Introduction: “Why Lyric?” by Jonathan Culler
“Why Lyric?” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in PMLA in 2008, offering a critical examination of lyric poetry and its significance in literary studies. The essay challenges the dominant pedagogical paradigms that interpret lyric poems as dramatic monologues, a perspective shaped by the influence of prose narrative on literary analysis. Culler advocates for a revival of lyric studies by emphasizing its distinctive characteristics, such as its focus on the present, rhythmic and sound patterning, intertextuality, and linguistic extravagance. He critiques the assimilation of lyric into narrative frameworks, arguing that this approach undermines the unique features of lyric poetry, including its performative and epideictic qualities rooted in classical traditions. By examining the evolution of lyric from its origins in Greek antiquity to modern manifestations, Culler highlights the enduring cultural and aesthetic value of this poetic form, proposing methodologies that foreground its unique temporality and rhetorical address. The essay is significant for its contribution to literary theory, encouraging scholars to reassess the role of lyric in shaping language, subjectivity, and cultural memory.
Summary of “Why Lyric?” by Jonathan Culler
- Crisis of Lyric in Literary Studies
Culler discusses the marginalization of lyric poetry in academic settings, where narrative prose dominates. He critiques how the pedagogical focus on narrative reduces poetry to dramatic monologues, aligning it with the conventions of prose fiction (Culler, 2008, p. 201). This approach sidelines key poetic features such as rhythm, sound, and intertextuality, which are integral to the lyric’s aesthetic and meaning. - Lyric vs. Narrative
Lyric is distinct from narrative in that it emphasizes the present moment and engages the reader line by line, rather than focusing on a sequential story. Culler underscores the need to celebrate lyric’s singularity and resist assimilating it into narrative paradigms (Culler, 2008, p. 202). - Challenges to Traditional Definitions
Citing René Wellek, Culler critiques the Romantic association of lyric with intense subjective experience, which leads to interpretative limitations. Instead, Wellek and new lyric studies propose focusing on specific historical and formal conventions of lyric poetry, such as odes, elegies, and songs (Culler, 2008, p. 203). - Modern Approaches to Lyric
New lyric studies, represented by scholars like Virginia Jackson and Yopie Prins, advocate for examining how the lyric has been historically constructed rather than treating it as a transhistorical category. These approaches explore alternative frameworks, challenging the narrative-driven “lyricization of poetry” (Culler, 2008, p. 204). - Classical Models of Lyric
Culler traces the origins of lyric to Greek and Roman traditions, emphasizing its performative and epideictic nature. In classical contexts, lyric was often addressed to an audience, serving as a rhetorical and ethical activity. This contrasts with modern lyric, which has become more meditative and individualized (Culler, 2008, p. 205). - Reviving Lyric Studies
To restore lyric’s place in literary studies, Culler proposes focusing on its unique features: rhythm, sound, hyperbolic forms like apostrophe, and its non-narrative temporality. He argues that lyric foregrounds the materiality of language and embodies the formative interplay between language, memory, and cultural identity (Culler, 2008, p. 206). - Lyric’s Cultural Significance
The lyric’s ability to embed language in memory—through rhythmical and phonological patterning—underscores its cultural and aesthetic value. Culler calls for a proliferation of models to understand lyric’s diverse historical manifestations and encourage its integration into literary studies (Culler, 2008, p. 206).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Why Lyric?” by Jonathan Culler
| Term/Concept | Definition | Explanation in Context |
| Lyricization of Poetry | The process of reading all poetry through the lens of subjective expression, often tied to Romantic notions of intense personal experience. | Culler critiques this trend, suggesting it narrows the interpretive possibilities of poetry, reducing its historical and formal diversity (Culler, 2008, p. 204). |
| Dramatic Monologue | A form of poetry in which the speaker is a fictional persona whose circumstances and attitudes the reader reconstructs. | Culler argues that the dramatic monologue model has become dominant in interpreting lyrics, aligning them with narrative fiction and sidelining their rhythmic and intertextual features (Culler, 2008, p. 201). |
| Non-Narrative Temporality | A focus on the present moment within the text, emphasizing immediate engagement rather than sequential storytelling. | Culler contrasts lyric’s focus on “what happens now” with narrative’s emphasis on “what happens next,” highlighting the unique reader engagement with lyric (Culler, 2008, p. 202). |
| Epideictic Discourse | A rhetorical tradition aimed at praising or critiquing subjects in a way that reflects societal values and beliefs. | Lyric poetry, especially in its classical form, functioned as epideictic discourse, addressing audiences and shaping ethical and cultural values (Culler, 2008, p. 204). |
