|
|
楼主 |
发表于 2007-9-25 23:17:32
|
显示全部楼层
A BookReview: Literary Theory: An Introduction
[Eagleton, T. Literary Theory: An Introduction(2nd edition). Maldon: Blackwell Publishing, 1996.]
As Zhang Longxi puts it, the 20th century is an era of criticism. (Zhang, 1986:7) In some sense,
literary theory is an important element which makes criticism an independent discipline. Eagleton's
introduction to literary theory is useful for readers in that it tries to make sense of the
emergence of theory. It is a bird's-eye view of modern criticism from 1917 to 1990s, illustrating
the development of and relationship between different schools. In seven chapters, it deals with the
major schools of modern literary theory, among which the practical criticism, New Criticism,
hermeneutics, reception theory, structuralism, post-structuralism, and psychoanalysis are described
in detail. The ideological, political criticism, or culture study can be detected everywhere as a
vantage point from which Eagleton is to observe all those schools indicated above, albeit he does
not make it explicit.
This book is erudite. But in my view, in this book Eagleton shows prominent characteristics, which
even makes it somewhat unintelligible. Eagleton's style is polemical and eloquent, and sometimes
this maneuver extends so excessively that a common reader may be lost in his prolix debate with the
imaginary enemies.
Another defect is the neglect of the relation between modern and traditional criticism. Eagleton set
out on a tour of literary study starting from the year when Shiklovsky published his essay 'Art as
Device'. Although he discerns the origin of the modern theories occasionally, Eagleton tends to
focus on the contemporary social and historical context, which can be related to a certain theory
directly. The traditional aspects of literary criticism are ignored. This treatment implies that
literary theory is a newborn baby of 20th century. In my view, this point is wide of the mark.
"There's nothing new under the sun". Although my knowledge of western literary criticism is limited,
I know that modern theories may have ancient origin. And Zhang Longxi's work shows that many points
of modern theories can be related to ancient Chinese criticism in an analogical way.
I. A description and evaluation of modern criticism schools.
In the preface, Eagleton pronounces that 'this book is an attempt to make modern literary theory
intelligible and attractive to as wide a readership as possible'. He manages to make a clear outline
of a history of modern literary theory for common readers. The myth of objective and scientific
literary study is purged in the sense that every school has its special social and historical
background. In other words, scholars coined their theories in specific circumstance to serve their
ideological ends. Thus, raison d'être for literary theory is not scientific but ideological one.
This is the logical basis upon which Eagleton unfolds his arguments.
The mainstream of modern Anglo-American criticism consists of the practical criticism in Britain and
New Criticism in United States. F. R. Leavis, I. A. Richards, and William Empson were the leading
figures of the former, which was claimed to make the first attempt to make literary study
scientific. Leavis was among the forerunners who established English departments in universities. I.
A. Richards made distinction between 'scientific' and 'emotional' language, so literature was
isolated from ordinary language. Empson's main interest was to analyze literary works, especially
poems. It seems that Eagleton appreciates William Empson's easy flowing style and his wholesome
common sense. The American new critics paid more attention to the text. By reproving the intentional
fallacy and affective fallacy, they excluded the biographical, social and historical study of
literature, as well as the readers' response. The text is worth studying in its own right. The terms
of New Criticism seem to be more intelligible in that they are close to the traditional terms and
ordinary speech. Close reading, irony, tension, ambiguity, and paradox, these are terms in regular
use now.
In Germany, literary criticism was strongly influenced by philosophy. Hermeneutics has a long
standing tradition, to which Husserl added new findings. Descartes insists that the only thing which
we are sure of is that we are thinking, and from this starting point, we can set about to decipher
the secret of universe. Follow this line of thinking, Husserl argues that man cannot make clear if
things really exist, but they can rely on the fact that they can feel them through sense. To say it
in terms of phenomenology, the relation between noesis (sense) and noema (object) is what matters.
The aim of phenomenology is to establish certainty. Hirsh embodied this school of thought in his
criticism which took the author's intention as the fixed meaning of literary works and the target of
critics. Husserl's well wrought philosophy has a loophole, that is, it cannot explain the
relationship between language and meaning. (p52-53) Man cannot think without language, thus a
pre-existing meaning is impossible. For solving this problem, Heidegger introduced historical
dimension to describe meaning. 'What is central to Heidegger's thought, then, is not the individual
subject but Being itself.' (p55) The spotlight shifted from the author to the reader. In line with
this school of thought, Wolfgang Iser's theory aims to analyze the process of reading in terms of
reception theory. And American critic Stanley Fish carries this theory to extreme by arguing that
'there is no "objective" work of literature there on the seminar table at all.' (p74) This course of
changed focus of interpretation seems to imply that the attempt to fix the meaning of literature is
doomed to fail. But this attempt is to be taken over by new schools of thought.
