Literature has no more value than Mills & Boon

[JCamilo]

JBI, you're right. He doesn't quite say texts are devoid of aesthetic value, but if I remember correctly he does go a little further beyond just pointing out that texts a text's value may be different from society to society. I do think he does extend that at points to questions whether a given text has any value or whether ultimately it's a matter of cultural construction reflecting a specific formulation of power.

I also hope everyone realizes I don't actually agree with Eagleton. I actually agree more with JBI. I'll provide some select quotes a little bit later from the book and see if anyone would like to respond to them.

Foucault also does not negate the aesthetical vallue, he was just focused with the idea of power, influence and social impact. It would be more far to say he denied the concept of romantic artist because he was quite a elitist himself if we see the kind of artists he used in his texts.
Atheist is not even defending the idea of a illuminati dominating our world and making us like Shakespeare instead of John Smith, the fourth. He trying to prove all books are equal - but writing is not an accident, it is technique, we know some people are more trained to use this technique (not even talking about an artwork, but you and me writing) will produce better texts. It is not possible to sustain his position except using what he denies: a good text construction to breed argument by sophistry.

[The Comedian]

The only thing I'm looking to destroy is the myth that one book is superior to another.

Forgive my ignorance, but if your argument is that all books are equal, then on what grounds are you making this claim? And, since you find subjective evaluation as invalid, then could you make the case for all books being equal and, in so doing, leave out all appeal to subjective evaluation?

[Jozanny]

Foucault also does not negate the aesthetical vallue, he was just focused with the idea of power, influence and social impact. It would be more far to say he denied the concept of romantic artist because he was quite a elitist himself if we see the kind of artists he used in his texts.
Atheist is not even defending the idea of a illuminati dominating our world and making us like Shakespeare instead of John Smith, the fourth. He trying to prove all books are equal - but writing is not an accident, it is technique, we know some people are more trained to use this technique (not even talking about an artwork, but you and me writing) will produce better texts. It is not possible to sustain his position except using what he denies: a good text construction to breed argument by sophistry.

Agreed. Another way to bring this all crashing to the ground is this: Orwell was a polemicist against absolute state authority as it was promulgated by Marx.

Atheist cannot say that Marx and Orwell cannot be judged as the equal to Hearst's yellow journalism, for example. Marx had powerful ideas he conveyed through words; Orwell had powerful ideas against Marx. Both changed the world of political thought--for anyone to say that a Hearst reporter was or is the equal to either of this men, as a writer, is just absurd.

[Drkshadow03]

JBI, it's true that Eagleton doesn't directly say that literary texts are devoid of aesthetic value, but he does make clear that what we define as aesthetically pleasing is a product of our social power structure, and more specifically academic social values.

Literary theorists, critics and teachers, then, are not so much purveyors of doctrine as custodians of a discourse. Their task is to preserve this discourse, extend and elaborate it as necessary, defend it from other forms of discourses, initiate newcomers into it and determine whether or not they have successfully mastered it. . . . Another reason literary criticism cannot justify its self-limiting to certain works by an appeal to their 'value' is that criticism is part of a literary institution which constitutes these works as valuable in the first place. . . . Shakespeare was not great literature lying conveniently to hand, which the literary institution then happily discovered: he is great literature because the institution constitutes him as such. This does not mean that he is not 'really' great literature -- that it is just a matter of people's opinions about him -- because there is no such thing as literature which is 'really' great, or 'really' anything, independently of the ways in which that writing is treated within specific forms of social and institutional life.

So when the Atheist writes: "Literary elitists grow under the wings of other literary elitists, whose cultural tastes propagate like memes.

I put it to you that if ENG Lit teachers and tutors didn’t reinforce their own likes and dislikes, elitism in literature wouldn’t even exist."