| Hyperbole and Apostrophe | Extravagant and direct forms of address, often used in lyric to engage with abstract concepts, objects, or absent figures. | Culler highlights these features as integral to lyric’s rhetorical power, contrasting them with the realist demands of dramatic monologues (Culler, 2008, p. 205). |
| Intertextuality | The relationship between a text and other texts, including allusions and references. | Culler points out that lyric frequently employs intertextual elements, such as Robert Frost’s allusion to François Villon, which contribute to its meaning beyond narrative reconstruction (Culler, 2008, p. 203). |
| Lyric Present | A specific tense used in lyric poetry to create a sense of immediacy and ongoing experience. | Examples such as Yeats’s “I walk through the long schoolroom questioning” demonstrate the lyric’s use of the present tense to foreground its temporality (Culler, 2008, p. 205). |
| New Lyric Studies | An approach to studying lyric that emphasizes historical and cultural contexts over transhistorical definitions of the genre. | Represented by scholars like Virginia Jackson and Yopie Prins, this method critiques universal assumptions about lyric and explores how it has functioned differently across time and cultures (Culler, 2008, p. 204). |
| Rhythm and Sound Patterning | The use of metrical structures, rhyme, and phonological repetitions to enhance the sensory and aesthetic experience of poetry. | Culler emphasizes that these elements are often ignored in narrative-centric analyses but are central to lyric’s distinctive impact (Culler, 2008, p. 202). |
| Memorability of Lyric | The ability of lyric poetry to imprint itself in the reader’s memory through its rhythm and structure. | Culler notes that lyric seeks to be remembered and internalized, functioning as a “mechanical memory” for cultural and personal reflection (Culler, 2008, p. 206). |
| Formal Conventions | The established structures and traditions of particular poetic genres, such as odes, elegies, and songs. | Culler suggests focusing on these conventions to understand lyric’s diversity and its evolution across different historical periods (Culler, 2008, p. 203). |
| Melos and Opsis | Terms from Northrop Frye describing the musical (melos) and visual (opsis) aspects of lyric poetry. | Culler uses these concepts to highlight lyric’s focus on linguistic patterning and its departure from narrative representation (Culler, 2008, p. 205). |
| Subjectivity and Language | The relationship between individual experience and the structures of language as shaped by rhythm, sound, and form. | Culler argues that lyric plays a crucial role in linking language to the formation of subjectivity, making it a central site for literary studies (Culler, 2008, p. 206). |
| Pedagogical Paradigm | The dominant educational framework that interprets lyric as dramatic monologue, aligning it with prose fiction. | Culler critiques this paradigm as reductive, advocating for new methodologies that foreground lyric’s unique characteristics (Culler, 2008, p. 201). |
| Transhistorical vs. Historical | The debate between viewing lyric as a universal genre versus understanding its forms and meanings as historically contingent. | Culler supports a balanced approach, acknowledging the lyric’s persistence while studying its historical manifestations and social functions (Culler, 2008, p. 204). |
Contribution of “Why Lyric?” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories
- Revisiting the Lyric Genre
Culler challenges traditional definitions of lyric, which align it with intense personal expression, proposing instead a broader understanding that encompasses its diverse forms and historical contexts. This critique contributes to genre theory by questioning the viability of fixed transhistorical categories for lyric poetry (Culler, 2008, p. 203). - Critique of Narrative Dominance
Culler critiques the dominance of narrative theory in literary studies, where lyric is often interpreted through the lens of narrative structures. He highlights how this approach marginalizes the non-narrative temporality of lyric, emphasizing its focus on “what happens now” rather than “what happens next” (Culler, 2008, p. 202). - Integration of Intertextuality
By foregrounding the intertextual nature of lyric, such as Robert Frost’s allusion to François Villon, Culler enriches intertextuality theory. He demonstrates how lyric engages in complex dialogues with other texts, adding layers of meaning beyond narrative reconstruction (Culler, 2008, p. 203). - Lyric and Rhetorical Theory
Drawing on classical traditions, Culler situates lyric within rhetorical theory as epideictic discourse—designed to praise or critique societal values. This framing broadens the understanding of lyric’s performative and communicative functions (Culler, 2008, p. 204). - Challenging the Dramatic Monologue Paradigm
Culler critiques the New Criticism-inspired view of lyric as a dramatic monologue, a perspective that aligns it with narrative fiction. His argument contributes to formalist theory by emphasizing the overlooked features of lyric, such as rhythm, sound, and hyperbolic forms of address (Culler, 2008, p. 201). - Focus on the Materiality of Language
By emphasizing lyric’s material aspects, such as rhythm and phonological patterning, Culler aligns with linguistic theory and formalism, arguing that lyric foregrounds the sensory and structural properties of language (Culler, 2008, p. 205). - Reinforcing Lyric’s Role in Subjectivity Formation
