Jump to content

Literary theory: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs)
Added title. Changed bare reference to CS1/2. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Grimes2 | #UCB_webform 599/1134
 
(46 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
{{literature}}
{{literature}}


'''Literary theory''' is the systematic [[research|study]] of the nature of [[literature]] and of the methods for [[literary analysis]].<ref name="Culler 1997, p.1">Culler 1997, p.1</ref> Since the 19th century, literary scholarship includes literary theory and considerations of [[intellectual history]], moral philosophy, social prophecy, and interdisciplinary themes relevant to how people interpret [[Semantics|meaning]].<ref name="Culler 1997, p.1"/> In the [[humanities]] in modern academia, the latter style of literary scholarship is an offshoot of [[post-structuralism]].<ref name="Searle">Searle, John. (1990), [https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1990/12/06/the-storm-over-the-university/ "The Storm Over the University"], ''The New York Review of Books'', December 6, 1990.</ref> Consequently, the word ''theory'' became an umbrella term for scholarly approaches to [[text (literary theory)|reading texts]], some of which are informed by strands of [[sociology]] and [[continental philosophy]].
'''Literary theory''' is the systematic [[research|study]] of the nature of [[literature]] and of the methods for [[literary analysis]].<ref name="Culler 1997, p.1">[[Jonathan Culler|Culler]] 1997, p.1</ref> Since the 19th century, literary scholarship includes literary theory and considerations of [[intellectual history]], moral philosophy, social philosophy, and interdisciplinary themes relevant to how people interpret [[Semantics|meaning]].<ref name="Culler 1997, p.1"/> In the [[humanities]] in modern academia, the latter style of literary scholarship is an offshoot of [[post-structuralism]].<ref name="Searle">[[John Searle|Searle, John]]. (1990), [https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1990/12/06/the-storm-over-the-university/ "The Storm Over the University"], ''The New York Review of Books'', December 6, 1990.</ref> Consequently, the word ''theory'' became an umbrella term for scholarly approaches to [[text (literary theory)|reading texts]], some of which are informed by strands of [[semiotics]], [[cultural studies]], [[philosophy of language]], and [[continental philosophy]], often witnessed within [[Western canon]] along with some [[Postmodernism|postmodernist theory.]]


==History<!--'Theory wars' redirects here-->==
==History<!--'Theory wars' redirects here-->==
{{Expand section|date=January 2024}}
The practice of literary theory became a profession in the 20th century, but it has historical roots that run as far back as ancient Greece ([[Aristotle]]'s ''[[Poetics (Aristotle)|Poetics]]'' is an often cited early example), ancient India ([[Bharata Muni]]'s ''[[Natya Shastra]]''), ancient Rome ([[Longinus (literature)|Longinus]]'s ''On the Sublime'') and medieval Iraq ([[Al-Jahiz]]'s ''al-Bayan wa-'l-tabyin'' and ''al-Hayawan'', and [[Abdullah ibn al-Mu'tazz|ibn al-Mu'tazz]]'s ''Kitab al-Badi'').<ref>{{citation|title=Beyond the Line: Classical Arabic Literary Critics on the Coherence and Unity of the Poem|first=G. J. H.|last=van Gelder|publisher=[[Brill Publishers]]|year=1982|isbn=90-04-06854-6|pages=1–2}}</ref> The [[aesthetic]] theories of [[philosopher]]s from [[ancient philosophy]] through the 18th and 19th centuries are important influences on current literary study. The theory and [[literary criticism|criticism]] of literature are tied to the [[history of literature]].
The practice of literary theory became a profession in the 20th century, but it has historical roots that run as far back as ancient Greece ([[Aristotle]]'s ''[[Poetics (Aristotle)|Poetics]]'' is an often cited early example), ancient India ([[Bharata Muni]]'s ''[[Natya Shastra]]''), and ancient Rome ([[Longinus (literature)|Longinus]]'s ''On the Sublime''). In medieval times, scholars in the Middle East ([[Al-Jahiz]]'s ''al-Bayan wa-'l-tabyin'' and ''al-Hayawan'', and [[Abdullah ibn al-Mu'tazz|ibn al-Mu'tazz]]'s ''Kitab al-Badi'')<ref>{{citation|title=Beyond the Line: Classical Arabic Literary Critics on the Coherence and Unity of the Poem|first=G. J. H.|last=van Gelder|publisher=[[Brill Publishers]]|year=1982|isbn=90-04-06854-6|pages=1–2}}</ref> and Europe<ref>{{cite book|title=Practicing Literary Theory in the Middle Ages: Ethics and the Mixed Form in Chaucer, Gower, Usk, and Hoccleve|last=Johnson|first=Eleanor|year=2013|isbn=9780226015989|publisher=University of Chicago Press|pages=1–15}}</ref> continued to produce works based on literary studies. The [[aesthetic]] theories of [[philosopher]]s from [[ancient philosophy]] through the 18th and 19th centuries are important influences on current literary study. The theory and [[literary criticism|criticism]] of literature are tied to the [[history of literature]].