It is in structuralism that the pursuit of scientific study of literature reached the apogee.
Ferdinand De Saussure's Course in General Linguistics laid ground rules for the establishment of
modern linguistics and structuralism. His arguments can be reduced into two basic principles, that
is, the binary distinction and the relationship between the units of a system. As Eagleton observes
it, "... structuralism proper contains a distinctive doctrine which is not to be found in Frye: the
belief that the individual units of any system have meaning only by virtue of their relations to one
another. This does not follow from a simple belief that you should look at things
'structurally'."(p82) Levi-Strauss introduced these principles to mythology. Roman Jakobson made a
subtler mode of language system, which consists in six elements carrying out six functions
respectively. He postulated a formula of poetic function on the basis of this language system. In my
view, the literary criticism made by structuralists is not applauded by their peers. Their chief
contribution is to offer a new perspective to literature study. Structuralism treats literature as
an object of scientific study, excluding value judgment and aesthetic appreciation. The
deconstruction is a reaction against this "scientific extremism". Derrida denounced the pursuit for
fixed meaning made by structuralism. He deconstructed the structure of language by dismantling the
"logocentrism" and the binary division. He coined new concepts such as différrance, substitution,
intercontextuality to express his ideas. The American critics of Yale School, Paul de Man, Hillis
Millis, Harold Bloom, and Geoffrey Hartman borrowed weapons from Derrida to attack traditional
criticism from different angles. But, what is left after the meaning is dismantled? As I know, Bloom
wrote a book entitled The Western Canon, which demonstrates very conservative attitude toward
literary study.
By the way, it is in an oversimplified way that Eagleton included Frye's archetype theory into the
umbrella conception of structuralism. The forerunner of Frye is G. Jung, and the origin of archetype
theory can be traced back to S. Freud. What Freud did was to make the psychology a scientific
discipline. Freud made use of data fetched from literature as proof of his arguments. He was a
dilettante of literature, making use of his knowledge in this realm. His discovery of Oedipus
complex and Electra complex was so fresh and different that some critics who were unsatisfied with
traditional account for man's inner world were attracted by it instantly. It seems that Eagleton is
talking about Freud with a hint of mockery in his tone:
'The motive of human society is in the last resort an economic one.' It was Freud, not Karl Marx,
who made this statement, in his Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. What has dominated human
history to date is the need to labor; and for Freud that harsh necessity means that we must repress
some of our tendencies to pleasure and gratification. If we were not called upon to work in order to
survive, we might simply lie around all day doing nothing. (p131) Eagleton argues that any theory as
complex and original as Freud's is bound to be a source of fierce contention, and Freudianism has
been attacked on a great number of grounds, and should in no way be taken as unproblematical. (p140)
Zhang Longxi indicates that Freud once took advantage of the case of a patient named as 'werewolf'
to maintain his reputation as a successful psychoanalyst, but in fact that patient was never cured.
(Zhang, 1986: 31-2) But generally speaking, Eagleton shows sympathy to psychoanalysis. He redeems
that this theory is developed by Lacan and passed on to the feminists, whom he takes as companions.
II. Ideology and cultural study.
In some sense this book may be more intelligible when it is read in reverse order, that is to say,
the conclusion may be read before the preceding chapters, so readers can make clear Eagleton's own
arguments. Although he holds that he does not take ideology as substitution for other theories,
Eagleton does take it as a vantage point to see that every school has its own historical and social
background.
Eagleton indicates that the idea that there are 'non-political' forms of criticism is simply a myth
which furthers certain political uses of literature all the more effectively. (182) As for his own
approach to studying literature, he chooses the oldest form of 'literary criticism', known as
rhetoric, and he explains that, "Rhetoric, which was the received form of critical analysis all the
way from ancient society to the eighteenth century, examined the way discourses are constructed in
order to achieve certain effects." (p179) This is a traditional and reasonable approach, although
Eagleton's awareness of ideology plays a prominent part.
