Davis Cox Cox 1 ENGL 305 22 September 2014 Keyword Search of Iser Iser, Wolfgang. How to do Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006. Print. Subjects: Literary Theory; pluralism; Hegel; Adorno; metaphysics; intercultural relationships; Hard Core Theory; Soft Theory; open concepts; polyphonic harmony; gestalt theory; humanities; modes of theory; Heidegger; Theory and Method; Kuhn, Thomas. Abstract for Graff Graff, Gerald. Taking Cover in Coverage. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Eds. Vincent Leitch, et. al. New York: Norton, 2001. 2059-67. Print. Gerald Graff s argument in Taking Cover in Coverage goes on to demonstrate how the restriction of theory in schools, places of work, etc., in order to restrict debate, causes literature itself to lose so much of its substance. He goes on to discuss the misconceptions of theory: that it is necessarily obscure, technical, and so on, and it is because of those reasons why they continue to take theory out of schools--for high schoolers and undergraduates cannot understand it. These people who pushed for such an event to happen (the antitheorists) are the same people who desired to look at the literature alone. What Graff is arguing for here is that literature is far greater than just mere words on a page: it requires intense thought, debate and discussion to truly expose its resonance. Graff heavily accuses the literature department of not understanding literature well enough to teach it, which is why they are uncomfortable having it in classrooms; and if they fail to grasp it, then the stereotype that the department has no theory will just be reinforced. Graff argues that instead of avoiding theory to avoid conflict, the educators must be trained to teach and enforce the positive types of debate and conflict: the ones that respectfully challenge other ideas and make their peers defend their position in an educated manner; not to
Cox 2 leave them to debate on the streets. Graff s final argument shows that theory is embedded into every department, therefore the departments should integrate ideas to develop new ones about the theory of a certain subject. Graff concludes by saying educators should discuss theory with members of a different department, as well as getting students involved. Summary of Eagleton Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota, 1996. 1-14. Print Terry Eagleton, with the intention to define literature, ultimately concludes that there is no objective definition of literature. He exerts proof of this thesis by showing a distinction between fact and fiction (what is clearly true, and what is not); by giving examples of the ideas of the Russian Formalists (the uses of language, pushing content above all); the idea of a nonpragmatic discourse); and ideology (the values of a society plays a role how people view literature). Eagleton first defines literature as imaginative, leading to a distinction between fact and fiction. Observing the amounts of literature that have been published throughout the years, some the writer viewed as fact (e.g. Darwin s writings on evolution), and others just fiction (e.g. Shakespeare s Hamlet). So then it only makes sense to view the two as easily distinguishable; but when one goes further back into time, the line blurs and what is fact and what is fiction isn t so clear anymore--for the older the literature, the word novel, as Eagleton puts it,...seems to have been used about both true and fictional events (Eagleton 1). The natural example of this is the christian Old Testament, or the Hebrew Bible (as well as many other religious texts). Many years ago when it was written, it was written for mere fact, in a coherent belief that everything in it was historical and truth; but with new understanding of the sciences, new beliefs arose, rendering
Cox 3 such literature by some readers as simple literature, (because they see nothing factual about it), whereas an abundance of readers still believe it to be as it was originally intended; leaving the distinction henceforth subjective. To understand that literature in the light of being fact vs. fiction can easily withdraw the ethos from the situation, Eagleton brings up the beliefs of the Russian Formalists. This group focused more on how literature is structured rather than the spiritual and emotional influence; a group who only looked at a piece of literature with only what is presented to them on the page. This group believed that...content was merely the motivation for form These formalists believed that through a series of devices which includes sound, imagery, syntax, metre, etc. It is through these devices which makes the audience distinguish literary language from ordinary language, for writers use these devices to keep readers enticed. Because of this group, Eagleton presents another solution: literature is whatever uses language in peculiar ways --phrases and words that separate items of literary merit from everyday speech. For example, Eagleton uses the example that such a phrase like Thou still unravished bride of quietness clearly distinguishes itself from the casual Don t you know the drivers are on strike? (Eagleton 2). Eagleton s overall definition for such a thing is that literature is whatever is attractive linguistically; but the downfall for this attraction could be a lack of substance. But when something becomes attractive, it becomes poetry, per se. Eagleton presents this distinction with the argument that anything could essentially be poetry. He continues with the example that if archaeologists were to dig up a piece of pottery from an extinct civilization with words inscribed on it, they would have no way of telling if it was poetry, or something equivalent to the modern day law enforcement signs. With this being
Cox 4 said, there is no way to know what is or is not poetry without knowledge of the culture itself and the social fabric of the people. However, reading something poetically is an entirely different issue. Something could be read as both poetic and as not. Eagleton uses the example of a sign in a metro-system reading Dogs must be carried down the escalator (6). Now, the reader could read it as mere fact, or read it as poetry: taking into account the alliteration of the words, the abrasiveness of the statement, the way that the word escalator is an allegory for the way it functions, or the ambiguity whether or not you have to find some stray mongrel to clutch in your arms on the way up? (6). The Formalists were never out to define literature, they were rather out to define literariness, the special use of language. If everyone spoke with the certain types of literary devices that Eagleton mentions earlier in his article, then poetry would cease to be poetry anymore, for it would morph into ordinary language, leaving nothing to distinguish itself from. Eagleton then discusses reading literature in a non-pragmatic sense; or the way that literature can serve no practical meaning. Eagleton uses the example for this that a person may read Gibbon s account of the Roman Empire simply because they find Gibbon s prose style enjoyable; not because they wish to be informed specifically about Rome; and this, Eagleton relays it as not reading it as literature. This non-pragmatic sense leads to the conclusion that literature is nothing more than simply telling us the functional use of things; but then Eagleton concludes with the statement that it is very tough to clearly distinguish what is purely pragmatic and non-pragmatic, for historically, literature has given us very practical uses and non-practical.
