Literary Theory

[plasticastle]

Hello, Everyone,

I'm just finishing my first semester in a Master's program that is strongly devoted to theory. I didn't come from a strong theory background, but over the course of this semester, I've already gained an immense knowledge and good foundation. However, since winter break is fast approaching, I would like to spend my time reading, so next semester I can start out strong. I'm already planning to read Terry Eagleton's Literary Theory: an Introduction, as well as The Function of Criticism.

What are some other recommended books on theory?

I'm primarily interested in New Historicism and Marxism, but I want to read as much as I can about... well... pretty much everything.

Thanks for you help!

[JennyFieldsOriginal]

I don't focus heavily on theory, but if you pick up the huge Norton Anthology of Literary Theory and read around in it something will definitely spark your interest.

When I was studying for the Lit GRE I made a ton of notes about stuff I wanted to check out when I actually have time to read for pleasure.

Sorry if that's way too general!

[Liesje]

If you like Eagleton try Raymond Williams (The Country and the City) or Stuart Hall. A lot of people seem to be into Ranciere these days and he's also working on a more historical, less deterministic marxist approach (the ignorant schoolmaster, the politics of aesthetics).

[theunnamable]

Read philosophy, starting with Plato.

[soxpuppet]

The Eagleton's pretty much the first theory book I read, so I wasn't aware until the end what a tendentious argument it is. He basically presents the book as an objective survey of various approaches, and then, at the end, proclaims that the theory with all the answers is... Marxism! I had a survey course that used the Norton anthology of crit, which is a decent starting point, especially if you want a survey. IMO it's better to get an anthology than an overview by one author trying (and probably failing) to be objective. More specifically, I'd recommend Étienne Balibar - a student of Althusser, so should be up your alley. I've heard him speak more than I've read his work though, so I wouldn't know where to point you exactly.

[rainy_day]

I'll second the Norton Lit Theory book. I actually have it sitting open next to me, as I type this! (Revising the writing sample from hell.)

It has great introductory sections on theoretical movements and individual authors, that I find a really excellent resource again and again. It's not an inexpensive book, but I think it is definitely a worthwhile investment for someone invested in lit theory.

[johnnyleston]

check out Northrop Frye's Anatomy of Criticism, Joseph Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces, Roland Barthes' Mythologies, and Martin Heidegger's article "The Origin of the Work of Art."

also, look for a critical edition of a piece of literature that you already resonate with. i found the norton critical edition of Dubliners to be helpful in giving a bunch of different critical perspectives on a text that i was already somewhat familiar with. i have the norton critical edition to Paradise Lost and A Turn of the Screw, and i am sure there are plenty of others available.

[vertige]

A great theorist to read, if you're interested in New Historicism but also Marxism and literature in general, would be both Mikhail Bakhtin (Art and Answerability, Marxism and Philosophy, etc. etc.) and Georg Lukacs (Theory of the Novel, The Historical Novel, Soul and Form, etc. etc.) as these would be great as both primary sources and secondary sources. I'm a weird mix of New Historicist with interests in romanticism and phenomenology . . .

[commoner]

Yes, Bakhtin. And Jameson most definitely. Nothing light-reading about those two. But if you have the time to chew on it, it sure is tasty.

[plasticastle]

Thanks! All of these recommendations are very helpful. I'm taking a class this semester on Freud, Lacan, and Bakhtin, so this course should help, as well. I've also been reading some Foucault (History of Sexuality and Discipline and Punish).

[ecritdansleau]

Similar to the Norton editions, but perhaps a bit more friendly to amateurs in criticism, The Bedford St Martin's "Case Studies for Criticism" editions are fantastic for getting a sense both of particular theoretical trends as well as criticism done on the primary text. For various novels, they include essays in the appendix about literary theory for articles that have been written about the text, and they include the article. (For instance, in Tess of the D'urbervilles, they have five different critical essays in the appendix, prefaced with explanations along the lines of "What is the New Historicism?", "New Historicism and Tess of the D'Urbervilles, followed by an article about Tess by scholar Catherine Gallagher which employs the New Historicist methodology.) It also helps you to become more aware of what kinds of theoretical approaches make themselves compatible to different kinds of texts; whereas Tess works with certain approaches (New Historicism, Feminist and Gender Criticism, Deconstruction, etc), other Bedford St Martins editions include Psychoanalytic or Marxist approaches.

And speaking of it, The Norton Anthology of Literary Theory and Criticism has a new edition that just appeared this month. I'm interested to see what alterations have been made....

[cleisthenes]

Just get a tape cassette recording of Zizek screaming at you. You won't regret it.

[augustquail]

I just finished a combined BA/MA that in theory-focused department; it's so strange--I really thought that everyone had to read lacan, foucault, zizek, marx, derrida, etc. throughout their undergrad career...but a lot of people take one 'lit theory course.' Anyway, if you are interested in Marxism, and not "marxian" philosophy, and you like Eagleton, I would suggest looking into Teresa Ebert's work (one book is "the culture of class," I believe). I took three courses with her and I swear, no one quite understands Marx the way she does. I've always been a fan of Etienne Balibar, who wrote "Race, Nation & Class" with (i think?) immanuel wallerstein. Balibar also wrote some good stuff with Pierre Macherey.

[poco_puffs]

I just finished a combined BA/MA that in theory-focused department; it's so strange--I really thought that everyone had to read lacan, foucault, zizek, marx, derrida, etc. throughout their undergrad career...but a lot of people take one 'lit theory course.'

Besides my Lit Theory and Criticism class, which unfortunately has not stuck in my mind that well, my classes in Colonial and Postcolonial literature were the only ones that EVER dipped into theory. Even then, we rarely read more than a page-long excerpt from a given theorist, and it was hard to get a feel for it all.

This thread has been great for reading suggestions, but I get the feeling that some of these anthologies will be a hefty little investment.

[vertige]

Just have to make it clear - Marxism vs. Marxian philosophy is a distinction made between those who advocate or support a political solution via Communism or some other self-defeating Marxist power structure (Cesar Chavez, Fidel Castro) and those who work toward the development of certain strains of discourse found in the Marx-Engels vocabulary, historicized in the dialectics of Englightenment philosophy, and re-articulated in discourse on postcolonial narratives, African-American and diaspora studies, queering the subject, and Jamesonian and Foucauldian permutations of Althusser's critique of Ideology, among other points of analysis. While Marxists are devoted to a dogmatic enforcement of economic and physical maneuvering in the deified name of the proletariat, Marxian analysis works to interact with, and subtly re-articulate, certain concepts and vocabulary devoted to progressively re-thinking public discourse and departmental politics regarding class, race, disability, gender, and other forms of cultural difference.

Some people confuse the pragmatics of harsh government with the Nietzschean perspectivism that might allow for grandiose Marxist posturing, but in a limited arena, ie an academic set of discourses that can closely monitor and tailor individual arguments and permutations of Marxism with a sensitivity for their political and epistemological ramifications.

“No, no, no. I am an extremely modest Marxist,” he replies, rather disappointingly. “I am not a catastrophic person. I am not saying that revolution is round the corner. I am fully aware that any old-style communist solution is out.” -Slavoj Zizek

Edited February 4, 2010 by bnibs