In the afterword of the book, which is added in the second edition published in 1996, Eegleton
describes the development of literary theory after 1980s. He aims to dismantle the liberal
humanistxxx of universal value. He defines postmodernity as the end of modernity, in the sense of
those grand narratives of truth, reason, science, progress and universal emancipation which are
taken to characterize modern thought from the Enlightenment onwards. (p200) New schools of literary
theory emerge, among which there are three important schools, that is, new historicism, feminist
criticism, and post-colonial theory. In the end, Eagleton indicates that culture theory is among the
important commodities offered by postmodern society. (p206) He holds that the task of cultural study
is to take apart the received wisdom of the traditional humanities. (p207) This statement shows the
radical aspect of Eagleton's point of view in that he believes there will never be a fixed point or
ultimate theory about literature, because the attempt to pursue the universal value is doomed to
fail.
III. Eagleton's style.
It will be painful to debate with such an eloquent adversary. The style of Eagleton can almost be
brilliant if he is not so ironic, occasionally even satiric. Take a look at an example:
The word 'poetry', then, no longer refers simply to a technical mode of writing: it has deep
social, political and philosophical implications, and at the sound of it the ruling class might
quite literally reach for its gun. (p17)
This is a vivid description of the ruling class' hostility and vigilance
toward the ideological implication of poetry. But the figurative use of language makes this
statement elusive.
Eagleton's account for different schools of literary theories is skillful. But his own opinions
sometimes are so prominent that what he is explaining is concealed. It is in this sense that this
book is not recommended to beginners, just as B. Russell's book of philosophy history is not fit for
one who just begins to foray into that realm.
IV. Several questions that I am concerned with.
What is literary theory? And what is its use? It's no surprise that students, especially
postgraduates, who major in literature, may encounter literary theories before they can start
anything pertaining to scholarship. Literature has become an object too enormous to grasp, so theory
is called for to furnish a possible approach to it. All theories seem to be some complex versions of
common sense. What is in the centre of controversy is the relation between meaning and form.
Different schools emphasize one element and neglect another. In this sense, they are all extremists.
As for the use of theory, Robert Langbaum's statement of the New Criticism is reasonable and fit for
considering other schools of literary theory: … the New Criticism took us for a time outside the
"mainstream of criticism" (represented by Aristotle, Coleridge, and Arnold), and that we should
return, with the tools of explication and analysis given us by the New Critics, to that mainstream.
That is, instead of insisting upon literature's autonomy, we must resume relating it to life and
ideas. (in Guerin, 1999: 122-123.) What is literature? Eagleton holds that literature is a dynamic
notion determined by historical and social context. He expresses this idea in a dogmatic way: The
final logical move in a process which began by recognizing that literature is anxxx is to
recognizing that literary theory is anxxx too. (p178)
This statement is reasonable in some sense, but too elusive to be intelligible. I would rather rely
on the traditional definition and be content with the subdivision into fiction, poetry, and drama.
And I think, for lifetime is limited, we may focus on those that are proved to be classical.
What is the relationship between modern and traditional literary criticism? I am apt to bear in mind
that modern can be evil. For illustrating modern criticism, Eagleton traced back to Romanticism. But
the tradition is surely longer than that. My plan for further study is to look through Critical
Theory Since Plato in two volumes, compiled by H. Adams and L. Searle, paying more attention to
those essays pertaining to poetry.
It's amazingly interesting to see that the first edition of this book had two Chinese translations
published both in 1987. One was made by Wu Xiaoming, another was the achievement of cooperation by
several scholars, including Qiu Xiaolong and Yang Ziwu. And the latter seems to be better. There are
too many errors in the former. Just take two for example, Glaswegian, which is adjective of Glasgow,
is translated to "格拉斯韦根"(p6)，and a sentence "If the masses are not thrown a few novels, they
may react by throwing up a few barricades" is translated into
“如果你不扔给群众几本小说，他们也许就会给你扔上几枚炸弹！”（p27）These mistakes are avoided in the
latter.
Two printing errors are detected. On page 140, for "a young woman", read "a young women". On page
198, for "intelligentsia", read "intlelligentisa".
Works cited:
Guerin, W. L. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. Oxford: OUP, 1999.
特雷•伊格尔顿（著），伍晓明（译）：《二十世纪西方文学理论》，西安：陕西师范大学出 版社，1987年。
特里•伊格尔顿（著），刘峰等（译）：《文学原理引论》，北京：文化艺术出版社，1987 年。
张隆溪：《二十世纪西方文论述评》，北京：读书•生活•新知三联出版社，1986年。 |
|
发表于 2007-9-25 23:03:07
发表于 2007-9-26 09:59:20
发表于 2007-9-27 04:40:16