Let's face it the Atheist's first sentence could practically be a paraphrase of Eagleton's first sentence. More specifically, I think Eagleton in the last part of the quote about Shakespeare is making the argument that "great" literature doesn't possess some intrinsic aesthetic value, but rather what has aesthetic value is decided by what our social institutions think is valuable and supports the power-structure, the social institution in question here being academia. Eagelton is saying that the whole idea of "great" literature is bunk, an illusion, a "chimera", as he refers to the Canon earlier in the text, that is merely constituted by the value-judgements of the ruling class and Capitalism, which he states more explicitly elsewhere. Not to mention in context this quote occurs at the end where he is finally explaining his own viewpoints on all the issues he has been discussing.

The original quote in question that I was referring to:

[T]he so-called 'literary canon', the unquestioned 'great tradition' of the 'national literature', has to be recognized as a construct, fashioned by particular people for particular reasons at a certain time. There is no such thing as a literary work or tradition which is valuable in itself, regardless of what anyone might have said or come to say about it. 'Value' is a transitive term: it means whatever is valued by certain people in specific situations, according to particular criteria and in the light of given purposes. It is thus quite possible that, given a deep enough transformation of our history, we may in the future produce a society which is unable to get anything at all out of Shakespeare. His works might simply seem desperately alien, full of styles of thought and feeling which such a society found limited or irrelevant. In such a situation, Shakespeare would be no more valuable than much present-day graffiti. And though many people would consider such a social condition tragically impoverished, it seems to me dogmatic not to entertain the possibility that it might arise rather from a general human enrichment. Karl Marx was troubled by the question of why ancient Greek art retained an 'eternal charm', even though the social conditions which produced it had long passed; but how do we know that it will remain 'eternally' charming, since history has not yet ended?

Even though this line occurs in the introduction, I don't think this is just him neutrally reporting the arguments happening in literary studies that one would expect from a normal introduction or the commonsense notion that values differ between cultures. I think the second sentence is definitely Eagleton himself speaking when he tells us "there is no such thing as a literary work or tradition which is valuable in itself." This theme seems to be repeated again and again throughout the work, even when he isn't talking about theorists who necessarily espouse such views.

At the end he also attacks the types of critics and theorists who would place Literature on a pedestal for its aesthetic value:

All theory and knowledge, as I have argued previously, is 'interested', in the sense that you can always ask why one should bother to develop it in the first place. One striking weakness of most formalist and structuralist criticism is that it is unable to answer this question. The structuralist really does examine sign-systems because they happen to be there, or if this seems indefensible is forced into some rationale -- studying our modes of sense-making will deepen our critical self-awareness -- which is not much different from the standard line of the liberal humanists. The strength of the liberal humanist case, by contrast, is that it is able to say why dealing with literature is worth while. Its answer, as we have seen, is roughly that it makes you a better person. This is also the weakness of the liberal humanist case.

The liberal humanist response, however, is not weak because it believes literature can be transformative. It is weak because it usually grossly overestimates this transformative power, considers it in isolation from any determining social context, and can formulate what it means by a "better person" only in the most narrow and abstract of terms.

If one is curious where he is going with the last paragraph, Eagleton believes literature's true transformative power comes with bringing in politics (Marxism, feminism, etc.) and subordinating it as one artifact of textual culture to study among many, which besides Moby Dick would also include song lyrics, the muppets, the rhetoric of a government report, etc.

It is quite clear from this paragraph that he is attacking the types of people who would defend aesthetic values, not to mention the kind of arguments we've seen in this thread. You know, the endless lame food metaphors to explain the value of literature, "popular fiction is like a stale ring ding, sometimes satisfying, but still kind of tastes like the plastic wrapper and leaves you hungry for a real meal, while the Great Works are like a creme brulee pefectly scorched and carmelized leaving you to savor every sweet glob of goodness and the most satisfying part of an excellent meal, plus it's French so it has to be good!" Or even the: "It makes you a better person!" "It's good for your soul." "It improves the mind." "But how does it do those things?" "Shhh, if you don't understand then alas you never will poor foolish, boy."

I remember the first time I read the book he came off as being more neutral. I sort of read it for an introduction to the various theories, and it seemed like he was just reporting on the issues. But when I re-read the book I discovered this isn't some harmless neutral introduction to theory, rather it is dripping with Eagleton's viewpoints and personal judgements. So the reason I went through those quotes is I do think JBI that your understating the implications of his viewpoints, that are quite clearly his viewpoints, a bit.

