Best books on literary theory?

[boomah]

Hi all,

 

Do any of you know any good books that will give me solid grounding in literary theory? I know the basics, and I'm looking to go a bit deeper in...

 

Thanks!

[Eternal Optimist]

What books have you read already? Terry Eagleton's introduction to lit theory and Catherine Belsey's Critical Practice are the standard ones. If you could be more specific about which topics in lit theory you want to go deeper into, I could suggest some books.

[jazzyd]

Whew where to start! It'd be helpful if you could offer a certain school or area or even a scholar who uses a certain framework you'd like to get more grounding in.

 

Otherwise, I know you mentioned having the basics, but How to Interpret Literature by Robert Dale Parker (Professor at UIUC) does an excellent job of going through the prominent need-to-know theories and people. It provides a fair bit more than the basics also. At the very least you might have a better idea of what direction you want to go from there.

[mmorrison]

The Norton Anthology of Literary Theory and Criticism is hands down the best. It's a doorstop, but you'll use it again and again. 

For something lighter, I also quite love Bennett & Royle's Intro to Literature, Crit, and Theory (this one is definitely theory with a small 't') and also Barry's Beginning Theory.

[ProfLorax]

Yale U has an Introduction to Literary Theory course online, all free! It might help direct your readings of various theory, which I always found difficult to do without guidance or context. 

[chaucerettescs]

In my courses at Michigan, we used Literary Theory: An Anthology (ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan) and it was pretty solid... in more ways than one. 

 

Seriously, that book was heavy.

[davidipse]

You can read M. H. Abrams' "The Deconstructive Angel" for free on Jstor. Abrams, basically, disagrees with deconstruction (esp. J. Hillis Miller's brand of it, though he addresses Derrida and even Bloom), but he's a very sympathetic summarizer. Famously pluralist, he really puts on the shoes of whatever critic he's agreeing or disagreeing with, always doing his best to summarize and present the best case for any theoretical standpoint before going on to critique or comment on it. The essay's a better and shorter introduction to several threads of theory than a lot of introductory books I've come across.

 

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1342932?uid=3739560&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103563571587

 

Jonathan Culler's Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction is also very concise and useful.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Literary-Theory-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0199691347/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393729249&sr=8-1&keywords=oxford+introduction+culler

 

Culler also wrote On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism, which I haven't read but is apparently *the* book to read on the subject. Another *the book* that I haven't read is Terry Eagelton's Literary Theory: an Introduction. Eagleton is, in the very least, a very funny writer, in a curmudgeony way.

Edited March 2, 2014 by davidipse

[boomah]

Hey thank you everyone for the suggestions!

 

What books have you read already? Terry Eagleton's introduction to lit theory and Catherine Belsey's Critical Practice are the standard ones. If you could be more specific about which topics in lit theory you want to go deeper into, I could suggest some books.

 

The only book I've read is Jonathan Culler's Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction, which davidipse also mentioned. I also read excerpts from various primary sources during my undergraduate classes on lit theory, but I was way too busy that semester to pay attention, hence my need for more.

 

The Norton Anthology of Literary Theory and Criticism is hands down the best. It's a doorstop, but you'll use it again and again. 

For something lighter, I also quite love Bennett & Royle's Intro to Literature, Crit, and Theory (this one is definitely theory with a small 't') and also Barry's Beginning Theory.

 

What do you mean by theory with a small t?

 

Yale U has an Introduction to Literary Theory course online, all free! It might help direct your readings of various theory, which I always found difficult to do without guidance or context. 

 

Thanks! That looks quite useful. 

 

You can read M. H. Abrams' "The Deconstructive Angel" for free on Jstor. Abrams, basically, disagrees with deconstruction (esp. J. Hillis Miller's brand of it, though he addresses Derrida and even Bloom), but he's a very sympathetic summarizer. Famously pluralist, he really puts on the shoes of whatever critic he's agreeing or disagreeing with, always doing his best to summarize and present the best case for any theoretical standpoint before going on to critique or comment on it. The essay's a better and shorter introduction to several threads of theory than a lot of introductory books I've come across.

 

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1342932?uid=3739560&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103563571587

 

Jonathan Culler's Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction is also very concise and useful.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Literary-Theory-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0199691347/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393729249&sr=8-1&keywords=oxford+introduction+culler

 

Culler also wrote On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism, which I haven't read but is apparently *the* book to read on the subject. Another *the book* that I haven't read is Terry Eagelton's Literary Theory: an Introduction. Eagleton is, in the very least, a very funny writer, in a curmudgeony way.

 

That sounds like a fun essay! 

 

 

Thanks for all the suggestions everyone! Seems like I have a lot of theory reading ahead of me. For those who asked, my main interest is in postcolonial theory, so if y'all have any suggestions for good books in that, I'd appreciate those as well. I was thinking of reading a couple of general books first (like the ones suggested here), and, once I'd gotten the general feel for theory, move on to postcolonial readings specifically. 

[bgguitarist]

I second Eagleton, Rivkin and Ryan, the Norton brick (which I call my "bible"), and Barry. Also, Purdue has a website called "Introductory Guide to Literary Theory" which is immensely useful: http://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/

Edited March 2, 2014 by bgguitarist

[toasterazzi]

In my MA program, we used Critical Theory Today by Lois Tyson. It was very accessible, and especially helped to clarify the theories that we were reading about in the Norton Anthology. Also, each section included not only a description of a theory but also specific application of the theory to a text.