Culler connects lyric to psychoanalytic and poststructuralist theories, arguing that its structural patterning links language to the formation of subjectivity. He highlights how lyric engages readers through memory, rhythm, and temporality, shaping their experience of language (Culler, 2008, p. 206). - Reviving Classical Lyric Models
By revisiting Greek and Roman traditions, Culler contributes to classical literary theory, proposing a model where the lyric is seen as a performative act directed at an audience. This approach contrasts with the solipsistic nature of modern lyric and offers a historical framework for its study (Culler, 2008, p. 204). - New Lyric Studies Approach
Culler engages with the work of Virginia Jackson and Yopie Prins, advocating for new historicism and cultural studies approaches to lyric. He emphasizes the need to explore how lyric has been constructed and functioned in different historical and cultural contexts (Culler, 2008, p. 204). - Proposing New Typologies for Lyric
Culler suggests creating new typologies for lyric, distinguishing between present-tense and past-tense lyrics, which contributes to structuralist theory. This shift encourages diverse methodologies for analyzing lyric’s unique temporal and linguistic features (Culler, 2008, p. 206).
Examples of Critiques Through “Why Lyric?” by Jonathan Culler
| Literary Work | Critique Using Culler’s Framework | Reference from Article |
| Robert Frost’s “Spring Pools” | Culler critiques the tendency to read the poem as a dramatic monologue, focusing solely on the speaker and narrative reconstruction. Instead, he highlights its rhythmic elements, sound patterns, and intertextual allusion to François Villon, emphasizing lyric’s immediacy and linguistic play. | “Flowery chiasmus” and allusion to “the snows of yesteryear” illustrate how lyric transcends narrative conventions (Culler, 2008, p. 203). |
| Robert Browning’s “My Last Duchess” | The Duke’s speech is traditionally read as a dramatic monologue, but Culler points out how this interpretation often ignores the interplay of metrical form and speaker characterization, such as the irony of the Duke’s polished pentameter reflecting his “unpolished” speech. | “Brilliant pentameter couplets…ironically undercut” the speaker’s claims of being unskilled in speech, demonstrating how lyric highlights formal elements (Culler, 2008, p. 203). |
| W. B. Yeats’s “Among School Children” | Culler uses the poem to illustrate the “lyric present,” emphasizing how its temporality creates immediacy and reflective engagement distinct from narrative forms. | “The lyric temporality of present tense: ‘I walk through the long schoolroom questioning’” demonstrates how lyric captures moments rather than sequences (Culler, 2008, p. 205). |
| François Villon’s “Ballade des dames du temps jadis” | Villon’s refrain, “Where are the snows of yesteryear?” is reinterpreted in Frost’s “Spring Pools,” where the transience of snow is literalized. Culler highlights how intertextual references enrich lyric’s meaning beyond narrative. | “Lyric’s intertextuality…Villon’s refrain becomes a basis for Frost’s meditation on transience” (Culler, 2008, p. 203). |
Criticism Against “Why Lyric?” by Jonathan Culler
- Overemphasis on Theory Over Practice
Critics argue that Culler’s focus on redefining lyric within theoretical frameworks can overlook the practical engagement of readers with lyric poetry, particularly those who enjoy poetry for its emotional or aesthetic value rather than academic categorization. - Marginalization of Reader Response
Culler’s emphasis on formal and historical aspects of lyric neglects reader-response theory, which considers how individual readers interpret and emotionally connect to lyric poetry. - Limited Address of Non-Western Lyric Traditions
Culler’s analysis primarily focuses on Western traditions, with limited exploration of non-Western lyric forms, which may offer alternative frameworks for understanding the genre. - Potential Oversimplification of Narrative
While critiquing the dominance of narrative paradigms in literary studies, Culler’s binary opposition of narrative and lyric risks oversimplifying the interrelation between the two forms, as some lyric poems incorporate narrative elements. - Historical Reductionism in New Lyric Studies
By aligning with the historical approaches of Virginia Jackson and Yopie Prins, Culler’s argument might reduce lyric to its social and historical contexts, potentially neglecting its universal and timeless qualities. - Neglect of Popular Lyric Forms
Critics may point out that Culler largely ignores contemporary popular forms of lyric, such as song lyrics, which are integral to modern cultural experiences but are not extensively discussed in his work. - Ambiguity in Proposed Models
While advocating for new typologies of lyric, Culler does not fully articulate clear criteria for these models, leaving some ambiguity about how they should be applied to analyze lyric poetry. - Challenges to Pedagogical Application
Some educators argue that Culler’s call to foreground lyric’s distinct features, such as its immediacy and intertextuality, might not be easily integrated into traditional literary curricula, which are often structured around narrative forms.
