- Amazon Student members save an additional 10% on Textbooks with promo code TEXTBOOK10. Enter code TEXTBOOK10 at checkout. Here's how (restrictions apply)
Literary Theory: An Introduction Paperback – Apr 2 2008
Special Offers and Product Promotions
Frequently Bought Together
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
No Kindle device required. Download one of the Free Kindle apps to start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, and computer.
To get the free app, enter your e-mail address or mobile phone number.
"Before Literary Theory, there had been no textbooks for English. There had been guides to particular authors, and even periods, but no single one book that could claim to be "essential reading"... Eagleton's book-which clearly understands the discipline and institutions of English-offered this." ( Times Literary Supplement , April 2009) "This book shaped the reception of theory in Britain for a generation." ( Times Higher Education Supplement) Praise for the First Edition of Literary Theory " Literary Theory has the kind of racy readability that one associates more often with English critics who have set their faces resolutely against theory ... It's not just a brilliant polemical essay, it's also a remarkable feat of condensation, explication, and synthesis ... Stimulating and entertaining." (Sunday Times) "This concise and lucid volume offers a satisfying survey of all the major theories, from structuralism in the 1960s to deconstruction today, that have made academic criticism both intriguing and off-putting to the outsider." (New York Times Book Review) "A polemical, amusing and very informative introduction ... indispensable." (Jonathan Culler) "The best handbook to those arcane ics and isms, both for academy members and for any civilians who, having heard the distant roar of professorial cannons, might wonder what the skirmishing is about." (Voice Literary Supplement) --This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.
About the Author
Terry Eagleton is John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature at the University of Manchester. His recent publications include How to Read a Poem (2006), The English Novel (2004), Sweet Violence: The Idea of the Tragic (2003), The Idea of Culture (2000), Scholars and Rebels in Nineteenth-Century Ireland (1999), and The Illusions of Postmodernism (1996), all published by Blackwell Publishing. --This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Top Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
At first, it was impossible for me to navigate Eagleton's book; it was a horror for two reasons: I knew nothing about the historicity of the philosophers, their theories or the movements that sprung up around these new ideas or the social conditions that fostered them. Every name: Husserl, Kant, Heidegger, Leavis (other than seeing his name as editor of a particular Penguin book I was reading), Hirsch, Hegel, Bakhtin, Gadamer, Fish, Barthes, et al.), every theory: phenomenology, reception, semiotics, structuralism and post-structuralism and every movement: essentialism, modernism, formalism, irrationalism, relativism, etc. was foreign to me, an unknown; every other word touched on something I knew very little about and understood less.
Secondly, Eagleton's breezy style was extremely difficult for me to decipher; his book was more like listening to a lecture than reading an introductory book. He loves to add -ness to the ends of words, like "bound-up-ness" or "shoeness" when discussing Van Gogh's ability to really paint the true quality of a shoe or "givenness" when explaining Heidegger's theory of the absolute, unequivocal "giveness" of the existence of humankind. He also throws out statements that are likewise unequivocal and unexplained despite the complexity of the issue he is propounding upon. For example, in discussing the failure of Heidegger to transcend the flaws of Husserl's phenomenological theory, he also mentions Heidegger's attraction and support of Hitler and his Fascist regime, and states: "Fascism is a desperate, last-ditch attempt on the part of monopoly capitalism to abolish contradictions which have become intolerable; and does so in part by offering a whole alternative history..." (57). It's a fascinating sentence, but Eagleton doesn't clarify or extend his one-phrase summation, so it seems a bit off the point and frustrated me not to know more about what he meant and how it applied to Heidegger's theories.
However, I determined to look up every word or concept I didn't understand and although it took me the whole summer to get through the book, light began to dawn. It was a struggle with both Eagleton's style and content, but I got through it and actually began to enjoy learning about theory. I now am quite attracted to the field of literary criticism and enjoy reading about it much more, although post-modernism is still a bugaboo. Lacan is now my new hurdle, but hopefully not for long; I find him (or those that write about him) fascinating. After battling with this subject, my advice would be: if you know anything about the field of literary and cultural theory, then Eagleton's book is probably a breeze, but if you are completely new to the discipline like me, I would choose a more traditionally organised and more plain-spoken introduction to literary theory. I would like to find one or actually many more books myself, because I find the field is so dense that a substantial amount was understandably missing in Eagleton's book- no one book could cover it all- and one could and should read considerably more on the subject.