Some scholars, both theoretical and anti-theoretical, refer to the 1980s and 1990s debates on the academic merits of theory as "the '''theory wars'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA-->".<ref>Mark Bevir, Jill Hargis, Sara Rushing, "Introduction", in: Mark Bevir, Jill Hargis, Sara Rushing (eds.), ''Histories of Postmodernism'', Routledge, 2020.</ref> Proponents and critics of the turn to theory take different (and often conflicting) positions about what counts as a theory or what it means to theorize within/about/alongside literature or other cultural creations.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://iep.utm.edu/literary/ | title=Literary Theory &#124; Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy }}</ref>
However, the modern sense of "literary theory" only dates to approximately the 1950s when the [[structuralist linguistics]] of [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] began to strongly influence [[English language]] literary criticism.{{Citation needed|date=January 2019}} The [[New Critics]] and various European-influenced [[Formalism (literature)|formalist]]s (particularly the [[Russian Formalists]]) had described some of their more abstract efforts as "theoretical" as well.{{Citation needed|date=January 2019}} But it was not until the broad impact of structuralism began to be felt in the English-speaking academic world that "literary theory" was thought of as a unified domain.{{Citation needed|date=January 2019}}

In the academic world of the United Kingdom and the United States, literary theory was at its most popular from the late 1960s (when its influence was beginning to spread outward from universities such as [[Johns Hopkins University|Johns Hopkins]], [[Yale University|Yale]], and [[Cornell University|Cornell]]) through the 1980s (by which time it was taught nearly everywhere in some form).{{Citation needed|date=January 2019}} During this span of time, literary theory was perceived as academically cutting-edge, and most university literature departments sought to teach and study theory and incorporate it into their curricula.{{Citation needed|date=January 2019}} Because of its meteoric rise in popularity and the difficult language of its key texts, theory was also often criticized as [[fad]]dish or trendy [[obscurantism]] (and many academic satire novels of the period, such as those by [[David Lodge (author)|David Lodge]], feature theory prominently).{{Citation needed|date=January 2019}} Some scholars, both theoretical and anti-theoretical, refer to the 1980s and 1990s debates on the academic merits of theory as "the '''theory wars'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA-->".<ref>Mark Bevir, Jill Hargis, Sara Rushing, "Introduction", in: Mark Bevir, Jill Hargis, Sara Rushing (eds.), ''Histories of Postmodernism'', Routledge, 2020.</ref>

By the early 1990s, the popularity of "theory" as a subject of interest by itself was declining slightly (along with job openings for pure "theorists") even as the texts of literary theory were incorporated into the study of almost all literature.{{Citation needed|date=January 2019}} By 2010, the controversy over the use of theory in literary studies had quieted down, and discussions on the topic within literary and cultural studies tend now to be considerably milder and less lively.{{Citation needed|date=January 2019}} However, some scholars like [[Mark Bauerlein]] continue to argue that less capable theorists have abandoned proven methods of [[epistemology]], resulting in persistent lapses in learning, research, and evaluation.<ref>{{cite web
| url =https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/11/13/essay-critiques-role-theory-humanities | title=Theory and the Humanities, Once More | last1=Bauerlein | first1=Mark | date=November 13, 2014 | website=Inside HigherEd | location=Washington, DC
| quote = Jay treats it [theory] as transformative progress, but it impressed us as hack philosophizing, amateur social science, superficial learning, or just plain gamesmanship. }}</ref> Some scholars do draw heavily on theory in their work, while others only mention it in passing or not at all; but it is an acknowledged, important part of the study of literature.{{citation needed|date=September 2016}}


