The literary Substackosphere is alight with distaste for theory, which, according to various posters on this platform, excessively politicizes literature, takes the fun out of reading, is stupid, and sucks.
I'm so out of touch with "literary culture" because I love theory. And also, non-university-based literary critics/New York, etc... have always hated theory! I thought things were improving but was wrong if this post was needed.
If you had to pick a book or essay that really shows why you love theory--maybe something you might show to theory-resistant students to persuade them it's a worthwhile endeavor--what would it be? I'm always looking for recommendations!
My tastes are Marxist, so I'd probably go with a Jameson essay, but I'd have to think more about entry-level since a lot of his stuff is deep in the Marxist weeds. His "Pleasure: A Political Issue" might appeal to students wanting to think about the social media discourse about politics and pleasure at a deeper level. That said Foucault's "Nietzche, Genealogy, History" is a classic intro essay demonstrating what theory is doing that marks it different from philosophy and why it's not social science.
I also think Lukacs "Theory of the Novel" is pretty fire. But maybe a little too difficult and abstruse for entry-level.
And you know, Marc Fischer was a great popularizer. Capitalist Realism, The K-Punk archives, particularly for people into music.
Glad I stumbled on this post and thanks for writing it! I think in an ideal world I would read more theory -- and a lot more of everything -- but I have a day job in a non-literature field, social/familial/community things to do, and need to cook and exercise. I already don't have time to read all the books I want to read; do you think it makes sense at all for me or people like me to read theory (or just to read all the novels and poetry I haven't read)? (And if so what's the one book you'd recommend?)
Ooh, this is a great question! I think that, if you read theory, you should be driven by curiosity, not guilt. I've done plenty of theory reading because I felt like I had to. No fun. But if you find yourself wondering about some questions (who is it that speaks in a lyrical poem? Why do authors use so many visual details? Can literature reveal human nature?), theory can be a fascinating place to look.
If you wanted to begin exploring theory, I would start with a book that most academics would not categorize as "theory": James Wood's How Fiction Works. It doesn't engage in contemporary theoretical debates. But I think this book does two things really well. First, it write about literature in a way that makes the reader more excited, not less excited, to read more. Second, it introduces or refreshes lots of necessary and useful ideas (like free indirect style, for example) that you'll want to know if you want to read more criticism or theory.
If you want to dive into more theory-y theory books, I feel like I'd want to know more about what intrigues or interests you about books, history, culture, etc. For example, if you're really fascinated by the topic of experience (how do novels and poems mimic or simulate how we experience the world?), you might want to read a different theory work than if you're really interested in the aesthetics of the Harlem Renaissance. But I think that, if you're just considering dipping your toes into this kind of writing, I'd start with How Fiction Works.
Oh, I'm so glad you read it! Isn't it a treat?? My favorite chapter, I think, is the chapter on "details"--I still sometimes remember the "cherry-colored twist" that Wood describes.
Thank you! How Fiction Works sounds like a great place to start and I'll borrow it. What I've been thinking about recently is probably a long the lines of literature revealing human nature, and also how literature can influence the way we see the world, and also more generally how to choose what to read with all that is out there (I started a post on this and have no answer, and I don't think there's a unified answer but I'd like to hear what people think)!
I also write fiction, and I write about fiction (and other things) for a smallish audience that mostly doesn't read much fiction, and there are of course limitations to just talking about books I like and my personal interpretations of them
Good post, like all of your posts. People definitely blame Theory for a lot more than is plausible. I blame it for some stuff too, just an order of magnitude less than, say, the precipitous decrease in reading or the various economic imperatives that made the decline of the humanities inevitable. It's also treated in very amorphous terms, without any differentiation between different strands of literary method--e.g. how postmodernism or Deconstruction and traditional Marxism are, obviously, not only different but sharply at odds (Sokal was a leftist!). I work within the latter tradition (broadly conceived along the lines of Auerbach) but have nothing to do with the former.
This was a nice argument pulling apart different aspects of the critique. I do like Benedict Anderson!
Thank you! Yes, I think that theory is sometimes seen as one big "cultural Marxist" mutual admiration society, which really doesn't account for the bitter (and often highly entertaining, if I'm being honest) acrimony with which some theorists regard others. I think a lot of theory's bad reputation has to do with readers making "theory" as a term equivalent to a certain brand of activist-scholarship that, in some cases, does deserve critique!
Yeah, sometimes we're it feels like we're between a rock (silly moralistic, presentist readings) and a hard place (denial that things like, I don't know, the history of sex roles or class relations could possibly have anything to do with the interpretation of literature). But that's the nature of polarization, I guess. Most people are actually more reasonable than that, or so I'd like to think!