Keep in mind I am NOT a Marxist, I don't particularly agree with Eagleton. I think my real point was to show that The Atheist isn't exactly alone in these sentiments, but there are many criticial theories circulating around academia and many academics that in fact are raising the same sorts of questions as The Atheist. Though, I would love to see some personal reactions to Eagleton's quotes.

Foucault also does not negate the aesthetical vallue, he was just focused with the idea of power, influence and social impact. It would be more far to say he denied the concept of romantic artist because he was quite a elitist himself if we see the kind of artists he used in his texts.
Atheist is not even defending the idea of a illuminati dominating our world and making us like Shakespeare instead of John Smith, the fourth. He trying to prove all books are equal - but writing is not an accident, it is technique, we know some people are more trained to use this technique (not even talking about an artwork, but you and me writing) will produce better texts. It is not possible to sustain his position except using what he denies: a good text construction to breed argument by sophistry.

Foucault is another one who doesn't explicitly come out against aesthetic value. Not to mention his analysis of power is "objective" in so far as he is more interested in describing the workings of power than railing or condemning it. Foucault is in no position to condemn power; he consistently points out that you can't escape it, no matter what historical change or revolution occurs, you'll only be shifting the deck chairs so to speak and reformulating the rules that govern your society and thus the strategies and networks of power. His idea of power relies on discourses and shifting epistemes. The values, functions of a text, or discourse in one episteme does not work the same in the next. What we value, who we value, and what we consider important changes with each epistemic shift.

Since literature falls under discourse, it is governed by these same rules. The literature we value in one period may not be the literature we value in another period because what the underlying rules that govern discourse has changed what we value because the power formations have changed. Also, HOW we value it won't be the same as how they valued a work in the past because the episteme has shifted and all discourse are merely a node for the movement of power throughout society.

Eagleton's ideas show a strong affinity for Foucault. And unsurprisingly Eagleton has nice things to say about Foucault.

On the other hand, Foucault's idea that resisting power or at least finding some space for self creation within the structures of power by seeking out limit-experiences might be seen as pro-Aesthetic at least with new literature. One always needs to seek the limits in style and content. Most of the writers Foucault liked and wrote about were extremely experimental with their works.

[JBI]

Meh, Eagleton, to me at least, from my readings of him, came off as some 3rd rate hypocrite. There are natural things with language that create effects, such as the way words are stressed, repeated sounds, and other such things. There are natural elements to how things are written effective how they are perceived.

I would also note, that Marx himself was a big fan of Shakespeare, and Marxist in this sense doesn't really go with Marx, but an imprint, or misreading, or perhaps expansion of Marx.


Either way though, I see no problem in thinking books are better than others - sure, a culture may come around which has a completely different value system, and finds these works dull, but when?

Eagleton fails to comment on the factthat there are things in books which cause reactions to us, such as fear, delight, sympathy, and empathy. Sure those are constructed - but it is not the elite who are forcing us to believe these works are the best because of it, it is the simple notion that to us, these, according to our societies views, are the best works.

Shakespeare strikes home hardest, and we therefore worship him the most (OK, Potter may be the best loved book in the world, but Shakespeare still is everywhere. Our tradition in English is shaped by him).

As long as art is going to evoke responses from readers, it will have a value. And the value may be measured (not mathematically) by the responses. Eagleton doesn't seem to mention the reader much - he is merely concerned with condemning his colleagues, and therefore fails to realize that the reading experience is a very personal thing - it isn't about being rich, or bourgeois, or an academic - it is about reacting, and trying to understand the reaction. It's about enjoying something, and the reasons why we enjoy certain things.

Poor people read too, and books' fate has been decided by the people often enough. Shakespeare himself achieved incredible fame in his day, as did Charles Dickens. There are reasons why, and they aren't all elitist, or economical, which Eagleton ignores.

That being said, his theory contradicts itself. If viewpoints on works are elitist, then his viewpoint must be elitist to, thereby the Marxist viewpoint is a product of the Marxist value system, and therefore thinks itself elite.

