The Intriguing Tale of Literary Theory
- jasonsix3
- May 29, 2024
- 14 min read
Updated: Jul 31, 2024
When, and if, you think of literary theory, you might imagine an impractical subject practiced by insulated university academics and bookish students with relaxed career aspirations; a somewhat indulgent, and largely irrelevant enterprise. But this is not entirely true. In this article I explore what literary theory was, how it came to be what it is now, and examine its relevance to contemporary cultural discussions.
The beginnings of literary theory
When I first read the works of well-known critics, I expected to find insightful analyses of famous books that examined their meaning and established why they’re worth reading. Many books have been written about books, and, when successful, they are able to extend and transform the original work. But the story of literary theory is also one worth telling. With a history stretching as far back as Ancient Greece, it’s a surprisingly lively account of conflict between proponents of rival ideas with a scope - like literature - as broad as the human experience. It has spawned a long list of often-divergent ways to think about literature (called ‘schools’), many of which are influenced by cultural, political, and economic ideas.
The task of understanding literary theory becomes more slightly more complex because of the vague and contested nature of what we call literature. Northrop Frye, in his book Anatomy of Criticism (Frye, 2020), argues that an elementary textbook on literary studies will not contain a clear answer to the question ‘what is literature?’ because there are no real standards to determine between what is, and is not, literature. The Dictionary of Literary Terms and Theory (Cuddon & Habib, 2013) defines literature as ‘a broad term which usually denotes works which belong to the major genres: epic, drama, lyric, novel, short story…’ and as writing that is generally considered to be qualitatively superior to other forms. In An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory, Bennett and Royle assert that literature, in some sense, does not exist; it is ‘spectral and elusive’.
This seems to put us on the back foot somewhat. How do we talk about something that we can’t define? Let’s start at the beginning - Ancient Greece.
Western literary theory begins with Plato and Aristotle, with the latter’s text Poetics considered foundational to any study of the discipline. The text dates to 335 BC, and was, after a long absence, returned to Western culture in the Middle Ages through a translation by Averroes, a Muslim scholar who lived in Andalusia (Iberia).
In Poetics, Aristotle discusses literature as a distinct field of knowledge, one identifiable by genre (epic, tragedy, and comedy) and distinct compositional techniques, and influenced by poets such as Homer, Sophocles, and Aristophanes, who helped develop their respective genres. Aristotle describes poetry (a term that can be applied to other forms of literature) as imitations of life that differ in manner and form. For example, comedy represents men as worse than they are in real life, tragedy as better.
“I propose to treat of Poetry in itself and of its various kinds, noting the essential quality of each; to inquire into the structure of the plot as requisite to a good poem; into the number and nature of the parts of which a poem is composed; and similarly into whatever else falls within the same inquiry. Following, then, the order of nature, let us begin with the principles which come first.”
(Aristotle, Poetics)
Aristotle provides insights into the use of narrative, character, and plot in literature: for example, what you say is more important that how you say it (or write it), that plot is more important than character in tragedy, and that these plots have a beginning, middle, and an end. He describes this type of analysis - a systematic study literature - as ‘poetics’. The text has been greatly influential in the development of Western literary theory, and its influence can be recognised in modern literary instruction.
Modern studies of the English language and literature (in England and the United States) began in the 19th century. Courses were, in some instances at least, conceived partly as a means to cultivate or maintain social cohesion and cultural identity through the study of texts considered to represent acceptable values (a tradition that continues in universities today). There was some debate about the precise subject matter of the early English courses, such as the separation of language and literature, and the result was a combination of language study (e.g. Old English in Beowulf, as well as Latin and other European languages) with grammar, the identification of literary devices, and the study of famous works, such as those by Shakespeare. The ‘rhetorical’ elements of the courses (including public speaking and recital) were increasingly seen as impractical and were ultimately replaced by a focus on writing. Around the beginning of the twentieth century, courses began to expand their set texts beyond the traditional canon and the classics (courses on American literature were introduced at Harvard in the 1890s, for example), and the language component of the courses was separated from literature. Over time, courses became closer to what we now recognise as English studies, which differs substantially from the study of linguistics.
The form of literary theory practiced at major universities in the UK and America from around 1940 until the 1970s has been referred to as ‘humanism’, ‘liberal humanism’, and ‘formalism’. A prominent formalist brand was New Criticism, which was primarily concerned with ‘intrinsic’ analyses of individual literary works independent of historical, social, or philosophical contexts (which were considered ‘extrinsic’ - or outside the scope of literary studies). This orthodox approach is what most people might expect from literary theory and studies, and is one that modern critical approaches can, broadly, be defined as being in opposition to. Today, formalism is considered ‘traditional’ because the focus of the analysis is the text and its intrinsic meaning. Formalist approaches did, however, evolve to include more biographical, social, and intellectual history, and to look at patterns in narrative, character archetypes and plots. ‘Close reading’ – an analytical method created by the formalists - is still widely practiced today.