==Overview<!--linked from 'New Historicism'-->==
==Overview<!--linked from 'New Historicism'-->==
One of the fundamental questions of literary theory is "what is [[literature]]?" &ndash; although many contemporary theorists and literary scholars believe either that "literature" cannot be defined or that it can refer to any use of [[language]]. Specific theories are distinguished not only by their methods and conclusions, but even by how they create meaning in a "[[text (literary theory)|text]]". However, some theorists acknowledge that these texts do not have a singular, fixed meaning which is deemed "correct".<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sullivan|first=Patrick|date=2002-01-01|title="Reception Moments," Modern Literary Theory, and the Teaching of Literature|jstor=40012241|journal=Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy|volume=45|issue=7|pages=568–577}}</ref>
One of the fundamental questions of literary theory is "what is [[literature]]?" and "how should or do we read?" &ndash; although some contemporary theorists and literary scholars believe either that "literature" cannot be defined or that it can refer to any use of [[language]]. Specific theories are distinguished not only by their methods and conclusions, but even by how they create meaning in a "[[text (literary theory)|text]]". However, some theorists acknowledge that these texts do not have a singular, fixed meaning which is deemed "correct".<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sullivan|first=Patrick|date=2002-01-01|title="Reception Moments," Modern Literary Theory, and the Teaching of Literature|jstor=40012241|journal=Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy|volume=45|issue=7|pages=568–577}}</ref>

Since theorists of literature often draw on a very heterogeneous tradition of [[Continental philosophy]] and the [[philosophy of language]], any classification of their approaches is only an approximation. There are many types of literary theory, which take different approaches to texts. Even among those listed below, many scholars combine methods from more than one of these approaches (for instance, the [[deconstruction|deconstructive]] approach of [[Paul de Man]] drew on a long tradition of [[close reading]] pioneered by the [[New Critics]], and de Man was trained in the European [[hermeneutic]] tradition).{{citation needed|date=September 2016}}


Broad schools of theory that have historically been important include historical and [[biographical criticism]], [[New Criticism]], [[formalism (literature)|formalism]], [[Russian formalism]], and [[structuralism]], [[post-structuralism]], [[Marxism]], [[feminism]] and [[French feminism]], [[post-colonialism]], [[new historicism]], [[deconstruction]], [[reader-response criticism]], and [[Psychoanalytic literary criticism|psychoanalytic]] criticism.
Since theorists of literature often draw on very heterogeneous traditions of [[Continental philosophy]] and the [[philosophy of language]], any classification of their approaches is only an approximation. There are many types of literary theory, which take different approaches to texts. Broad schools of theory that have historically been important include historical and [[biographical criticism]], [[New Criticism]], [[formalism (literature)|formalism]], [[Russian formalism]], and [[structuralism]], [[post-structuralism]], [[Marxism]] or [[historical materialism]], [[feminism]] and [[French feminism]], [[post-colonialism]], [[new historicism]], [[deconstruction]], [[reader-response criticism]], [[narratology]] and [[Psychoanalytic literary criticism|psychoanalytic]] criticism.


== Differences among schools ==
== Differences among schools ==
{{Original research|section|date=May 2012}}
{{Original research|section|date=May 2012}}
The different interpretive and epistemological perspectives of different schools of theory often arise from, and so give support to, different moral and political commitments. For instance, the work of the [[New Critics]] often contained an implicit moral dimension, and sometimes even a religious one: a New Critic might read a poem by [[T. S. Eliot]] or [[Gerard Manley Hopkins]] for its degree of honesty in expressing the torment and contradiction of a serious search for belief in the modern world. Meanwhile, a [[Marxist]] critic might find such judgments merely ideological rather than critical; the Marxist would say that the New Critical reading did not keep enough critical distance from the poem's religious stance to be able to understand it.{{Citation needed|date=January 2019}} Or a [[post-structuralist]] critic might simply avoid the issue by understanding the religious meaning of a poem as an allegory of meaning, treating the poem's references to "God" by discussing their referential nature rather than what they refer to.{{Citation needed|date=January 2019}} A critic using [[Darwinian literary studies]] might use arguments from the [[evolutionary psychology of religion]].{{Citation needed|date=January 2019}}
The different interpretive and epistemological perspectives of different schools of theory often arise from, and so give support to, different moral and political commitments. For instance, the work of the [[New Critics]] often contained an implicit moral dimension, and sometimes even a religious one: a New Critic might read a poem by [[T. S. Eliot]] or [[Gerard Manley Hopkins]] for its degree of honesty in expressing the torment and contradiction of a serious search for belief in the modern world. Meanwhile, a [[Marxist]] critic might find such judgments merely ideological rather than critical; the Marxist would say that the New Critical reading did not keep enough. Or a [[post-structuralist]] critic might simply avoid the issue by understanding the religious meaning of a poem as an allegory of meaning, treating the poem's references to "God" by discussing their referential nature rather than what they refer to.