[Jozanny]

Drk, I am sorry, but I really cannot follow with this line of reasoning, and I am the non-believer while you have faith in your traditions. Look, if you take human interaction and the culture it generates out of the picture, then yes, nothing means anything--but even if aesthetic value is not absolute, this is not an argument against its ontological reality while we are here, while we remain human. Bloom didn't argue that Shakespeare created an ontological humanity out of thin air; it is obvious in the simple examination of his tragic heroes that they aren't stock figures, or Grecians trapped in oracles. Macbeth is a pyschological reality who turns against his own honor and civic duty for reasons we have been teasing out for over 400 years. Is his failure to manipulate power successfully a particular Western/European/Anglo-American dialectic? Probably. Will the era of Obama change this, gradually obsolete it? I don't think so, because Shakespearean strongmen and their dramas have probably played themselves out since modern man emerged into pre-history, but even if Eagleton is the champion of relativism, and Shakespeare will one day fall, I don't think you can have the human if you remove the desire for perfection in our aesthetic sensibility, even if West and East morph into contrasting cultures we do not understand.

And here I thought I was the progressive...but my belief in the authentic vision of myself as a writer is probably what has kept me alive this long, and I am not going down without a fight.

[JCamilo]

Foucault is another one who doesn't explicitly come out against aesthetic value. Not to mention his analysis of power is "objective" in so far as he is more interested in describing the workings of power than railing or condemning it. Foucault is in no position to condemn power; he consistently points out that you can't escape it, no matter what historical change or revolution occurs, you'll only be shifting the deck chairs so to speak and reformulating the rules that govern your society and thus the strategies and networks of power. His idea of power relies on discourses and shifting epistemes. The values, functions of a text, or discourse in one episteme does not work the same in the next. What we value, who we value, and what we consider important changes with each epistemic shift.

Since literature falls under discourse, it is governed by these same rules. The literature we value in one period may not be the literature we value in another period because what the underlying rules that govern discourse has changed what we value because the power formations have changed. Also, HOW we value it won't be the same as how they valued a work in the past because the episteme has shifted and all discourse are merely a node for the movement of power throughout society.

Eagleton's ideas show a strong affinity for Foucault. And unsurprisingly Eagleton has nice things to say about Foucault.

On the other hand, Foucault's idea that resisting power or at least finding some space for self creation within the structures of power by seeking out limit-experiences might be seen as pro-Aesthetic at least with new literature. One always needs to seek the limits in style and content. Most of the writers Foucault liked and wrote about were extremely experimental with their works.

I have no disagreement about what you say about Foucault (Eagleton I can not say, not familiar with him). But I think here is where lies the difference between Foucault and Atheist argument. Foucault reckons the aesthetical vallue, he basically puts it under control of a structure of power and social domination - the art for art - freedom is impossible to him. That is all, after all he borrowed a lot of his ideas - included the idea of reader-book relation from guys like Borges, so I do not think in the end he supports much the argument here.
As the idea of a tradition as Eaglaton puts seems to me childish.If such structures of power were possible (and power have influence yes), Voltaire, one of the most influential intelectuals of XVII would have managed to make us forgot Shakespeare and Dante, both writers he wrote against.

[The Atheist]

To me, Mills & Boons are like fast food...lots available, and not much nutritional value.
Literature is like a gourmet meal prepared by a world-renowned chef...tasty, balanced [most times] and prepared with heart and soul!

Bizarre.

I'm constantly amazed at how often different threads in different forums come out with the same thoughts.

I agree with that 100%.

Yet, I can guarantee you there are lots of dishes on those menus which a lot of people are going to find completely repulsive. Food & wine tasting are an interesting analogy, because, unlike the arts, there are physical sensations involved, rather than the purely intellectual stimulus of writing. Along with that, tastes are both physical and conditioned, so it might fit nicely.

Wine tasting too. I can agree that a wine of international distinction is very nice, but I can also think some of them taste as though barrelled in used petrol containers. Taste is individual.

Forgive my ignorance, but if your argument is that all books are equal, then on what grounds are you making this claim? And, since you find subjective evaluation as invalid, then could you make the case for all books being equal and, in so doing, leave out all appeal to subjective evaluation?