I think the objections are very often more to do with the way undergrad is taught. Someone who has not yet read and studied Shakespeare, for example, may well feel that Theory is an imposition on a set of ideas (ideologies) that are not really directed at their understanding of the plays as much as at their understanding of the Theory. I capitalise because that sort of literary theory is fundamentally different from something like Northrop Frye or Walter Jackson Bate, who were theorising from the raw material of literature not from an idea from another discipline. If you want to read George Herbert but mostly you get Stanley Fish, and you are an undergrad, it seems inevitable (and reasonable!) that many will object to Stanley Fish, imo.
Yeah, completely agree. When I referred to blaming it for some stuff, it's mostly that: becoming the primary object of analysis and undermining the canon. (And, in its high Theory form, the writing.) That said I do sympathize with Isaac's desire to defend it from some of the attacks on here, which really seem confused and are way too wide in their target.
I would read this! And would also defend theorizing using ideas from other disciplines, even if I wouldn’t defend Stanley Fish’s work! Law and literature work, for example, can do cool stuff with concepts from other disciplines.
Thank you for this! Theory is so intriguing but difficult to approach. Right now I'm reading Of Giants by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen and having a hard time of it. I'll check out Imagined Communities soon, the recommendations are much appreciated.
Yeah--I also think that it's so useful to read these books together with others. So much of what makes theory worth reading is that it starts great conversations, and I often feel like I didn't get everything I might have out of books I don't talk about. Imagined Communities is good to read in part because it's so influential and so many people got mad at it! So the criticism of the book can be a way to figure out what the book's up to.
(I haven't had the chance to read Cohen's book, although it seems like he's doing some cool work at Arizona State, my old alma mater. But I hope you're able to keep with it and get something interesting out of it!)
Aristotle had a literary theory as did rene girard. There's the early analytic philosophy literary theory (new criticism).
I think it sells itself based on not trusting institutions like news organizations. You really want to be able to figure out what people are saying and why and different ways they can say it to drive at different conclusions. If one likes philosophy and metaphysics then literary theory is just philosophy in literature. Nobody is stuck with any of the popular theories. It's more likely you'll end up making your own and at that point anything you read can be interpreted in ways that more properly connect with your worldview besides affirmation or reaction based on keywords like political parties which is literary theory most ppl use.
I'm so out of touch with "literary culture" because I love theory. And also, non-university-based literary critics/New York, etc... have always hated theory! I thought things were improving but was wrong if this post was needed.
If you had to pick a book or essay that really shows why you love theory--maybe something you might show to theory-resistant students to persuade them it's a worthwhile endeavor--what would it be? I'm always looking for recommendations!
My tastes are Marxist, so I'd probably go with a Jameson essay, but I'd have to think more about entry-level since a lot of his stuff is deep in the Marxist weeds. His "Pleasure: A Political Issue" might appeal to students wanting to think about the social media discourse about politics and pleasure at a deeper level. That said Foucault's "Nietzche, Genealogy, History" is a classic intro essay demonstrating what theory is doing that marks it different from philosophy and why it's not social science.
I also think Lukacs "Theory of the Novel" is pretty fire. But maybe a little too difficult and abstruse for entry-level.
And you know, Marc Fischer was a great popularizer. Capitalist Realism, The K-Punk archives, particularly for people into music.
Glad I stumbled on this post and thanks for writing it! I think in an ideal world I would read more theory -- and a lot more of everything -- but I have a day job in a non-literature field, social/familial/community things to do, and need to cook and exercise. I already don't have time to read all the books I want to read; do you think it makes sense at all for me or people like me to read theory (or just to read all the novels and poetry I haven't read)? (And if so what's the one book you'd recommend?)
Ooh, this is a great question! I think that, if you read theory, you should be driven by curiosity, not guilt. I've done plenty of theory reading because I felt like I had to. No fun. But if you find yourself wondering about some questions (who is it that speaks in a lyrical poem? Why do authors use so many visual details? Can literature reveal human nature?), theory can be a fascinating place to look.
If you wanted to begin exploring theory, I would start with a book that most academics would not categorize as "theory": James Wood's How Fiction Works. It doesn't engage in contemporary theoretical debates. But I think this book does two things really well. First, it write about literature in a way that makes the reader more excited, not less excited, to read more. Second, it introduces or refreshes lots of necessary and useful ideas (like free indirect style, for example) that you'll want to know if you want to read more criticism or theory.
