Eckert 1 Nora Eckert Summary and Evaluation ENGL 305 10/5/2014 Graff Abstract Graff, Gerald. Taking Cover in Coverage. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent Leitch, et. al. New York: Norton, 2001. 2059-67. Print. In his essay Taking Cover in Coverage, Gerald Graff examines the effects of compartmentalizing literature, especially in an educational setting. He investigates the tendency that schools have to not incorporate theory into most subject areas, because it appears to be too difficult for students. However, Graff explains that the reason it theory can be so confusing is that the educational system offers no interdisciplinary connections to create a cohesive picture of theory. Educational departments are divided and independent of each other, allowing each teacher to go on automatic pilot (2062). This is a phenomenon he identifies as the field coverage model. There is no communication across departments, and there is no need to reflect on one s own teaching practices, for one has nothing to compare them to. Thus, this separation of literature leads to a lack of analysis of its fundamental aspects. Students are not taught to analyze what a period or genre is, or even what theory is. It is a literary buzzword, a title of a class that is not given any thought. Graff suggests that the way to allow students to have a more cohesive integration of theory in their educational experiences is to make it the foundation in every class. Through doing so, students have more context for their areas of study, and are able to independently interpret and master large concepts.
Eckert 2 Iser Keyword Search Iser, Wolfgang. How to do Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006. Print. Subjects: literary theory; humanities; interpretation; history; poetry; aesthetics; art; theory; soft theory; Wolfgang Iser; physical theories; humanistic theories; conceptualize; method; modern theories. Summary of Eagleton In Introduction: What is Literature? Terry Eagleton examines if literature can be defined through considering several of its prominent characteristics. He investigates the influence of fact, fiction, the perspective of the reader, the society and culture in which the work is written and read, and the purpose of the work in determining this definition. Ultimately, through examining these different aspects, Eagleton concludes that one cannot objectively define literature, for one s definition is dependent on his value judgments and ideology. Eagleton initially attempts to separate literature from other writing using the categories of fact and fiction. One typically associates the novel and play with literature, both of which are predominantly if not completely fictional. However, if one limits literature to this definition, he does not include scientific papers, biographies, or speeches, all of which have the potential to be just as creative and imaginative as fictional works. In addition, the idea of fact or fiction is sometimes subjective. One example that Eagleton uses to show this is the Bible. He does not question that the authors intended the Bible to be a factual source; however, currently many individuals interpret the Bible as fictional, while many interpret it as factual. This discrepancy causes Eagleton to eliminate the idea of defining literature on the basis of fact or fiction, because it is often dependent on individual interpretation.
Eckert 3 With this preliminary test unsuccessful, Eagleton delves in the linguistic aspects of literature. He uses the Russian Formalist perspective, which regards poetry and literature as relatively synonymous, to ponder if literature can be defined as a set of deviations from a norm, a kind of linguistic violence (4). However, in order to define if something is different from the norm, one needs to know the norm. This norm is completely subjective. To show this, Eagleton contrasts the norms of an Oxford philosopher and those of a Glaswegian docker. The way that each of these men speak is completely different from the other, and thus, the norm is different for both. In regards to the idea of linguistic violence, the Russian Formalists viewed literature as inherently estranging. However, because the language is so foreign to the reader, the Formalists suggest that it causes him to read and observe the text with heightened senses, inherently broadening his mind in the process. Eagleton wonders if through interactions with estranging language, or literature, the reader also has an increased ability to view the world with a heightened awareness of what goes on around him. The issue with this idea is that any writing can be viewed as estranging depending on the reader s interpretation. For example, Eagleton states that the sign dogs must be carried on the escalator could be interpreted in many ways (5). One could believe that he is not permitted to board the escalator without a dog, and another could interpret it as saying that dogs cannot ride on the escalator without someone carrying them. Therefore, the Russian Formalists came to the conclusion that literature has a differential property, and that regardless of the society or reader, literature is something that is different from the typical discourse of that specific reader (6). After considering the Russian Formalist perspective, Eagleton examines if literature can be defined as non-pragmatic discourse (7), meaning that it serves no immediate purpose. Dissimilar to some writing that satisfies an immediate use, such as a grocery list or textbook,
Eckert 4 literature speaks more to the overall qualities and state of things. Often times, literature is more the way that one talks about something rather than the subject he talks about. Eagleton claims that this makes literature a self-referential language, because it talks about itself (7). However, if one says that the way of writing becomes more important than the topic itself in literature, does this not make the work less valuable? Once again, Eagleton explains that it is dependent on how one decides to read literature. He says that one could read Orwell s essays on the Spanish civil war as metaphorical, or read Robert Burn s works about the rose as a horticultural source. The author s intent makes no difference if the reader approaches the work with a certain purpose in mind. In addition, the reader may gain something from a work that wasn t even intended by its creator. This idea of perspective is incredibly important in the essay. Depending on the time period and society in which the work is written and read, the piece can be interpreted in completely different ways. Society and the reader endow the work with its meaning according to its respective set of values. Eagleton next considers if literature can be defined as something that is valued highly. At first, regarding authors such as Shakespeare, this definition seems to have some merit. However, Eagleton realizes that, once again, the reader endows value in the work, making it completely subjective. For example, a Cambridge critic A. Richards demonstrated how subjective reading and finding value in literature is by conducting a study in which many of his undergraduates read a collection of poems without knowing the author. The results showed that renowned authors were marked down, whereas unknown authors were praised by the students. These interpretations vary greatly depending on the mindset and expectations of the reader. Another consequence of the subjective nature of literature is that literary works are, in a sense, rewritten by each new reader. Eagleton explains that Our Homer is not identical with the Homer of the
