“The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis first appeared in the 1974 collection The Theory of Literary Criticism: A Logical Analysis. This seminal essay significantly contributed to the ongoing debate about the importance of context in literary theory, challenging prevailing assumptions and offering a rigorous philosophical framework for understanding the relationship between a text and its historical, social, and cultural milieu.
Summary of “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis
The Importance of Context in Understanding Literature
Ellis emphasizes that understanding a literary text necessitates considering its relevant context, which traditionally involves “recreating the original circumstances of its composition” including the historical, biographical, and social context.
Critique of Historical and Biographical Contexts
While it is common to assume that historical and biographical contexts enhance the understanding of a text, Ellis challenges this by stating that “literary texts are not to be taken as part of the contexts of their origin.” He argues that reverting a text to its original context undermines its status as literature.
The Unique Status of Literary Texts
According to Ellis, literary texts transcend their original contexts and become something more significant within the broader cultural discourse. He argues that treating them merely as products of their origin “annihilates exactly the thing that makes them literary texts.”
The Process of a Text Becoming Literature
Ellis describes the transformation of a text into literature as a three-stage process: its creation by the author, its presentation as literature, and its acceptance by society as literature. He asserts that returning to the original context reverses this process and diminishes the text’s literary value.
Criticism of Intentionalism
The essay critiques the intentionalist approach, which seeks to understand a text based on the author’s intent. Ellis argues that this method is flawed because “the meaning of the poem is what the poet intended” can only be reliably evidenced by the text itself, not by external biographical information.
The Fallacy of Adding Historical Specificity
Ellis argues that adding historical or biographical specificity to a text diminishes its general literary impact, stating that “what is taken away is the level of generality possessed by the text as a literary text.” He contends that knowing more about the historical details of a text’s origin often results in understanding less about its literary significance.
The Problem with Studying the Creative Process
He further critiques the value of studying the creative process, suggesting that it contributes nothing to understanding the text’s meaning. Instead, he argues, “only an understanding of the meaning of the text makes the study of its genesis possible and intelligible.”
Final Argument Against Intentionalism
Ellis concludes that even if we accept the premise that the meaning of a text is what the author intended, the “only reliable evidence of that intent is the poem” itself. Thus, relying on any other evidence over the text itself is misguided.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis
Term/Concept
Definition
Relevant Context
The historical, social, and cultural background of a literary work.
Intentional Fallacy
The belief that an author’s intended meaning is the sole or primary determinant of a literary work’s interpretation.
Literary Text
A piece of language that is treated independently of its original context, focusing on its aesthetic and linguistic qualities.
Genesis of a Work
The process of a literary work’s creation and development.
Selective Operation
The author’s choices in including or excluding details in a literary work.
Contribution of “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis to Literary Theory/Theories
Ellis questions the traditional emphasis on historical, biographical, and social contexts in literary interpretation, arguing that these contexts can often obscure rather than clarify a text’s meaning. This critique contributes to the ongoing debate in literary theory regarding the role of context in interpretation.
By arguing against the intentional fallacy, Ellis reinforces the idea that a literary work should be understood independently of the author’s intentions. This perspective aligns with and strengthens the arguments of New Criticism, which advocates for a close reading of the text itself rather than external factors.
Reinforcement of Textual Autonomy
Ellis’s assertion that literary texts outgrow their original contexts and acquire a broader cultural significance contributes to the theory of textual autonomy. This idea suggests that a text should be interpreted based on its internal elements rather than external influences, reinforcing the concept that literature operates independently of its origins.
Redefinition of Literary Status
Ellis offers a redefinition of what makes a text literary by arguing that its transformation from its original context to its acceptance by society is what grants it literary status. This contributes to literary theory by proposing that the literary value of a text is determined by its ability to transcend its initial circumstances.
Criticism of Biographical Approaches
Ellis critiques the biographical approach to literary criticism, arguing that it can distort the understanding of a text by reintroducing details that the author deliberately excluded. This contribution challenges the validity of biographical criticism and supports the notion that the text itself is the most reliable source for interpretation.
Emphasis on Generality over Specificity
By arguing that adding historical or biographical specificity can reduce a text’s literary impact, Ellis contributes to the theoretical discussion on the importance of maintaining the generality and universality of literary texts. This idea aligns with theories that prioritize the universal themes and experiences conveyed by literature.
Expansion of the Debate on Literary Interpretation
Ellis’s essay expands the debate on literary interpretation by introducing the idea that understanding a text’s genesis (its creation process) offers little value to interpreting its meaning. This perspective adds depth to discussions on the relevance of authorial background in literary theory.
Examples of Critiques Through “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis
Literary Work
Original Context
Critique Through Ellis’ Lens
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Racial tensions in the American South during the 1930s
While understanding the historical context of racism in the American South can illuminate the struggles faced by characters like Scout Finch, Ellis would argue that focusing solely on this context can diminish the novel’s broader exploration of human empathy, prejudice, and the importance of moral courage.