Such a disagreement cannot be easily resolved, because it is inherent in the radically different terms and goals (that is, the theories) of the critics. Their theories of reading derive from vastly different intellectual traditions: the New Critic bases his work on an East-Coast American scholarly and religious tradition, while the Marxist derives his thought from a body of critical social and economic thought, the post-structuralist's work emerges from twentieth-century Continental philosophy of language, and the Darwinian from the [[Neo-Darwinism|modern evolutionary synthesis]].{{Citation needed|date=January 2019}}
Such a disagreement cannot be easily resolved, because it is inherent in the radically different terms and goals (that is, the theories) of the critics. Their theories of reading derive from vastly different intellectual traditions: the New Critic bases his work on an East-Coast American scholarly and religious tradition, while the Marxist derives his thought from a body of critical social and economic thought, the post-structuralist's work emerges from twentieth-century Continental philosophy of language.


In the late 1950s, the Canadian literary critic [[Northrop Frye]] attempted to establish an approach for reconciling historical criticism and New Criticism while addressing concerns of early reader-response and numerous psychological and social approaches. His approach, laid out in his ''[[Anatomy of Criticism]]'', was explicitly structuralist, relying on the assumption of an intertextual "order of words" and universality of certain structural types. His approach held sway in English literature programs for several decades but lost favor during the ascendance of post-structuralism.
In the late 1950s, the Canadian literary critic [[Northrop Frye]] attempted to establish an approach for reconciling historical criticism and New Criticism while addressing concerns of early reader-response and numerous psychological and social approaches. His approach, laid out in his ''[[Anatomy of Criticism]]'', was explicitly structuralist, relying on the assumption of an intertextual "order of words" and universality of certain structural types. His approach held sway in English literature programs for several decades but lost favor during the ascendance of post-structuralism.
Line 38: Line 31:


==Schools==
==Schools==
Listed below are some of the most commonly identified schools of literary theory, along with their major authors. In many cases, such as those of the historian and philosopher [[Michel Foucault]] and the anthropologist [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]], the authors were not primarily literary critics, but their work has been broadly influential in literary theory.{{cn|date=April 2021}}
Listed below are some of the most commonly identified schools of literary theory, along with their major authors:


* [[Aestheticism]] – associated with [[Romanticism]], a philosophy defining aesthetic value as the primary goal in understanding literature. This includes both literary critics who have tried to understand and/or identify aesthetic values and those like Oscar Wilde who have stressed [[art for art's sake]].
* [[Aestheticism]] – associated with [[Romanticism]], a philosophy defining aesthetic value as the primary goal in understanding literature. This includes both literary critics who have tried to understand and/or identify aesthetic values and those like Oscar Wilde who have stressed [[art for art's sake]].
** [[Oscar Wilde]], [[Walter Pater]], [[Harold Bloom]]
** [[Oscar Wilde]], [[Walter Pater]], [[Harold Bloom]]
* [[African-American literary theory]]
* African-American literary theory
* American [[pragmatism]] and other American approaches
* American [[pragmatism]] and other American approaches
** [[Harold Bloom]], [[Stanley Fish]], [[Richard Rorty]]
** [[Harold Bloom]], [[Stanley Fish]], [[Richard Rorty]]
* [[Cognitive literary theory]] – applies research in cognitive neuroscience, cognitive evolutionary psychology and anthropology, and philosophy of mind to the study of literature and culture.
* [[Cognitive literary theory]] – applies research in [[cognitive science]] and [[philosophy of mind]] to the study of literature and culture.
** [[Frederick Luis Aldama]], [[Mary Thomas Crane]], [[Nancy Easterlin]], William Flesch, David Herman, [[Suzanne Keen]], [[Patrick Colm Hogan]], [[Alan Richardson (critic)|Alan Richardson]], [[Ellen Spolsky]], [[Blakey Vermeule]], [[Lisa Zunshine]]
** [[Frederick Luis Aldama]], Mary Thomas Crane, Nancy Easterlin, William Flesch, David Herman, [[Suzanne Keen]], Patrick Colm Hogan, Alan Richardson, [[Ellen Spolsky]], [[Blakey Vermeule]], [[Lisa Zunshine]]
* [[Cambridge criticism]] – close examination of the literary text and the relation of literature to social issues
* [[Cambridge criticism]] – close examination of the literary text and the relation of literature to social issues
**[[I.A. Richards]], [[F.R. Leavis]], [[Q.D. Leavis]], [[William Empson]].
**[[I.A. Richards]], [[F.R. Leavis]], [[Q.D. Leavis]], [[William Empson]].
Line 52: Line 45:
* [[Cultural studies]] – emphasizes the role of literature in everyday life
* [[Cultural studies]] – emphasizes the role of literature in everyday life
** [[Raymond Williams]], [[Dick Hebdige]], and [[Stuart Hall (cultural theorist)|Stuart Hall]] ([[British Cultural Studies]]); [[Max Horkheimer]] and [[Theodor Adorno]]; [[Michel de Certeau]]; also [[Paul Gilroy]], [[John Guillory]]
** [[Raymond Williams]], [[Dick Hebdige]], and [[Stuart Hall (cultural theorist)|Stuart Hall]] ([[British Cultural Studies]]); [[Max Horkheimer]] and [[Theodor Adorno]]; [[Michel de Certeau]]; also [[Paul Gilroy]], [[John Guillory]]
* Dark Side of the Rainbow – a strategy of analyzing works with the accompaniment of music and finding and extrapolating thematic similarities between the two, named after a popular practice that came about in the 1970s
*[[Darwinian literary studies]] – situates literature in the context of evolution and natural selection
*[[Darwinian literary studies]] – situates literature in the context of evolution and natural selection
* [[Deconstruction]] – a strategy of "close" reading that elicits the ways that key terms and concepts may be paradoxical or self-undermining, rendering their meaning undecidable
* [[Deconstruction]] – a strategy of "close" reading that elicits the ways that key terms and concepts may be paradoxical or self-undermining, rendering their meaning undecidable
Line 69: Line 61:
* [[Narratology]]
* [[Narratology]]
* [[New Criticism]] – looks at literary works on the basis of what is written, and not at the goals of the author or biographical issues
* [[New Criticism]] – looks at literary works on the basis of what is written, and not at the goals of the author or biographical issues
** [[W. K. Wimsatt]], [[F. R. Leavis]], [[John Crowe Ransom]], [[Cleanth Brooks]], [[Robert Penn Warren]], [[T.S. Eliot]]
** [[W. K. Wimsatt]], [[F. R. Leavis]], [[John Crowe Ransom]], [[Cleanth Brooks]], [[Robert Penn Warren]]
* [[New historicism]] – which examines the work through its historical context and seeks to understand cultural and intellectual history through literature
* [[New historicism]] – which examines the work through its historical context and seeks to understand cultural and intellectual history through literature
** [[Stephen Greenblatt]], [[Louis Montrose]], [[Jonathan Goldberg]], [[H. Aram Veeser]]
** [[Stephen Greenblatt]], [[Louis Montrose]], [[Jonathan Goldberg]], H. Aram Veeser
* [[Postcolonialism]] – focuses on the influences of [[colonialism]] in literature, especially regarding the historical conflict resulting from the exploitation of less developed countries and [[indigenous peoples]] by [[Western nation]]s
* [[Postcolonialism]] – focuses on the influences of [[colonialism]] in literature, especially regarding the historical conflict resulting from the exploitation of less developed countries and [[indigenous peoples]] by [[Western nation]]s
** [[Edward Said]], [[Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak]], [[Homi K. Bhabha|Homi Bhabha]] and [[Declan Kiberd]]
** [[Edward Said]], [[Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak]], [[Homi K. Bhabha|Homi Bhabha]] and [[Declan Kiberd]]
Line 90: Line 82:
* [[Structuralism]] and [[semiotics]] (see [[semiotic literary criticism]]) – examines the universal underlying structures in a text, the linguistic units in a text and how the author conveys meaning through any structures
* [[Structuralism]] and [[semiotics]] (see [[semiotic literary criticism]]) – examines the universal underlying structures in a text, the linguistic units in a text and how the author conveys meaning through any structures
** [[Ferdinand de Saussure]], [[Roman Jakobson]], [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]], [[Roland Barthes]], [[Mikhail Bakhtin]], [[Juri Lotman]], [[Umberto Eco]], [[Jacques Ehrmann]], [[Northrop Frye]] and [[Morphology (folkloristics)|morphology of folklore]]
** [[Ferdinand de Saussure]], [[Roman Jakobson]], [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]], [[Roland Barthes]], [[Mikhail Bakhtin]], [[Juri Lotman]], [[Umberto Eco]], [[Jacques Ehrmann]], [[Northrop Frye]] and [[Morphology (folkloristics)|morphology of folklore]]
* Other theorists: [[Robert Graves]], [[Alamgir Hashmi]], [[John Sutherland (author)|John Sutherland]], [[Leslie Fiedler]], [[Kenneth Burke]], [[Paul Bénichou]], [[Barbara Johnson]], [[Blanca de Lizaur]]
* Other theorists: [[Robert Graves]], [[Alamgir Hashmi]], [[John Sutherland (author)|John Sutherland]], [[Leslie Fiedler]], [[Kenneth Burke]], [[Paul Bénichou]], [[Barbara Johnson]]