Eckert 5 Middle Ages, nor our Shakespeare with that of his contemporaries; it is rather that different historical periods have constructed a different Homer and Shakespeare for their own purposes (11). Using this idea that works are constantly be rewritten by their readers, can any piece of writing be identified with a certain value or quality if it is a fluid work? Recognizing this, Eagleton rejects the idea that literature is anything that has great value, because the concept of value is so subjective. In considering what causes different readers to interpret or define literature in varying ways, Eagleton analyzes the importance of ideology. Eagleton defines ideology as the ways in which what we say and believe connects with the power-structure and power-relations of the society we live in (13). With this definition, Eagleton establishes that societal structure and time period play a vital role to the definition of literature. Ideology does not strictly pertain to individual beliefs, however. It is also important in the development and shift of power. For example, Eagleton states that ideology also consists of those modes of feeling, valuing, perceiving and believing which have some kind of relation to the maintenance and reproduction of social power (13). Social structure and the transfer and acquisition of power are large factors in how literature is interpreted. Nonetheless, these external circumstances have nothing to do with the author s intent, and make the literary work completely malleable depending on the time period, location, environment, and reader. Through analyzing the importance of ideology, Eagleton solidifies his argument that there is no objective way to define literature. Ultimately, by observing the role of fact, fiction, Russian Formalism, pragmatism, value, and ideology, Terry Eagleton comes to the conclusion that there is no way to define literature. He shows that being unable to define literature in any one way does not make it any less important or strong. Eagleton expresses that the values with which the reader interprets the work bring a
Eckert 6 new and extremely strong perspective. He explains that there is nothing at all whimsical about such kinds of value judgment: they have their roots in deeper structures of belief which are as apparently unshakeable as the Empire State Building (14). Overall, Eagleton establishes that literature cannot be defined because it is too greatly influenced by ideology and societal structure; however, just because literature cannot be defined does not weaken its presence or influence in the life of the reader. Evaluation of Eagleton In Introduction: What is Literature, Terry Eagleton ponders the many ways that literature can be defined. Among possibilities such as fact, fiction, non-pragmatic discourse, and writing that is valued highly, Eagleton considers the role of ideology in this definition. Eagleton also brings the reader to a greater understanding of those influences that can change the way someone interprets a literary work. Although he makes a strong claim that literature cannot be defined with his analysis of ideology and value judgments, his argument is weakened by the fact that he ignores the possibility of defining literature as works that have been valued and revered over generations. Overall, Terry Eagleton s analysis of personal and societal ideologies and their effects on the reader is his strongest claim in demonstrating that literature cannot be defined because it is greatly influenced by dynamic factors such as societal structures, and value judgments. To support his claim, Eagleton defines ideology in two parts. The first part is the largely concealed structure of values which informs and underlies our factual statements (13). This definition pertains to personal ideologies, and how they influence how one views fact. For example, the writer of a literary work can be writing something that is humorous according to his ideology, but the reader may interpret it as serious according to his values and beliefs. Along
Eckert 7 with this personal aspect, Eagleton examines a second, more societal definition of ideology. He states that By ideology I mean, roughly, the ways in which what we say and believe connects with the power structure and power-relations of the society we live in (13). This definition more specifically applies to social structure, rather than individual beliefs; it examines the aggregate of individual ideologies in a society, and how they influence the general structure and allocation of power. Ideology is especially relevant with works such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, in which the n-word is used. Depending on the values and structure of one s society, this word could be viewed as a historical term that is essential to the voice of the work. However, one could also see it as completely offensive, and ban the book entirely. Both personal and societal ideologies are influential in this interpretation. Although Eagleton separates these two definitions, they are symbiotic. Individual ideologies make up the collective ideology of a society, and societal ideology changes individual ideologies in turn. Ultimately, Eagleton s analysis of how one can define ideology is vital to his interpretation of how literature can be defined. Through defining ideology, Eagleton raises an interesting dilemma: how can literature be objectively defined when ideology is so personal and dynamic? In terms of individual ideologies, each reader approaches a literary work with his own set of values and preconceived notions. This inevitably influences how the reader interprets the work, for it is nearly impossible to separate all of one s own beliefs from oneself to gain an objective view of the text. In addition, the writer of the work has those same beliefs and values that influence his writing. Thus, there is a discrepancy between the author s bias and the reader s bias. Although there are widely regarded theories for what authors intend to convey with their works, these interpretations are subject to change with society and time. For example, in the Scarlet Letter, one cannot say