Next, Eagleton decides to define literature as something that society values highly, Cox 5 separating literature into fine writing (poems, fiction, etc.), and literature that is not (biology textbooks, manuals, etc.); which just renders literature as merely subjective. In society s eye, the literature that is fine writing is literature that people read for enjoyment, and what is not, people often times have to read. This falls into what is ideology. He then claims that it is very possible for one to read literature ideologically; or in the way that the writer did not intend it to be read. Ideology consists of one's value judgments, and shapes the way that literature is read. This idea can revert back to the fact vs fiction argument, but still doesn t solve the problem to what is literature, because then, if all writing (good and bad) is literature, then what is the distinction? Eagleton identifies this as a problem, which is added on by the thought of literature is nothing but unstable, for we as a society are always changing the way we view literature when we acquire a new understanding of it. If society deems something to be fine writing, just to have it changed with the experience of a deeper understanding to make it not such a thing, then it can never be defined, for it is unstable. This would also be defined by our value of such a thing; or what Eagleton calls as value judgements (11). These value judgements read off how we value things that come from one s culture, and because of that we throw literature under our own subjectivities, rather than just stating the facts of the literature, not reciting its essence. But without these value judgements, we would have no need for literature. It is because of our individual values that make us want to share with one another what we value, and without them, we would get to learn nothing new from our peers, for everyone would value nothing. And Eagleton claims that even believing that literature should be value-free is a value judgement itself (11). Eagleton then concludes this to be a part of ideology, believing that these values
Cox 6 ultimately contribute to the power structure of society: the way we believe and feel about things heavily contributes to the reproduction of social power. For his next point, Eagleton uses I.A. Richards study Practical Criticism (1929) to prove how subjective literature really is, and that a true objective meaning cannot exist. In this study, students read and judge poems, often times praising authors who have no glory to their name, while shaming acclaimed ones. What this fact means is that literature is often times defined by who wrote what and external judgements on it. In essence, this amounts to the final judgement that there is absolutely no objective meaning to literature, and literature will always remain undefinable. Evaluation of Terry Eagleton Terry Eagleton in Introduction: What is Literature? comes to the halting conclusion that there is no objective definition of literature, leaving the reader puzzled, questioning why he ever wrote the article in the first place. He evaluates the subject of literature through the use of multiple arguments and with the claims that he makes, I agree and disagree. I agree concerning that literature cannot be defined; and I disagree with him because of the evidence that he provides for his argument. But what beckons my immediate attention is his first argument: what is fact and what is fiction?i will look at how we can t possibly evaluate if something is truly historical or fiction--or both--and then how we as a society cannot know fully how the people in the past thought and felt about certain subjects, without fully understanding the time period it was from; and how the value judgements of that time affected the classification of literature itself. By the claims that Eagleton makes, literature cannot be defined, and furthermore, can be expanded with better examples, which then can be viewed through later arguments.
Cox 7 Chiefly there is the general classification of whether something is fact or fiction. Of course, we have very distinct and clear definitions of such that are clearly fact and others that are clearly fiction; then we have the ones of old: literature that is so old that we cannot be entirely sure it is mere myth meant for storytelling or a historical account of deeds that did actually happen. In the past, there have been many novels, poems, short stories, etc., written (e.g. the Account of Genesis, Boyhood Deeds of Cuchulainn, the Deeds of Robin Hood, etc.), of which we have no way of telling if those events actually happened or not, for they were/are believable (to an extent that is). Often times, these stories were originally written as fact, something that actually happened, like the making of the earth, something quite important to the people of that time. But a claim that Eagleton passively makes is that we cannot accept those as fact, for there is no way of telling if it did happen, but who's to say that they didn t? Therefore, it is only illogical to look at such a thing as purely fictional, but also a with a bit of factuality as well (and I say factuality because quite a bit of people believed that these events actually happened, like the deeds of Robin Hood). My next argument is that we cannot even begin to examine something if it is not from the era we live in. We cannot evaluate such ancient works because we can not be sure exactly how they thought in that time. Eagleton claims (and now I do as well) that we cannot judge whether or not to criticize literature from an old era, for we do not know what/how they thought of things, and how that would affect the way they wrote. Perhaps they would say certain things like fighting dragons when it was the social common sense that it was just a metaphor for something else; therefore leaving the reader for whom it was intended satisfied and understanding, leaving the future audience puzzled as those metaphors died out with time. I truly believe he forgot to mention the fact that since we cannot tell if what we call fiction is clear, to them it may as well
be a clear allegory to something that is quite real. All of this deviates from not knowing Cox 8 what/how they thought in that time period, therefore restricting our knowledge and disabling us from clearly discerning what is fact and what is fiction. But simple knowledge of the past cannot be enough; what is needed is an understanding of what they thought as valuable. Their value judgements are something to greatly consider if one wishes to decide what ancient literature is actually fact or fiction. They could believe that a certain fact to us (like the earth is round) could actually be a mystery to themselves, and they in its stead devise metaphors until an explanation arises; simply because they deemed it to not be valuable. Of this claim, it is easy to see how such a thing can assimilate and snowball back into my previous argument of these metaphors being lost in translation. In the end, I agree with Eagleton s argument, and it is through these arguments that we can never decide what is fact, and what is fiction; totaling up to Eagleton s final argument that literature can never be defined. 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. Eds. Vincent Leitch, et. al. New York: Norton, 2001. 2059-67. Print. Iser, Wolfgang. How to do Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006. Print.