Works Cited
Baker,
Peter. “Literary Theory and the Role of the University.” College Literature 22.2 (1995): 1-15.
JSTOR. Web. 30 May 2012.
Baker
argues that the university plays the larger role in the study of literary
theory. He makes a case for literary theory as the unifying point between all
fields of study because the practical application of literary skills enhance
the work in other fields and allows these areas of study to talk to one
another. Baker concedes that other academic
fields believe that literary theory and criticism are trying too hard to keep
pace in the world of academia, but he also argues that without the tools that
have stemmed from the study of literature, other fields would not be able to
communicate well, inside or outside of their own research.
Fish,
Stanley. “Consequences.” Critical Inquiry
11.3 (1985): 433-458. JSTOR. Web. 29
May 2012.
Fish
acknowledges that there are multiple ways to interpret a text, but he gives two
main routes a person can take: you can follow distinct rules (like New Critics)
or you can have guidelines. Fish argues that nothing in theory is certain, and
that it differs from discipline to discipline. He gives examples of theory in
multiple areas, such as politics and education, and shows how there are
contradictions and controversies in every field.
Fish, Stanley. “How Ordinary is Ordinary Language?” Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1980. 97-112. Google Books. Web. 5 June 2012.
This
chapter of Fish’s book points out the questions that have arisen as theorists
have tried to determine what kind of language classifies a text as literature.
He argues that the classifications of ordinary language and literary language
are not enough to determine what texts are truly literary, and that we must now
take into consideration the language that has before been classified as
ordinary. Fish also notes that the value of a work is not static; neither are
the ways of reading a text and determining what the text means.
Fish,
Stanley. “Literature in the Reader: Affective Stylistics.” New Literary History 2.1 “A Symposium on Literary History” (1970): 123-162. JSTOR. 29 May 2012.
Fish argues that theory, while large and “full of
holes” (Fish 161), works. He describes meaning as an event which takes place in
a text, and that responses to literature must be structured in a way that is
teachable and understandable with the analysis being focused on the reader, not
the text. Theory has a logical, albeit complicated, process which can be
learned if one is willing to study and accept that it is limitless, as are
responses to texts.
Eagleton, Terry. “What is Ideology?” Ideology:
An Introduction. New York: Verso, 1991. 1-32. Google
Books. Web. 31 May 2012.
In this chapter, Eagleton discusses what an ideology
is and how it affects thinking, not just about literature, but about all
aspects of life. He defines ideologies as indefinable, with a multiplicity of
definitions, most of which contradict or limit one another. While these
ideologies are very useful in literary interpretation, Eagleton points out that
the many different ways of thinking are not compatible, whether on a personal
level or in a larger academic field.
Margolis, Joseph. “The Threads of Literary Theory.” Poetics Today 7.1 (1986): 95-110. JSTOR. Web. 29 May 2012.
Margolis
explores many different theoretical schools and claims that there are many
loose ends in all of these theories. He quotes multiple theorists from these
different schools and references their work to show where the loose ends are.
Margolis also touches on the affect that ideologies, personal or those that
belong to particular schools of thought, have on reading and interpreting
literature.
Stern, Barbara. “Who Talks Advertising? Literary Theory and Narrative ‘Point of View’.” Journal of Advertising 20.3 (1991): 9-22. JSTOR. Web. 30 May 2012.
Stern
approaches advertising and marketing through the ways audiences interpret media
presented to them. She addresses the importance of narrative and how certain
forms of narrative in marketing will cause audiences to accept or reject
products, presentations, and ideas. People in the career field who have an
understanding of literary interpretation and how to present material in ways
those audiences will relate to will be more successful than those professionals
who do not have this knowledge.
Young, Robert. “Contemporary Literary Theory: Its Necessity and Impossibility.” College Literature 9.3 “The Newest Criticisms” (1982): 165-173. JSTOR. 30 May 2012.
Young
discusses what he considers the most important aspects of literary theory and
interpretation, “the nature of the knowing subject, the nature of language and its
relation to the subject, and the status of literary theory itself” (Young 4).
The subject in this case is the object, or text, being interpreted. Young
believes that literary theory provides greater experiences with literature because
readers have a variety of ways to approach a work and interpret it.
Further Readings
Calhoun explains the school of phenomenology and how the techniques of this school are used in literary interpretation. He argues that the phenomenologist is most interested in the art of a text that is created when the reader experiences the text, claiming the text, or object, is “dependent for its existence on a viewer's experiencing it and re-constructing the artist's experience” (Calhoun 7).
Eagleton, Terry. “Ideology and Literary Form.” Criticism and Ideology: A Study in Marxist Literature. New York: Verso, 2006. 102-162. Google Books. Web. 31 May 2012.
Eagleton examines the affects that personal ideologies have on authors and how this is displayed in the texts authors create. He also claims that ideologies affect not only the author’s writing, but the way a reader interprets a text. Social, economical, political, and educational factors also enter the arena of interpretation because each of these highly influence the way a person thinks about and reacts to literature.
Hernadi, Paul. “Literary Theory: A Compass for Critics.” Critical Inquiry 3.2 (1976): 369-386. JSTOR. Web. 30 May 2012.
Hernadi uses four maps to outline the connections between readers and authors, language and information, and how all of these connections work through and inside a text. The first of the four maps is the least complex, with each map gradually becoming more detailed with greater emphasis placed on the continually changing readership and language used in societies. Hernadi uses these details to argue that theory is more of a compass that directs readers to certain aspects of a text, and that theory helps readers notice the connections between the text, the author, the language, and the reader.
McDonald, Peter D. “Ideas of the Book and Histories of Literature: After Theory?” PMLA 121.1 “The History of the Book and the Idea of Literature” (2006): 214-228. JSTOR. Web. 31 May 2012.
McDonald’s article briefly discusses what he calls the erroneous idea of after theory, stating that while the theory wars are over, literary theory has won and become part of the academic ideology. However, McDonald points out some of the flaws of such literary theories and how they often leave out other cultures and literary works, stating that cultural studies need to be given more room to expand by removing the restrictions of Western theoretical practices.
Prince, Gerald. “Literary Theory and the Undergraduate Curriculum.” Profession (1984): 37-40. JSTOR. 29 May 2012
Prince gives some helpful answers to the questions what theory is and what it does, why we use it and how we use it. He acknowledges that his answers are simple in their generality, but these answers make it easier for a beginning student to understand fundamental concepts. Prince also explains how theory has become engrained into the humanities and that the skills learned as an undergraduate can be used in future studying and employment as a foundation for understanding how to read and use a text.
Wilson, Daniel. “Readers in Texts.” PMLA 96.5 (1981): 848-863. JSTOR. Web. 30 May 2012.
Wilson discusses the importance of the intended and actual reader. When interpreting a text, Wilson argues that it is important for a reader to read not merely to gain his or her own understanding, but to gain an understanding of what the author’s intended audience would “get” out of a text.
Van Peer, W. “Quantitative Studies of Literature. A Critique and an Outlook.” Computers and the Humanities 23.4/5 “Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Computers and the Humanities” (1989): 301-370. JSTOR. Web. 29 May 2012.
This
article discusses the mistreatment of language in quantitative studies of
literature. Van Peer argues that will certain theories are effective, not all
of them take into consideration the complexities of language use, particularly
the usage of figurative language.