If however, you choose to take a chance with Eagleton, because you like his style or feel up to wrestling with the man on this topic, then I think you might probably feel proud of yourself for having met the challenge and persevering. I certainly did.
When the professor discussed literary works such as Hemingway's A Clean Well Lighted Place, Oneill's The Hairy Ape, or Shakespeare's Othello, I was mystified. I understood what he said, but I had no idea where it came from. A friend, whose low-level of educational attainment matched mine, called it "reading between the lines."
However one characterized the source of the professor's insights, I couldn't see how he did it, nor could I understand the imagery in the poems we read, or see the humor in Andrew Marvell's reference to "vegetable love" in To His Coy Mistress. I was in trouble.
If the first edition of Terry Eagleton's book Literary Theory had been published twenty years earlier, I might have read and understood it (a real long shot!) and learned that the professor was a Leavasite. Nothing insidious about that. It just means that, during a time that the professor himself termed a post-Christian era, he was a proponent of the view that literature was the last refuge of truth, beauty, and the pastoral values that provide sustenance to the soul rather than carefully counted coins to the purse.
Beyond that, followers of F.R. Leavis were committed to close reading of the text itself without reference to contextual factors or the biography of the author. Literary works of real quality and lasting value were seen as organic wholes, standing alone, meant to be read in ways that demonstrated their internal coherence and completeness. Literature at its best aimed at a visceral emotional response that made it moving and memorable.
However, when structuralism was introduced as a new kind of literary theory, the close reading of Leavis and like-minded students of English literature, was found by some to be wanting. Structuralists were committed to a search for deeply embedded formal organizing principles that could be used to explain why any work of literature took a specific form.
Structuralists, notably Claude Levi-Strauss and Roland Barthes, took the view that the form of what we wrote, the shape of what we built, how we organized our social lives were controlled by deep structures intrinsic to our central nervous system and thus inescapable. Structures could be reckoned in terms of binary opposites such as hot/cold, raw/cooked, light/dark and so on. These may seem unduly simple terms with which to understand the formal properties of any social creation, but sophisticated analyses have been done of objects of all kinds, from Shakespeare's history plays to pulp fiction to kinship systems.
Following the great French linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, structuralists viewed the connection between a thing and its name as completely arbitrary, a product of historical habit and cultural convention. Thus a dog was called a dog because we had gotten accustomed to it not being called something else, say dressing gown or sandwich. There was no inherent parallel between the signifier dog and the thing to which it referred, the signified.
Structuralism's prominence was short-lived, perhaps because of it's sterile formalism. Once you've completed a structural analysis, where does that leave us? What's next? All you've really done is again verified that an analysis in terms of binary opposites can be accomplished, but have you learned anything of value? An open question about another de-contextualized and tightly closed system.
Furthermore, a subsequent development, post-structuralism, cast doubt on the solidity and permanence of the binary oppositions and organized wholes that structuralilsts found so novel and intriguing. Post-structuralists such as Jacques Derrida concluded that the signifiers used to constitute binary opposites were not only arbitrary but bore an unstable relationship to their signifieds. A signifier like "cold," for example, could refer to the ambient temperature in an air conditioned office, the impersonal tone of a bureacrat's communication, a viral infection common during the winter, an evaluation of a response in the game charades, the distinctive and unforgettable feel of a dead animal when you touch it to determine its condition, and so on. Depending on the linguistic context made up of modifiers, associated nouns, and its history of usage, any signifier has perhaps an infinite variety of signifieds.
In the absence of fixed definitions, the relationships between signifiers and signifieds become mutable and uncertain. Even the simplest signifiers are never pure, but bound up with ways that we and others have used them and will use them, rendering the meaning of all signifiers problematic. Not exactly a death knell for structuralism, but it rests on much shakier ground.
And the same is true for the close reading in search of emotionally charged organic wholes championed by Leavisites. The post-structuralist positon regarding the slippery instability of signifiers implies that we can never write exactly what we mean, and that we never mean exactly what we write. Under these unsteady conditions, just what is a close reading and how stable is an organic whole?
The Leavasites, structuralists, and post-structuralists represent just three of the literary theories ably discussed by Terry Eagleton in Literary Theory. The others -- semiotics, phenomenology, hermeneutics, reception theory, and psychoanalysis -- are all interpretably rendered by the author, and each is interesting, especially psychoanalysis. None of this, however, is light reading, but Eagleton introduces truly novel and unfamiliar ideas in an understandable way. It helps, however, if you don't take the names of authors too seriously as things to be learned. Eagleton invokes a lot of names, and many are only peripheral to his discussion and would best have been deleted. Perhaps he wants to display his erudition.