No problemo, I thought I had, but the thread has also grown in Topsy-esque method, so I'm happy to list a few quick things:

There is a standard of reading comprehension which is evolutionarily essential. (On the assumption that we are dealing with society as it has largely been for the past 200 years.)

At that level, I would expect a reader to be able to read and understand any coherently written book, from Shakespeare to the originally-mentioned and largely-ignored Mills & Boon.

I'm assuming that books published will be of at least reasonable correctness in terms of language, usage, etc.

At present, some books are rated "better" than others. Such ratings are done on a purely subjective basis by an elite comprised of students of language - and by "students" I mean people up to Professor level, and including all of the others in the group, teachers, students, critics, etc.

Once the evolutionary requirements of reading are taken care of, there is no need to read further non-technical books, just as there is no need to look at works of art. Some books bring pleasure to some people, other books bring pleasure to others.

In all studies of literature, there is a standard reading list comprised of the "classics" as nominated by the literary elite. Aside from "I like it", I haven't had a single argument as to why those books are better than others. The physical mechanisms of writing have been mentioned, but my counter of Frederick Forsyth hasn't been covered, so there's clearly no physicalism involved in what distinguishes good from bad. Based on the canons of literature as evinced so far, Mr Forsyth ought to be at the very forefront, but I'd be surprised if he's ever made a literary elite listing.

I contend that much of that literary elitist "classics" list comes more from cultural bases than real ones. The bias towards certain books is reinforced by being marked in studies in accordance with the prevailing theory of what those books are supposed to say and why they are important.

Given that if one person can gain something from an individual book, I find it hard to reconcile that other books may be "better".

Hope that helps clarify the position - I don't think there's much rhetoric there, is there?

[JBI]

In all studies? Are you sure - I'm not studying classics in some of my classes - have you studied literature? If so, you would know that there are people who specialize in contemporary literature, as I am planning on doing in the near future (right now I am still undergrad, so I must complete my requirements). People don't only study canons. The point remains though, that to study texts you must have texts that can be studied, and therefore you will get a list of books that people deem as being worth studying.

The course material is based on the professors critical approach and aesthetic tastes, but for the most part, at the undergrad level, the texts are somewhat well known, and still in print, of course.

Seriously, have you even read basics into literary and critical theory? Do you have any idea what goes into the formation of reading lists?

You would know that lists, even for the same class, are subject to change, year by year, and teacher by teacher.

Where is this "Standard reading list". Whose list is it - all literature classes are different in focus, and focus on different times, or different traditions (or at least, to some extent).

The reason why Mr. Fosythe isn't on teaching lists, is because quite frankly, he isn't important. He isn't a very important writer, and he himself doesn't think he is. Sure, he has a large audience, but I don't think even they consider him some sort of supreme, for the most part.

People who study literature tend to very interested in books, and quite frankly, I doubt they are very interested in reading paper-back thrillers, or romance novels, unless they decide to writer a thesis on them, which some people do. The point is though, for text analysis, some books are far more yielding, and say a lot more.


Why not pick up a copy of the Norton Anthology of Criticism and flip through it - maybe then will you understand the basics of theory. As of now though, you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing without really knowing what you are talking about. You have outlined why other people are "wrong" whereas you yourself always seem to fail to say exactly what you mean, and stick to criticizing.

And P.S., Forsythe doesn't have the basics mechanisms of writing down pact - few do, even canonical writers don't have the mechanisms down perfect the whole time. There is a difference in the way that, for instance, Joyce, Woolf, Faulkner, Hemingway, or Robertson Davies use prose, bending it, and manipulating it, playing with it, than there is with Forsythe.

[JCamilo]

Bizarre.
There is a standard of reading comprehension which is evolutionarily essential. (On the assumption that we are dealing with society as it has largely been for the past 200 years.)

At that level, I would expect a reader to be able to read and understand any coherently written book, from Shakespeare to the originally-mentioned and largely-ignored Mills & Boon.