==See also==
==See also==
{{cmn|
* [[Communication theory]]
* [[Communication theory]]
* [[List of literary terms]]
* [[List of literary terms]]
Line 99: Line 92:
* [[Critical theory]]
* [[Critical theory]]
* [[Literary criticism]]
* [[Literary criticism]]
* [[Janet C. Richards]]
* [[Text (literary theory)]]
* [[Text (literary theory)]]
* [[School of Resentment]]
* [[School of Resentment]]
}}


==Notes==
==Notes==
Line 106: Line 101:


== References ==
== References ==
* Peter Barry. ''Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory''. {{ISBN|0-7190-6268-3}}.
* [[Peter Barry (poet)|Peter Barry]]. ''Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory''. {{ISBN|0-7190-6268-3}}.
* Jonathan Culler. (1997) ''Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction''. Oxford: Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|0-19-285383-X}}.
* [[Jonathan Culler]]. (1997) ''Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction''. Oxford: Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|0-19-285383-X}}.
* Terry Eagleton. ''Literary Theory: An Introduction''. {{ISBN|0-8166-1251-X}}.
* [[Terry Eagleton]]. ''Literary Theory: An Introduction''. {{ISBN|0-8166-1251-X}}.
* Terry Eagleton. ''After Theory''. {{ISBN|0-465-01773-8}}.
* Terry Eagleton. ''After Theory''. {{ISBN|0-465-01773-8}}.
* Jean-Michel Rabaté. ''The Future of Theory''. {{ISBN|0-631-23013-0}}.
* Jean-Michel Rabaté. ''The Future of Theory''. {{ISBN|0-631-23013-0}}.
* ''The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism''. {{ISBN|0-8018-4560-2}}.
* ''The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism''. {{ISBN|0-8018-4560-2}}.
* ''Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader.'' Ed. David Lodge and Nigel Wood. 2nd Ed. {{ISBN|0-582-31287-6}}
* ''Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader.'' Ed. [[David Lodge (author)|David Lodge]] and Nigel Wood. 2nd Ed. {{ISBN|0-582-31287-6}}
* ''Theory's Empire: An Anthology of Dissent.'' Ed. Daphne Patai and Will H. Corral. {{ISBN|0-231-13417-7}}.
* ''Theory's Empire: An Anthology of Dissent.'' Ed. [[Daphne Patai]] and Will H. Corral. {{ISBN|0-231-13417-7}}.
*[[Bakhtin]], M. M. (1981) ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=JKZztxqdIpgC The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays]''. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin and London: University of Texas Press.
*[[Mikhail Bakhtin|Bakhtin, M. M.]] (1981) ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=JKZztxqdIpgC The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays]''. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. [[Caryl Emerson]] and Michael Holquist. Austin and London: University of Texas Press.
* [[René Wellek]]. ''A History of Modern Criticism: 1750-1950''. Yale University Press, 1955-1992, 8 volumes.
* [[René Wellek]]. ''A History of Modern Criticism: 1750–1950''. Yale University Press, 1955–1992, 8 volumes.


==Further reading==
==Further reading==
* {{cite book|last=Carroll|first=Joseph|editor1-last=Dunbar|editor1-first=Robin|editor2-last=Barrett|editor2-first=Louise|orig-year=2007|year=2012|title=Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology|chapter=Evolutionary approaches to literature & drama|chapter-url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286740589_Evolutionary_approaches_to_literature_and_drama|doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198568308.013.0044|publisher=Oxford University Press|access-date=2020-05-13}}
* {{cite book|last=Carroll|first=Joseph|author-link=Joseph Carroll (scholar)|editor1-last=Dunbar|editor1-first=Robin|editor1-link=Robin Dunbar|editor2-last=Barrett|editor2-first=Louise|orig-date=2007|year=2012|title=Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology|chapter=Evolutionary approaches to literature & drama|pages=637–648 |chapter-url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286740589|doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198568308.013.0044|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-856830-8 |access-date=2020-05-13}}
* Castle, Gregory. ''Blackwell Guide to Literary Theory''. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
* Castle, Gregory. ''Blackwell Guide to Literary Theory''. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
* [[Jonathan Culler|Culler, Jonathan.]] ''The Literary in Theory''. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007.
* [[Jonathan Culler|Culler, Jonathan.]] ''The Literary in Theory''. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007.
Line 124: Line 119:
* ''Literary Theory: An Anthology''. Edited by Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
* ''Literary Theory: An Anthology''. Edited by Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
* [[Lisa Zunshine]], ed. [https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Cognitive-Cultural-Studies-Zunshine/dp/0801894883 Introduction to Cognitive Cultural Studies]. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010
* [[Lisa Zunshine]], ed. [https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Cognitive-Cultural-Studies-Zunshine/dp/0801894883 Introduction to Cognitive Cultural Studies]. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010
* ''Writing: what for and for whom. The joys and travails of the artist'', edited by [[Ralf van Bühren]]. Rome: EDUSC, 2024.