Representative Quotations from “Why Lyric?” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “If narrative is about what happens next, lyric is about what happens now—in the reader’s engagement with each line.” | Culler emphasizes the distinct temporality of lyric poetry, focusing on the immediacy of the reader’s experience, contrasting it with the sequential nature of narrative. |
| “The model of lyric as dramatic monologue misses: stress on the reconstruction of the dramatic situation deprives rhythm and sound patterning of any constitutive role.” | Culler critiques the dramatic monologue model for sidelining key features of lyric poetry, such as rhythm and sound, which are central to its aesthetic and meaning. |
| “Lyric is characteristically extravagant, performing speech acts not recorded in everyday speech and deploying not only meter and rhyme but also its own special tenses.” | This highlights the performative nature of lyric poetry, where its distinct language and form differentiate it from other literary genres. |
| “New Criticism’s insistence that interpretation focus on the words on the page…generated the assumption that the speaker of a lyric is not the poet but a persona.” | Culler identifies the influence of New Criticism on lyric interpretation, critiquing its detachment of the lyric from the poet’s voice and its focus on fictionalizing the speaker. |
| “The lyric present exploits a temporality that makes the experience immediate and ongoing, as in ‘I walk through the long schoolroom questioning.’” | The “lyric present” is a concept that underscores the immediacy and reflective engagement of the reader, making lyric poetry a unique temporal experience distinct from narrative. |
| “The historical study of different poetic practices should be joined to a revival of the idea of the lyric as a poetic activity that has persisted since the days of Sappho.” | Culler advocates for integrating historical and contemporary perspectives to understand lyric poetry as a persistent and evolving tradition. |
| “Lyric is memorable language—made memorable by its rhythmical shaping and phonological patterning.” | This highlights the function of lyric poetry as a form that imprints itself on the reader’s memory through its rhythm and sound patterns. |
| “Reading lyric as a novelizing way…ignores the characteristic extravagance of lyric, which frequently engages in speech acts without a known real-world counterpart.” | Culler criticizes the narrative model for failing to account for the symbolic and imaginative aspects of lyric, which often defy real-world logic. |
| “Lyric ought to be crucial, as the site where language is linked not only to structures of identification and displacement…but especially to rhythm and bodily experience.” | This connects lyric to broader linguistic and psychoanalytic theories, framing it as a medium that shapes identity and bodily experience through language. |
| “The Greek model treats the poem as an event addressed to an audience, performed for an audience, even if it idealizes situations of social ritual.” | Culler draws on classical traditions to emphasize lyric as a performative act that involves direct address and engagement with an audience, contrasting it with modern individualistic interpretations. |
Suggested Readings: “Why Lyric?” by Jonathan Culler
- Culler, Jonathan. “Why Lyric?” PMLA, vol. 123, no. 1, 2008, pp. 201–06. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25501839. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
- Findlay, L. M. “Culler and Byron on Apostrophe and Lyric Time.” Studies in Romanticism, vol. 24, no. 3, 1985, pp. 335–53. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/25600546. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
- Culler, Jonathan. “Reading Lyric.” Yale French Studies, no. 69, 1985, pp. 98–106. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2929927. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
- BUTTERFIELD, ARDIS. “WHY MEDIEVAL LYRIC?” ELH, vol. 82, no. 2, 2015, pp. 319–43. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24477788. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
- Culler, Jonathan. “Lyric, History, and Genre.” New Literary History, vol. 40, no. 4, 2009, pp. 879–99. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40666452. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.