Eckert 8 whether Nathaniel Hawthorne meant to convey a sense of eternal punishment for Hester by describing the A engraved on her tombstone, or if he wanted to demonstrate how she had changed her society by giving that A a new and positive meaning. This example is especially relevant to Eagleton s second definition of ideology: the relationship between what one believes and the power and structure of his society. If the reader lives in a society in which infidelity is strictly condemned, the A on the tombstone might represent a sense of just punishment. In addition, a reader who feels repressed in his societal structure might identify with Hester s struggle to overcome society s perception of her, and choose to believe that the A on the tombstone represents an eternal salvation and honor for changing the stable rock of tradition. In this way, societal structure and the distribution of power is extremely influential in the reader s interpretation. The Scarlet Letter is a fictional example, but the influence of ideology also remains strong for factual works. For example a German citizen reading the autobiography Mein Kampf during World War II could view it as an inspiring demonstration of nationalism, whereas a German citizen today could read it with disgust and fear of what humanity is capable of. However, anyone could currently read it as a fascinating primary source from an important historical figure. Someone could use the autobiography to gain oratorical skills or information about how to command an audience. There are countless ways in which one s individual ideology or societal position can influence how he approaches a piece of literature. Another excellent example of how personal and societal ideologies can impact how one interprets a work of literature is F. Scott Fitzgerald s work The Great Gatsby. This novel is common in core curriculum in high schools across America, and I, along with all of my classmates, read it at least once in high school. Why? One answer that Eagleton might purpose is
Eckert 9 that is serves many interdisciplinary purposes, depending on one s ideology. When the novel was written in 1925, the average reader could have interpreted it in countless different ways, even in the same time period. A wealthy family in the 1920 s could view the text as a celebration of wealth and extravagance, and a dismissal of those unfortunate enough to exist in the Valley of Ashes. This interpretation is not only influenced by personal ideologies, but the societal beliefs and power structure of that period, as referenced by Eagleton. A poor family in the 1920 s could interpret the text as a condemnation of the superficial upper class, and a promise of their ultimate self-destruction. A family in the 1930 s might view the text as foreshadowing for the ultimate collapse of the economy, and a commentary on the narrow-mindedness of humanity s perspective. In addition to the interpretations of those who lived in the time when Great Gatsby was written, a modern day history teacher may use it demonstrate the perverse nature of materialism in the 1920 s, and how the Wall Street crash of 1929 brought this way of life to an abrupt end. He may investigate how the crash of 1929 mirrors the crash of 2008, bringing a modern perspective to the piece. An English teacher could use the work as an example of great literature, through analyzing the techniques and language Fitzgerald uses. Every one of these perspectives is influenced in some way by personal or societal ideology, just as Eagleton comments on. In addition, Fitzgerald is biased by his own ideology. Another author may have not been so critical of the 1920 s culture, and portrayed the extravagance of the wealthy as enjoyable and not destructive. Overall, in relation to Eagleton s definition of ideology, The Great Gatsby is an excellent example of how one work can be interpreted in countless different ways depending on one s personal beliefs, societal norms, and time period, elements which are ultimately all
Eckert 10 included in his definition of ideology. In a sense, a work is re-written with every new reader according to his beliefs. Although Eagleton does make a strong argument that literature cannot be defined, there is a weakness to his argument. Although works are continually read with new perspectives and given new interpretations, it is a testament to their greatness if they are, in fact, continually read and re-read. For example, the modern day reader interprets Great Gatsby with an ideology very different from F. Scott Fitzgerald. However, it is a testament to the greatness of Fitzgerald s writing that his work is still read nearly a century after its origin. This undoubtedly suggests that there is something transcendent about his work. Perhaps that transcendent aspect depends on the ideology of the reader, but nonetheless, it is present. Could this not be used to define literature? Isn t it possible to say that although interpretations of a work change over time, literature is something that readers have a continual interest in interpreting? Great writing has the ability to speak to humanity regardless of personal ideology, culture, or time period. However, it is difficult to discredit Eagleton s entire argument on this one possibility, for any reader could find something relatable or interesting in a work depending on his interpretation. Nonetheless, it is the greatest weakness in Eagleton s claim. Overall, Terry Eagleton s analysis of the role of ideology in defining literature is his strongest point in proving that there is not objective way to define literature. By examining personal and societal ideology, he demonstrates that literary works are continually rewritten throughout time. This is especially evident with The Great Gatsby, which can be interpreted in several ways depending on the time period and social status of the reader. Although Eagleton neglects to investigate the possibility of the presence of work over time being a defining aspect of literature, I believe his argument is strong enough to agree with. Ultimately, through
Eckert 11 investigating the ways in which values, beliefs, and societal structure can influence the reader, Terry Eagleton proves that it is impossible to define literature. Works Cited Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota, 1996. 1-14. Print. Graff, Gerald. Taking Cover in Coverage. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism edited by Vincent Leitch et. al. New York: Norton, 2001. 2059-2067. Print Iser, Wolfgang. How to do Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006. Print.