== External links ==
== External links ==
{{wikiquote}}
{{wikiquote}}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20010903182420/http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/gutenberg/etext99/poetc10.txt Aristotle's ''Poetics'' (350 BCE)]
* [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1974/1974-h/1974-h.htm Aristotle's ''Poetics'' (350 BCE) A translation By S. H. Butcher]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110126202358/http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/longinus/ Longinus's On the Sublime (1st century CE)]
* [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/17957/17957-h/17957-h.htm Longinus's ''On the Sublime'' (1st century CE) A translation By H. L. Havell]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20080516000249/http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/defence.html Sir Philip Sidney's ''Defence of Poesie'' (1595)]
* [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1962/1962-h/1962-h.htm Sir Philip Sidney's ''Defence of Poesie'' (1595)]
* [[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]: [https://iep.utm.edu/literary/ "Literary Theory"], by Vince Brewton
* [https://www.kristisiegel.com/theory.htm Introduction to Modern Literary Theory ]
* [https://personal.unizar.es/garciala/bibliography.html "A Bibliography of Literary Theory, Criticism and Philology", by José Ángel García Landa]
* [https://personal.unizar.es/garciala/bibliography.html "A Bibliography of Literary Theory, Criticism and Philology", by José Ángel García Landa]
* [http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~tpl/texts/quotes.html "Some Literary Criticism quotes", by Tim Love]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20080104054100/http://www.geocities.com/litcrittoolkit/ The Litcrit Toolkit]
* [[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]: [http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/literary.htm "Literary Theory," by Vince Brewton]
* [http://www.literaturtheorie.uni-goettingen.de Annotated bibliography on literary theory]
* [http://www.literaturtheorie.uni-goettingen.de Annotated bibliography on literary theory]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20080104054100/http://www.geocities.com/litcrittoolkit/ The Litcrit Toolkit]
* [http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/lit.crit.html Critical Literary Theory ]
* [http://www.kristisiegel.com/theory.htm Introduction to Theory ]
* [https://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/lit.crit.html Critical Literary Theory]
* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/literary/ Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
* [https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/722/01/ Purdue OWL]
* [https://litguide.press.jhu.edu/ Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory & Criticism]
* [https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/722/01/ Purdue OWL ]
* [http://litguide.press.jhu.edu/ Johns Hopkins Guide]


{{Litcrit}}
{{Litcrit}}

Latest revision as of 09:54, 9 September 2024

Literary theory is the systematic study of the nature of literature and of the methods for literary analysis.[1] Since the 19th century, literary scholarship includes literary theory and considerations of intellectual history, moral philosophy, social philosophy, and interdisciplinary themes relevant to how people interpret meaning.[1] In the humanities in modern academia, the latter style of literary scholarship is an offshoot of post-structuralism.[2] Consequently, the word theory became an umbrella term for scholarly approaches to reading texts, some of which are informed by strands of semiotics, cultural studies, philosophy of language, and continental philosophy, often witnessed within Western canon along with some postmodernist theory.

History

[edit]

The practice of literary theory became a profession in the 20th century, but it has historical roots that run as far back as ancient Greece (Aristotle's Poetics is an often cited early example), ancient India (Bharata Muni's Natya Shastra), and ancient Rome (Longinus's On the Sublime). In medieval times, scholars in the Middle East (Al-Jahiz's al-Bayan wa-'l-tabyin and al-Hayawan, and ibn al-Mu'tazz's Kitab al-Badi)[3] and Europe[4] continued to produce works based on literary studies. The aesthetic theories of philosophers from ancient philosophy through the 18th and 19th centuries are important influences on current literary study. The theory and criticism of literature are tied to the history of literature.