[ArthChauc]

I will forever praise the Norton edition on theory, Parker's work on interpreting literature, and the Yale course. I came into my MA with exactly zero theory background and now I can hold my own in pretty much any conversation about psychoanalysis (which happens to be what I work with primarily along with a little bit of Marxism, trauma theory, and feminism). 

[mmorrison]

What do you mean by theory with a small t?

 

It [bennett & Royle's book] discusses specific concepts you can use when thinking your way into a text, but it doesn't demystify, nor does it group those concepts into, any "isms." Barry's book will answer questions like, "So… what exactly is ______ism and  what exactly does it mean to apply '______ theory' to a text?" The Norton Anthology will give you the salient readings within each category, often those important initial writings that outline and set the terms for what later becomes ________ist criticism (and at other times exemplifying the critical moments at which ______ism changed direction or underwent a redefinition of some kind). Bennett & Royle, on the other hand, offer a series of chapters named for commonplace lit-crit terms ("uncanny," "subjectivity," etc.) and chat with you about each one in such a way that you come away with a better understanding of what the concept really DOES in literary criticism than you would if you just read the definition. It's kind of a shortcut version of reading a dozen critical articles that use that term as a keyword in order to better grasp the term's implications/applications.

[Eternal Optimist]

Hey thank you everyone for the suggestions

 

 

Thanks for all the suggestions everyone! Seems like I have a lot of theory reading ahead of me. For those who asked, my main interest is in postcolonial theory, so if y'all have any suggestions for good books in that, I'd appreciate those as well. I was thinking of reading a couple of general books first (like the ones suggested here), and, once I'd gotten the general feel for theory, move on to postcolonial readings specifically.

I have been told that the Empire writes back is a good book for post postcolonial theory. During my undegrad days, we had Edward Said's Orientalism and Gayathri Spivak's 'Can the Subaltern Speak?'as a part of our syllabus.

[Eternal Optimist]

It [bennett & Royle's book] discusses specific concepts you can use when thinking your way into a text, but it doesn't demystify, nor does it group those concepts into, any "isms." Barry's book will answer questions like, "So… what exactly is ______ism and  what exactly does it mean to apply '______ theory' to a text?" The Norton Anthology will give you the salient readings within each category, often those important initial writings that outline and set the terms for what later becomes ________ist criticism (and at other times exemplifying the critical moments at which ______ism changed direction or underwent a redefinition of some kind). Bennett & Royle, on the other hand, offer a series of chapters named for commonplace lit-crit terms ("uncanny," "subjectivity," etc.) and chat with you about each one in such a way that you come away with a better understanding of what the concept really DOES in literary criticism than you would if you just read the definition. It's kind of a shortcut version of reading a dozen critical articles that use that term as a keyword in order to better grasp the term's implications/applications.

This sounds very interesting. I will try to find an ebook copy!

[Eternal Optimist]

Found the book, read the first chapter and loved it. Thank you mmorrison.

[boomah]

It [bennett & Royle's book] discusses specific concepts you can use when thinking your way into a text, but it doesn't demystify, nor does it group those concepts into, any "isms." Barry's book will answer questions like, "So… what exactly is ______ism and  what exactly does it mean to apply '______ theory' to a text?" The Norton Anthology will give you the salient readings within each category, often those important initial writings that outline and set the terms for what later becomes ________ist criticism (and at other times exemplifying the critical moments at which ______ism changed direction or underwent a redefinition of some kind). Bennett & Royle, on the other hand, offer a series of chapters named for commonplace lit-crit terms ("uncanny," "subjectivity," etc.) and chat with you about each one in such a way that you come away with a better understanding of what the concept really DOES in literary criticism than you would if you just read the definition. It's kind of a shortcut version of reading a dozen critical articles that use that term as a keyword in order to better grasp the term's implications/applications.

 

Thanks for that detailed reply! And thank you everyone else for the further suggestions. I'm thinking of reading Parker's book first along with the Yale course. Then, I'll get the two anthologies and read some of the primary sources. Then maybe some more general books. Then postcolonial.

 

Sigh. So much reading, so little time.

[smellybug]

I second the Culler introduction to lit. theory. I still refer back to it. It's waaaaay easier to start with a secondary source that contextualizes movements than to just crack open the Norton and read willy-nilly.

[Kamisha]

I second the Culler introduction to lit. theory. I still refer back to it. It's waaaaay easier to start with a secondary source that contextualizes movements than to just crack open the Norton and read willy-nilly.

 

I’ll also echo the Culler suggestion. The same series also includes “Critical Theory: A Very Short Introduction” by Stephen Eric Bronner. It’s a great supplement, as well. 

[ExponentialDecay]

I second the Culler introduction to lit. theory. I still refer back to it. It's waaaaay easier to start with a secondary source that contextualizes movements than to just crack open the Norton and read willy-nilly.

 

but you have to, have to, have to read the original articles once you are comfortable with the academic style. seriously, people who try to talk about concepts they haven't encountered in the original context deserve their own special scholarly hell.

[mmorrison]

but you have to, have to, have to read the original articles once you are comfortable with the academic style. seriously, people who try to talk about concepts they haven't encountered in the original context deserve their own special scholarly hell.

 

In the interest of space, I vote that they share the same hell as people who use the term "Kafkaesque" but have read no Kafka.