinary connections.
• Conventional categorization hinders broader collaborations across different aspects of literary geography.
• “The potential development of a collaborative community in literary geography has been seriously inhibited by the fact that it is both easy and conventional to organize work in this way” (p. 1313).

8. Literary Geography as a Collaborative Field

• Hones advocates for a broader and more inclusive approach to literary geography that acknowledges differences in academic practice while fostering productive collaboration.
• “By taking responsibility for the production of meaning as readers, while abandoning the illusion of control as writers, literary geographers working together across the spectrum of the field could collaboratively generate a productive sense of community” (p. 1314).

Conclusion: Towards a Spatial Understanding of Texts

• By viewing texts as spatial and relational events, literary geography can evolve into a more cohesive field.
• Scholars must recognize the diverse contexts in which meaning is produced and interpreted.
• “The process of identifying more clearly the various but overlapping spatial contexts and communities within which readings are not only generated and shared but also assessed… should make it easier to accept contrasting approaches” (p. 1314).

1. Reader-Response Theory

• Hones extends reader-response theory by emphasizing the spatial and contextual nature of reading, arguing that texts are not static but emerge through interactions between readers, writers, and their environments.
• “The idea of text as event – that a text ‘happens’ when read – is well established in literary studies, particularly in the fields of reader-response and reception” (p. 1302).
• She builds on the work of Machor and Goldstein (2001) and Schweickart and Flynn (2004) but critiques the tendency to overlook the geographical dimensions of reading experiences.

2. Spatial Theory (Doreen Massey’s Concept of Space)

• Hones applies Doreen Massey’s theory of space to literary texts, suggesting that literary meaning is relational, dynamic, and produced through spatial interactions.
• “The event of text, too, can be articulated in explicitly spatial terms as ‘the coming together of the previously unrelated, a constellation of processes rather than a thing’ (Massey 2005, 141)” (p. 1311).
• She conceptualizes reading as a geographical practice, positioning texts as spatial events rather than static objects.

3. Intertextuality and Literary Geography

• Hones advances the study of intertextuality by integrating literary geography, showing that texts exist within spatial and social networks that shape their interpretation.
• “A wide range of mutually informative geographical work with literary texts is currently being produced in the context of radically different disciplinary conversations, for different purposes, and in different academic and social contexts” (p. 1304).
• She builds on poststructuralist ideas of textual interconnectedness (Kristeva, Barthes) and applies them to spatial reading practices.

4. The Sociology of Literature (Bourdieu’s Field Theory)

• Hones aligns with Bourdieu’s field theory by emphasizing the role of institutional and social contexts in shaping literary meaning.
• “What kinds of interpretation are considered appropriate? How is disagreement managed? How is originality assessed and how much is it valued?” (p. 1308).
• She argues that interpretations of texts are not universal but emerge within specific academic, cultural, and geographical fields.

5. Postcolonial Literary Criticism

• Hones contributes to postcolonial approaches by highlighting the geographies of literary production and reception, showing how literary texts are embedded in global power structures and material geographies.
• “Disciplinary differences – differences in purpose, context, vocabulary, and authorial audience – thus inhibit the development of ‘a genuinely interdisciplinary field’” (p. 1309).
• Her analysis parallels Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978) by showing how literary texts are shaped by spatialized power relations.

6. Performance Studies and Performativity

• She integrates performativity theory into literary geography by arguing that reading and writing are performative acts shaped by spatial and social contexts.
• “By understanding the significance of the context of knowledge production in these terms, and accepting the extent to which academic performances are always embedded in ‘a contextually specific process of social negotiation’” (p. 1309, citing Thrift 1996, 8).
• This builds on the work of Judith Butler’s performativity theory but applies it to literary reception and criticism.

7. Ecocriticism and Materiality of Reading

• Hones contributes to ecocriticism by emphasizing the material conditions of reading (e.g., book formats, digital screens, physical spaces).
• “The physical words on the page are involved: the text, the font, the layout, the page, and the screen. Writing and reading technologies are part of it, too” (p. 1302).
• This aligns with material ecocriticism, which examines how texts interact with physical environments and technologies.

8. Cultural Geography and the Literary Imagination

• Hones bridges literary theory and cultural geography, arguing that literature actively produces geographical knowledge and spatial imaginaries.
• “Texts are shaped by their production and dissemination in different geographical and cultural contexts” (p. 1307).
• She extends the work of Livingstone (2005) and Keighren (2006) on the geographies of reading and book history.

1. Overemphasis on Spatial Event at the Expense of Textual Structure

• Critics argue that Hones’ focus on the geographical event of reading diminishes the role of traditional narrative structure, plot, and literary techniques in shaping meaning.
• By shifting the emphasis to the social and spatial contexts of reading, the intrinsic literary aesthetics of the text may be overlooked.

2. Insufficient Engagement with Authorial Intent

• The argument that texts are created through interaction rather than authorial design (p. 1302) challenges conventional literary theories that emphasize authorial control over meaning.
• Some critics argue that disregarding the author’s intent may lead to overly relativistic readings, where any interpretation is equally valid.

3. Limited Consideration of Power and Ideology in Space

• While Hones acknowledges that texts are shaped by social and cultural contexts, her work does not extensively engage with postcolonial, feminist, or Marxist critiques of space.
• The role of power dynamics in shaping spatial meaning (e.g., how colonialism influences spatial reading practices) is underdeveloped.

4. Theoretical Complexity and Accessibility Issues

• The article is highly theoretical and abstract, making it challenging for literary scholars unfamiliar with geography to fully engage with its concepts.
• The dense discussion of spatiality, mediation, and performativity may alienate readers who are accustomed to more text-centered literary criticism.

5. Disconnection from Reader-Response Theories

• While Hones builds on reader-response theory, she diverges by prioritizing spatial interaction over cognitive or emotional reader experiences.
• Some scholars argue that personal, psychological, and subjective elements of reading are just as crucial as spatial ones but receive little attention in her framework.

6. Limited Application to All Literary Genres

• The focus on spatial production of text meaning works well for modernist and postmodern narratives but may be less applicable to classical literature, poetry, or experimental texts where spatial interaction is less central.
• The method might struggle to account for works that are highly abstract, surreal, or non-narrative in nature.

7. Lack of Empirical Evidence for Readerly Spatial Interaction

• Hones assumes that reading is always a geographical event, but she provides little empirical data (e.g., reader surveys, ethnographic studies) to support this claim.
• The extent to which actual readers experience texts as spatial interactions remains speculative rather than demonstrated through evidence.