Literary theories fall in and out of favor. I remember when the New York Times Book Review treated publication of an English translation of Levi-Strauss' structuralist volume The Raw and the Cooked as a sensational development that would change the way we understood the world. It didn't, but like other literary and cultural theories it left a residue. Structuralism is still taught in college and university courses that hope to develop the history of their discipline and show how literary theory has broadened into cultural studies, activities that treat everything, in some significant sense, as text to be interpreted and understood using tools once artificially reserved for literature.
Eagleton's understanding of all this is inextricably bound to his commitment to the idea that literary theory, and more to the point, cultural studies, should not be construed as fundamentally useless ends in themselves. If they remain independent of their social context including power relations, class structure, and vast differences in life chances that occasioned their production, they are difficult to defend.
Eagleton is a long-time socialist, so his understanding of the proper role of cultural studies is to contribute to the creation of a world in which asymmetrical relations of domination and exploitation are overcome. He envisions what some would regard as an earthly utopia, where class, race, gender, and other invidious distinctions are erased, and everyone really is able to develop his full potential as a multi-talented human being, avoiding the disfiguring and destructive social roles intrinsic to global capitalism. Eagelton is quite serious when he argues that this is the only rationale for the continued existence of cultural studies.
Even for one with sharply different political views, however, Eagleton's fundamental thesis has merit. If cultural studies restrict themselves to the construction of closed systems, immune to and uninterested in contextual factors, what is their value? This question could be raised with good reason by a conservative as well as a socialist. After all, in contrast to Eagleton, many literary theorists are conservatives. It's the sterility of their enterprise that is objectionable, yet another reason why conservatives tend to be dismissive of academics.
So could Eagleton's book have helped me when I was a clueless college freshman doing poorly in English composition? Not a chance. I wouldn't have understood as word of it. Now that I've been around for quite awhile, however, it strikes me as the best available introduction to literary theory.
I will, however, say that this "introduction" has proved more useful to me as a novice (or dilettante) than other introductions I have encountered. While others (namely Rivkin's and Ryan's Literary Anthology: An Introduction) may be more contemporary and comprehensive, this work exposes the underpinnings of each discipline briefly, yet without sacrificing the depth, profundity, and critical eye needed upon entering this polemical field. Never prolix nor overly tortuous, Eagleton's Literary Theory is an essential, insightful work that should be read several times by any and all that take "literature" seriously, no matter what that might mean to them.
Some have accused Eagleton of being too overtly Marxist. I would argue that such a position misses the point. It's true that he often has a Marxist slant; several of his books and essays make this obvious (read Why Marx Was Right). It is also true that many of his arguments in this book are, to an extent, centered on economic inequalities and class divisions. Throughout the book, he implies numerous times that classical literary theory and many of its successors have made literature and the study thereof exclusive to a social, intellectual elite. Does suggesting that the trajectory of literature and literary study has had something to do with reinforcing the conditions of our current political and social circumstances (i.e. classicism, sexism, social exclusivity, etc.) make them a Marxist? Maybe. But the question is, is that wrong? In any case, while the author does offer a critique of these theories, often providing sound reason for doing so, this certainly doesn't make this book any less of a fair introduction. Those that do not want to taint to their perception of "literature" as an escape from social and political issues by which it is influenced, for those who do not want to give up the pleasure of reading passively, would do well to stay away from this work. To those that want to have the knowledge and gain the critical perspective needed to survive in the ongoing literary debate: read this book.
My only real complaint about this book is that it is now thirty years old (I've only read the 1982 edition so cannot comment on the revised anniversary edition). Unless you want to spend a great deal of energy and time, one might do well to familiarize themselves with the various theories before reading this book, perhaps even reading a more basic introduction first. So, grab a pen, a notebook, and a dictionary when your ready. Terry Eagleton's Literary Theory: An Introduction is not a work to be read lightly.
Look for similar items by category
- Books > Education & Reference > Writing, Research & Publishing Guides > Writing
- Books > Literature & Fiction > History & Criticism > Criticism & Theory > Semiotics
- Books > Literature & Fiction > History & Criticism > United States
- Books > Literature & Fiction > United States > History & Criticism
- Books > Textbooks > Humanities > Literature > Creative Writing & Composition
- Books > Textbooks > Humanities > Literature > Literary Theory