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
The emergence of Romanticism and scientific advancements in the early 19th century
While knowledge of Romanticism and scientific discovery during Shelley’s time can provide interesting background, Ellis would argue that getting caught up in these details risks overshadowing the timeless themes of Frankenstein, such as the dangers of unchecked ambition, the nature of responsibility, and the consequences of playing God.
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
The history and politics of Colombia, including the rise of magical realism as a literary genre
While appreciating the influence of Colombian history and magical realism on One Hundred Years of Solitude can be enriching, Ellis would argue that prioritizing this context can distract from the novel’s universal themes of love, loss, family, and the cyclical nature of history.
The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka
The rise of totalitarian regimes and anxieties of modern life in early 20th-century Europe
While understanding the historical context of Kafka’s time can provide insight into the nightmarish world of The Metamorphosis, Ellis would argue that dwelling on this context can take away from the story’s power to explore alienation, isolation, and the dehumanizing effects of societal expectations.
Criticism Against “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis
Oversimplification of Contextual Relevance
Critics may argue that Ellis oversimplifies the role of context by suggesting that historical and biographical contexts are largely irrelevant to understanding literary texts. This view could be seen as dismissive of the valuable insights that contextual knowledge can provide in interpreting literature, particularly in understanding complex or culturally embedded works.
Neglect of Cultural and Social Influences
By downplaying the significance of the original context, Ellis’s argument could be criticized for neglecting the influence of cultural and social factors on a text’s meaning. Critics might argue that these factors are essential for a comprehensive understanding of literature, especially when considering texts that are deeply rooted in specific cultural or historical settings.
Potential Limitation of Interpretive Flexibility
Some may contend that Ellis’s emphasis on textual autonomy limits interpretive flexibility by discouraging the exploration of diverse contexts that could enrich the understanding of a text. This could be seen as restricting the range of possible interpretations and reducing the depth of literary analysis.
Undermining the Role of Authorial Intent
Ellis’s rejection of intentionalism might be seen as overly dismissive of the author’s role in shaping a text’s meaning. Critics could argue that understanding an author’s intent, even if not definitive, can offer valuable perspectives and should not be entirely disregarded in literary criticism.
Risk of Ignoring Historical and Political Contexts
The argument against considering a text’s original context could be criticized for potentially ignoring important historical and political dimensions that influence both the creation and reception of a work. In some cases, understanding these contexts may be crucial for a full appreciation of the text’s significance and impact.
Overemphasis on Textual Autonomy
Critics might challenge Ellis’s strong emphasis on textual autonomy by arguing that it creates an artificial separation between a text and its context. This approach could be seen as neglecting the interconnectedness of literature with the broader social, political, and historical environments in which it is produced and consumed.
Reduction of Literature’s Educational Value
By minimizing the importance of context, Ellis’s approach could be criticized for reducing the educational value of literature. Understanding the context in which a work was created can provide important lessons about history, society, and human experience, which might be overlooked if the focus is solely on the text itself.
Potential Elitism in Interpretation
The emphasis on textual analysis over contextual understanding might be seen as promoting an elitist approach to literary criticism, accessible primarily to those with advanced skills in close reading, while potentially alienating readers who find value in understanding the historical and cultural backgrounds of texts.
Suggested Readings: “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis
Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Image, Music, Text, translated by Stephen Heath, Hill and Wang, 1977, pp. 142-148.
“Literary texts are not to be taken as part of the contexts of their origin; and to take them in this way is to annihilate exactly the thing that makes them literary texts.”
Ellis argues that interpreting a literary text solely through its original context reduces its literary value and transforms it into something other than literature.
“The process of a text becoming a literary text involves three stages: its originating in the context of its creator, its then being offered for use as literature, and its finally being accepted as such.”
This quote outlines Ellis’s view that a text’s transformation into literature is a process that moves beyond its initial creation and involves societal acceptance and recognition.
“But that specificity is a loss, not a gain; what is taken away is the level of generality possessed by the text as a literary text.”
Ellis emphasizes that adding historical specificity to a text diminishes its broader, more universal literary significance, which is essential to its impact as literature.
“The study of the creative process, in the sense of the development of a work in the hands of its author, contributes nothing whatsoever to our understanding of the meaning of the text.”
Ellis critiques the focus on the author’s creative process, arguing that it does not enhance the understanding of the text’s meaning, which should be derived from the text itself.
“Even if we grant the intentionalist thesis that the meaning of the poem is what the poet intended, it would still be true that the only reliable evidence of that intent is the poem.”
Ellis contends that the text itself is the most reliable source of understanding its meaning, even if one accepts the premise that the author’s intention is central to that understanding.