Matthew Arnold, F.R. Leavis, I.A. Richards, T.S Eliot, Cleanth Brooks, and M. H. Abrams were prominent formalists.
Rumblings of discontent against the status quo in literary theory became louder after the second world war, and ideas influenced by linguistics, politics, philosophy, and culture started to gain ground in their attacks upon formalism. Some critics of formalism argued that it lacked explicit grounds to defend the assumptions of its method - largely ‘practical criticism’ that minimised non-literary influences - and that it failed to account for theoretical questions that arose from fields such as psychoanalysis and Marxism.
The theoretical approaches came in successive iterations (or ‘waves’), beginning with Structuralism, where a text is seen as part of a larger abstract structure (whether literary, linguistic, anthropological, or otherwise). It was, like formalism, largely focused on the text which it intended to examine on an objective basis. Post-structuralism built upon and expanded linguistic ideas of structuralism with ideas that blurred the boundaries of language and meaning; language was not just a description of the world, but how we see the world; we see what we say (or are able to say). It was more philosophical and sceptical than its predecessor, and undermined established ways of thinking. Other, similar theoretical schools arose from the expansion of literary analysis and included post-modernism, New Historicism, Cultural Materialism, and many more (see the section below on literary schools).
These new ideas were broadly united by the application of theory to literature and ideas that evidenced a common worldview. They tended to draw meanings and qualities out of a text that were not immediately, or obviously, inherent in it; at least to one who reads those texts as they are written. A Marxist reading might magnify the elements of a story relevant to its theories, such as the social class of characters, the economic conditions experienced by the author, or the author’s social class and their bias towards enforcing or challenging social norms. An ecocritical reading might focus on story elements symbolic of the natural environment such as growth, decay and renewal, the displacement of people and animals from their natural environments, and the effect of human activity on the environment. A psychoanalytic reading might reveal the author’s unconscious intentions, or examine evidence of a collective or historical unconscious impacting the writing.
Formalism attempts to discover unity within a text (such as how the use of language, symbolism, and narrative create coherence), while approaches such as ‘deconstruction’ seek to identify contradictions within a text that demonstrate the instability of meaning, or establish meanings that served their theoretical ends.
“J. Hillis Miller…defined a deconstructive reading as one that "seeks to find...the element in the system studied which is alogical, the thread in the text in question which will unravel it all, or the loose stone which will pull down the whole building."”
(Abrams, 1997)
Common themes among the new theories include: scepticism towards things we take for granted, such as identity, self, and gender which are largely (or wholly) conceived as ‘social constructions’; that there is no disinterested inquiry and that all analysis is affected by some kind of ideological commitment; relativism, which diminishes objectivity and establishes meaning in specific contexts only; and the idea that language cannot be a literal description of reality and texts or language can only act as ‘signifiers’ of reality (so, texts are really about other texts, and definite meanings or readings are not possible). Barry (2017) summarises some basic points about new theory:
“…Politics is pervasive,
Language is constitutive,
Truth is provisional,
Meaning is contingent,
Human nature is a myth.”
Structuralist and post-structuralist theorists and influences include Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, Louis Althusser, Sigmund Freud, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Ferdinand de Saussure, Roland Barthes, and Claude Levi-Strauss.
The critics’ views on literary theory
Prominent critics have had differing opinions on the nature and scope of theory and criticism. For Frye, literary theory must become a systematic and scientific method of criticism if it is to progress from its present state where bias and value-judgements formed by personal preferences predominate - a ‘history of taste and fashionable prejudice’. He states that the absence of such systematic criticism has allowed ‘neighbouring’ disciplines including history, philosophy, sociology, and anthropology to impose themselves (or be imposed by academics) upon literary analysis and interpretation.
“What critics now have is a mystery-religion without a gospel, and they are initiates who can communicate, or quarrel, only with one another.”
(Frye, 2020)
In The Anatomy of Influence: Literature as a Way of Life, Harold Bloom describes literary theory as something personal, passionate, and unencumbered by philosophy, politics, or religion; it is an appreciation of the work that is paramount. He writes that great poetry can ‘transport and elevate’. He, like Frye, warns against the encroachment of ideology upon its study.
“In the long Age of Resentment, intense literary experience is merely “cultural capital,” a means to power and glory within the parallel “economy” that Bourdieu labels the literary field. Literary love is a social strategy, more affectation than affect.”
(Bloom, 2011)
In Literary Theory: A Short Introduction, Jonathon Culler approaches a definition of theory as something involving conjecture and ‘complex relations among many factors’. He stresses its vague nature and the difficulty in defining something that, whatever it is, is not an account of literature and the methods of its study. Part of the reason for this is the incursion of seemingly unrelated academic fields into literary studies since the 1960s. The main effect of theory, Culler states, is the arguments it raises against ‘common sense’ notions of writing and literature (that is, it challenges norms in ways that enriches the study of the discipline).