Some scholars, both theoretical and anti-theoretical, refer to the 1980s and 1990s debates on the academic merits of theory as "the theory wars".[5] Proponents and critics of the turn to theory take different (and often conflicting) positions about what counts as a theory or what it means to theorize within/about/alongside literature or other cultural creations.[6]

Overview

[edit]

One of the fundamental questions of literary theory is "what is literature?" and "how should or do we read?" – although some contemporary theorists and literary scholars believe either that "literature" cannot be defined or that it can refer to any use of language. Specific theories are distinguished not only by their methods and conclusions, but even by how they create meaning in a "text". However, some theorists acknowledge that these texts do not have a singular, fixed meaning which is deemed "correct".[7]

Since theorists of literature often draw on very heterogeneous traditions of Continental philosophy and the philosophy of language, any classification of their approaches is only an approximation. There are many types of literary theory, which take different approaches to texts. Broad schools of theory that have historically been important include historical and biographical criticism, New Criticism, formalism, Russian formalism, and structuralism, post-structuralism, Marxism or historical materialism, feminism and French feminism, post-colonialism, new historicism, deconstruction, reader-response criticism, narratology and psychoanalytic criticism.

Differences among schools

[edit]

The different interpretive and epistemological perspectives of different schools of theory often arise from, and so give support to, different moral and political commitments. For instance, the work of the New Critics often contained an implicit moral dimension, and sometimes even a religious one: a New Critic might read a poem by T. S. Eliot or Gerard Manley Hopkins for its degree of honesty in expressing the torment and contradiction of a serious search for belief in the modern world. Meanwhile, a Marxist critic might find such judgments merely ideological rather than critical; the Marxist would say that the New Critical reading did not keep enough. Or a post-structuralist critic might simply avoid the issue by understanding the religious meaning of a poem as an allegory of meaning, treating the poem's references to "God" by discussing their referential nature rather than what they refer to.

Such a disagreement cannot be easily resolved, because it is inherent in the radically different terms and goals (that is, the theories) of the critics. Their theories of reading derive from vastly different intellectual traditions: the New Critic bases his work on an East-Coast American scholarly and religious tradition, while the Marxist derives his thought from a body of critical social and economic thought, the post-structuralist's work emerges from twentieth-century Continental philosophy of language.

In the late 1950s, the Canadian literary critic Northrop Frye attempted to establish an approach for reconciling historical criticism and New Criticism while addressing concerns of early reader-response and numerous psychological and social approaches. His approach, laid out in his Anatomy of Criticism, was explicitly structuralist, relying on the assumption of an intertextual "order of words" and universality of certain structural types. His approach held sway in English literature programs for several decades but lost favor during the ascendance of post-structuralism.

For some theories of literature (especially certain kinds of formalism), the distinction between "literary" and other sorts of texts is of paramount importance. Other schools (particularly post-structuralism in its various forms: new historicism, deconstruction, some strains of Marxism and feminism) have sought to break down distinctions between the two and have applied the tools of textual interpretation to a wide range of "texts", including film, non-fiction, historical writing, and even cultural events.

Mikhail Bakhtin argued that the "utter inadequacy" of literary theory is evident when it is forced to deal with the novel; while other genres are fairly stabilized, the novel is still developing.[8]

Another crucial distinction among the various theories of literary interpretation is intentionality, the amount of weight given to the author's own opinions about and intentions for a work. For most pre-20th century approaches, the author's intentions are a guiding factor and an important determiner of the "correct" interpretation of texts. The New Criticism was the first school to disavow the role of the author in interpreting texts, preferring to focus on "the text itself" in a close reading. In fact, as much contention as there is between formalism and later schools, they share the tenet that the author's interpretation of a work is no more inherently meaningful than any other.

Schools

[edit]

Listed below are some of the most commonly identified schools of literary theory, along with their major authors:

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Culler 1997, p.1
  2. ^ Searle, John. (1990), "The Storm Over the University", The New York Review of Books, December 6, 1990.
  3. ^ van Gelder, G. J. H. (1982), Beyond the Line: Classical Arabic Literary Critics on the Coherence and Unity of the Poem, Brill Publishers, pp. 1–2, ISBN 90-04-06854-6
  4. ^ Johnson, Eleanor (2013). Practicing Literary Theory in the Middle Ages: Ethics and the Mixed Form in Chaucer, Gower, Usk, and Hoccleve. University of Chicago Press. pp. 1–15. ISBN 9780226015989.
  5. ^ Mark Bevir, Jill Hargis, Sara Rushing, "Introduction", in: Mark Bevir, Jill Hargis, Sara Rushing (eds.), Histories of Postmodernism, Routledge, 2020.
  6. ^ "Literary Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy".
  7. ^ Sullivan, Patrick (2002-01-01). ""Reception Moments," Modern Literary Theory, and the Teaching of Literature". Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 45 (7): 568–577. JSTOR 40012241.
  8. ^ Bakhtin 1981, p.8

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]