If you want to dive into more theory-y theory books, I feel like I'd want to know more about what intrigues or interests you about books, history, culture, etc. For example, if you're really fascinated by the topic of experience (how do novels and poems mimic or simulate how we experience the world?), you might want to read a different theory work than if you're really interested in the aesthetics of the Harlem Renaissance. But I think that, if you're just considering dipping your toes into this kind of writing, I'd start with How Fiction Works.
This was a delightful recommendation!
Oh, I'm so glad you read it! Isn't it a treat?? My favorite chapter, I think, is the chapter on "details"--I still sometimes remember the "cherry-colored twist" that Wood describes.
Yes! I also got so many book recommendations from it
Thank you! How Fiction Works sounds like a great place to start and I'll borrow it. What I've been thinking about recently is probably a long the lines of literature revealing human nature, and also how literature can influence the way we see the world, and also more generally how to choose what to read with all that is out there (I started a post on this and have no answer, and I don't think there's a unified answer but I'd like to hear what people think)!
I also write fiction, and I write about fiction (and other things) for a smallish audience that mostly doesn't read much fiction, and there are of course limitations to just talking about books I like and my personal interpretations of them
Good post, like all of your posts. People definitely blame Theory for a lot more than is plausible. I blame it for some stuff too, just an order of magnitude less than, say, the precipitous decrease in reading or the various economic imperatives that made the decline of the humanities inevitable. It's also treated in very amorphous terms, without any differentiation between different strands of literary method--e.g. how postmodernism or Deconstruction and traditional Marxism are, obviously, not only different but sharply at odds (Sokal was a leftist!). I work within the latter tradition (broadly conceived along the lines of Auerbach) but have nothing to do with the former.
This was a nice argument pulling apart different aspects of the critique. I do like Benedict Anderson!
Thank you! Yes, I think that theory is sometimes seen as one big "cultural Marxist" mutual admiration society, which really doesn't account for the bitter (and often highly entertaining, if I'm being honest) acrimony with which some theorists regard others. I think a lot of theory's bad reputation has to do with readers making "theory" as a term equivalent to a certain brand of activist-scholarship that, in some cases, does deserve critique!
Yeah, sometimes we're it feels like we're between a rock (silly moralistic, presentist readings) and a hard place (denial that things like, I don't know, the history of sex roles or class relations could possibly have anything to do with the interpretation of literature). But that's the nature of polarization, I guess. Most people are actually more reasonable than that, or so I'd like to think!
I think the objections are very often more to do with the way undergrad is taught. Someone who has not yet read and studied Shakespeare, for example, may well feel that Theory is an imposition on a set of ideas (ideologies) that are not really directed at their understanding of the plays as much as at their understanding of the Theory. I capitalise because that sort of literary theory is fundamentally different from something like Northrop Frye or Walter Jackson Bate, who were theorising from the raw material of literature not from an idea from another discipline. If you want to read George Herbert but mostly you get Stanley Fish, and you are an undergrad, it seems inevitable (and reasonable!) that many will object to Stanley Fish, imo.
Yeah, completely agree. When I referred to blaming it for some stuff, it's mostly that: becoming the primary object of analysis and undermining the canon. (And, in its high Theory form, the writing.) That said I do sympathize with Isaac's desire to defend it from some of the attacks on here, which really seem confused and are way too wide in their target.
yeah I get that, I thought he did a good job, might write about it myself
I would read this! And would also defend theorizing using ideas from other disciplines, even if I wouldn’t defend Stanley Fish’s work! Law and literature work, for example, can do cool stuff with concepts from other disciplines.
Thank you for this! Theory is so intriguing but difficult to approach. Right now I'm reading Of Giants by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen and having a hard time of it. I'll check out Imagined Communities soon, the recommendations are much appreciated.
Yeah--I also think that it's so useful to read these books together with others. So much of what makes theory worth reading is that it starts great conversations, and I often feel like I didn't get everything I might have out of books I don't talk about. Imagined Communities is good to read in part because it's so influential and so many people got mad at it! So the criticism of the book can be a way to figure out what the book's up to.
(I haven't had the chance to read Cohen's book, although it seems like he's doing some cool work at Arizona State, my old alma mater. But I hope you're able to keep with it and get something interesting out of it!)
Aristotle had a literary theory as did rene girard. There's the early analytic philosophy literary theory (new criticism).
I think it sells itself based on not trusting institutions like news organizations. You really want to be able to figure out what people are saying and why and different ways they can say it to drive at different conclusions. If one likes philosophy and metaphysics then literary theory is just philosophy in literature. Nobody is stuck with any of the popular theories. It's more likely you'll end up making your own and at that point anything you read can be interpreted in ways that more properly connect with your worldview besides affirmation or reaction based on keywords like political parties which is literary theory most ppl use.