“Theory in this sense is not a set of methods for literary study but an unbounded group of writings about everything under the sun…”
(Culler, 2000)
In ‘An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory’ Bennett and Royle describe how, in the 1980s and 1990s, politics became a focus of critical analysis and debate, and readings emerged around the Michel Foucault’s idea that ‘power is everywhere’ (Foucault, 1981, p. 93).
Frye makes a similar point rather more bluntly:
‘…there are critics who enjoy making religious, anti-religious, or political campaigns with toy soldiers labelled “Milton” or “Shelley” more than they enjoy studying poetry…”
(Frye, 2020)
Literary theory as it is today can perhaps be understood as a study of culture which relies on the interpretation of texts as cultural artefacts, from which divergent meanings can be derived (or attributed to).
Literary schools
In examining a text, a critic might ask: how important is the author’s intention in assessing a work’s meaning? How does historical context affect our understanding of its message? What does the treatment of female characters say about the role of women in society? Is the meaning of a text created through the process of reading?
The questions each critic does ask, or finds meaningful or interesting to examine, vary significantly and depend many times on the critic’s personal worldview and cultural or political inclinations; their ‘school’. Most of these schools are a long way from Aristotle’s objective examination of poetry or Frye’s call for an inductive, empirical, and inclusive approach that leaves personal preferences and agendas at the door. The extent of diversity in approach is evident in the number and variety of critical schools that have existed and continue to appear:
Theoretical schools and influences | |||
Semiotics | Psychoanalysis | Marxism | Existentialism |
Stylistics | Narratology | Hermeneutics | Formalism |
Structuralism | Post-structuralism | Deconstruction | New Historicism |
Cultural materialism | New Criticism | Eco-criticism | Feminism |
Post-colonialism | Gender studies | Post-modernism | Aesthetics |
In brief, there are broadly two camps when it comes to analysing literature: those concerned with the understanding and appreciating a text and its relative merit, and those that see the text as part of a much broader context that references non-literary theories and disciplines. Many post-structuralist schools did not arise from, or for, the study of literature, but instead out of diverse fields such as linguistics, psychoanalysis, sociology, politics, economics, and anthropology; literature is often used as an object to illustrate points about ideas the early formalists might have called ‘extrinsic’. The latter approach is dominant in university English departments today, and is described by Abrams as follows:
Prominent in the poststructural climate of opinion is an explicit opposition to the established grounds, standards, and procedures in all provinces of Western intellection. Sometimes the adversarial stance is qualified as aiming merely to "challenge," "interrogate," "problematize," or "unsettle" a standard way of thinking. But in many instances the undertaking is explicitly to "undermine," "subvert," "dismantle," or "undo"; and what the theorists propose to undo is not merely literary humanism but, as John Searle has pointed out, "the Western Rationalistic Tradition" and its core concepts of reality, truth, rationality, and objective knowledge…at the political end of the spectrum, they are subverted as ideological constructs whose actual function is to mask the realities of coercion, domination, and exploitation and to inhibit any attempts to transform these social inequities.
(Abrams, 1997)
Controversy
As alluded to earlier, the transition from ‘traditional’ forms of literary theory to its successors was anything but smooth, and the new ideas encountered vigorous resistance to what were seen as attacks, not just on academic approaches to literature, but against the broader society and its moral foundations.
The new theory, characterised by - or at least famous for - postmodern thought and ‘deconstructive’ practices, was inherently subversive and radical, and drew heavily from philosophical ideas and political ideology; it was precisely these qualities that excited the minds of young academics in the midst of a cultural revolution. The first shots in the ‘theory wars’ were fired in America in the late 1950s and early 1960s and escalated in the 1980s in Britain. Peter Barry documents the key conflicts in his book, beginning with the initial blitzkrieg to the ‘counter-revolution’ in the late 1990s and beyond against ‘political correctness, relativism, postmodernism, multi-culturalism, among others’. Goldberg, in his essay The Deconstruction Gang, writes:
“…the recent movement in American ‘literary studies’…takes deconstruction as the very theme and method of criticism precisely because it mistrusts all conceptual structures of ‘truth’ or ‘meaning’ and therefore seeks to deconstruct them.”
The conflict appears to have died down in recent decades, but, as Barry suggests, this is perhaps only because the ideas of new theory have come to be accepted and taught in modern English curriculums. There are, however, independent voices on the internet (on platforms such as Youtube) who cater to those who prefer text-centred approaches to theory.
The end of literary theory
As interesting as the question of what literary theory is might be the question: what it is for? What is the end, or purpose, or literary theory? Is it the edification of curious students who wish to understand how language is used to tell of, and about, ourselves? Is it a way to control or correct literary narratives that impose or reinforce cultural, social, and political ideas (consciously or not)?
Frye argues that because the merits of a work and its reception are unrelated, the critic is required to be a ‘pioneer of education and the shaper of cultural tradition’. He states that art, including painting, sculpture, and music, cannot speak for itself, and therefore must be mediated through an educated specialist for each form (Frye, 2020). Goldberg and Abrams share the view that the literary ‘business’ requires academics to continually push boundaries to make their mark in their profession and pursue novel new ways to talk about old works.
“Traditionally, in fact, critics have even gone so far as to regard the ability to perceive the relevant qualities accurately in texts, and convincingly to explain their particular power and extent in specific cases, as the very heart of their business.”
(Goldberg, 1980)
Ideas in practice
A closer look of the English curriculums of several major universities in Australia reveals that literary studies has moved away from formalism, structural, and traditional analysis and towards contemporary theory.
For example, a unit titled ‘The Literary in Theory’ conducted by the University of Sydney (advertised as the number one ranked English program in the country) states that it will pursue various scholars’ arguments:
‘through a selection of theoretical models, including queer and gender theory, psychoanalysis, and race theory, to consider the cultural and ideological work imaginative literature undertakes.’ (University of Sydney, 2024)
Another unit from the same university, titled ‘The Idea of the Classic’ includes:
‘debates about sexuality, race, national identity, and class’.
Does this approach diminish the value of advanced study in literature, or our culture’s ability to understand itself through historically important texts? It’s a question that might be answered by the fact that enrolments in such courses have declined significantly - in his article ‘The decline of the humanities’ Australian academic Andrew Norton illustrates the long-term decline in humanities enrolments:
(Norton, 2023)
Given this trend, it’s worth asking just how much of current academic literary analysis is useful? Which critical readings are valid and why? These are important questions for a discipline that often acts as an intermediary between the literary world and the general reader; the books we read are often those selected for analysis and review by critics in popular media, and story-telling through any medium is a key way of transmitting and creating culture. In the absence of a unified theory of literary criticism (such as that proposed by Frye), however, it seems the answer is a matter of opinion.
“Very little of the theorising ever stops to test itself against the evidence of actual practice, or seek out there the boundaries of its own validity. Indeed, against what practice could it test itself?”
(Goldberg, 1980)
Theory and practice
It might be easy to conclude that what much literary theory really does, above all else, is suck the fun right out of literature. I imagine that if you were to ‘de-construct’ the burger you ate last night you might well come to a greater understanding of its component parts and even the philosophical (or perhaps degustational) implications of burgers in general. Perhaps this would allow you to better detect its flaws and inconsistencies, especially if these were what you had hoped to find. But such a process would likely not increase your enjoyment of the burger very much. And isn’t enjoyment - of some kind - why one reads literature in the first place?
“This pleasure in the sheer engagement with the matters that a text represents, in just the way that it articulates and orders what it represents, as many critics have affirmed, is the distinctive experience of reading literature as literature.”
(Abrams, 1997)
Fortunately, there is something for everyone in literary theory, whether you want to know how the author of your favourite book made it special, to change the world through ideas, or just to share your reading experience with others through the humble book review.
Reference & Reading List
Frye, Northrop, Anatomy of Criticism, Princeton University Press, 2020
Culler, Jonathon, Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2000
Bloom, Harold, The Anatomy of Influence, Yale University Press, 2011
Aristotle, Poetics, Public Domain
Barry, Peter, Beginning Theory: An introduction to literary and cultural theory, Manchester University Press, 2017
Bennett, Andrew and Royle, Nicholas, An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory, Routledge, 2016
Cuddon, J.A &. Habib, M.A.R, Dictionary of Literary Terms & Literary Theory, 2013
Abrams, M.H, The Transformation of English Studies: 1930 -1995, 1997, www.jstor.org, April 2024,
Goldberg, S.L., The Deconstruction Gang, www.lrb.co.uk, 1980, April 2024, https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v02/n10/s.l.-goldberg/the-deconstruction-gang
Brooks, Cleanth, The Formalist Critics, 1951, www.jstor.org, April 2024, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4333214?read-now=1&seq=10#page_scan_tab_contents
Norton, Andrew, The decline of the humanities, andrewnorton.net.au, April 2024, https://andrewnorton.net.au/2023/07/04/the-decline-of-the-humanities/
University of Sydney, ENGL1017: The Idea of the Classic, 2024, March 2024,
University of Sydney, ENGL3655: The Literary in Theory, March 2024, https://www.sydney.edu.au/units/ENGL3655
University of Sydney, April 2023, University of Sydney’s English program ranked first in Australia, www.sydney.edu.au, April 2024,
Comentários