That is not true. The amount necessary for reading and understanding any book is variable. There is more levels of "reading capacity" than you seem to admit. Most people can not understand Shakespeare well.

I'm assuming that books published will be of at least reasonable correctness in terms of language, usage, etc.

Here is another problem. Literature, as art, follow no such compromisse. If you are going to present a theory of literary worth you must assume Mallarmé and Joyce played the same game of Flaubert and J.K.Rowling. Do not excuse objects of study because they do not fit in your theories.

At present, some books are rated "better" than others. Such ratings are done on a purely subjective basis by an elite comprised of students of language - and by "students" I mean people up to Professor level, and including all of the others in the group, teachers, students, critics, etc.

There is a loop from the "reading level" ideas to this one. Those ratings are not done on subjective basis. Tradition is not subjective (it may be imperative but people still need Homer not only because X,Y,Z say it is good). In fact, Influential critics such Ezra Pound attacked Virgil. You need more than trying to imply a illuminati.

Once the evolutionary requirements of reading are taken care of, there is no need to read further non-technical books, just as there is no need to look at works of art. Some books bring pleasure to some people, other books bring pleasure to others.

Basead on what? Some books are hard to be understood because the use of vocabulary. Others because the ideas in the book. And we have poetry, which is an evasive form of language.(There is a difference reading Joyce or Guimaraes Rosa and reading Borges or Swift) So, you must always return to your sources, Re-reading is something for strong levels of language.
Also, the supply is too big for you just to give up anything. You can spend all your life reading and you wont end with the possibilities of a given style.
Also, pleasure, while true what you say, is irrelevant. Publishers spend a lot of time deciding the physical format of the book because they know someone will not like a book if the pages keep bouncing. Some people do not have pleasure reading digital books, but if they read a printed version of the same text, they may like it. Also, we can be upset with a book because it was a gift from someone you dislike, etc. I hope we are not going to basis any debate on capriche.

In all studies of literature, there is a standard reading list comprised of the "classics" as nominated by the literary elite.

Yes, but those classics are independent of the teacher. No amount of attack will change the fact Homer is the most enduring author ever and if you need to study the literature you need to know him.

Aside from "I like it", I haven't had a single argument as to why those books are better than others.

Every book have a history. Some books have strong philosophical ideas. So, the Republic from Plato is better than my "Why I think life is boring". Other use vocabulary in a way that they will have more aesthetical vallue. Keats Ode to a Nightingale is better than my Ode of non-sensical humor. Others have narratives that are better build and use symboligy better, so Dom Quixote is better than "When I grow up I will be a paleontologist", Others bring up characters in such way that they represent humanity better, so Hamlet is better than "My Neighbour is a psicompompo". Dante could be all that. Some books have more capacity of interpretation, deeper meanings, pluarity of ideas, some books have bigger historical influence.
But the basic is: They resist. They endure. They re-spawn in other works, they are re-printed, they are know even if not read. No amount of subjectivity and taste can destroy those books and if you ignore this I can not do anything for you.

The physical mechanisms of writing have been mentioned, but my counter of Frederick Forsyth hasn't been covered, so there's clearly no physicalism involved in what distinguishes good from bad.

Forsyth is a cliche writer. He is repetive and not inovative. Just apply a formula. Your counter was not answered because it does sounded like a bravata and not an argument. He is an efficient writer, that is all.

Based on the canons of literature as evinced so far, Mr Forsyth ought to be at the very forefront, but I'd be surprised if he's ever made a literary elite listing.

Really, are saying that Forsyth, basead on the Canon, have accomplished the same as Dante, Homer, Virgil, Cervantes or Shakespeare. He have survived 300 years, he have created a new style, his characters are immortal in every single country, tradition and age ?

I contend that much of that literary elitist "classics" list comes more from cultural bases than real ones. The bias towards certain books is reinforced by being marked in studies in accordance with the prevailing theory of what those books are supposed to say and why they are important.

Cultural bases of course. After all they are the real bases. Now, You have a notiong that all those guys are attacked, have their reading gone and they hardly represent what our society today like?

Given that if one person can gain something from an individual book, I find it hard to reconcile that other books may be "better".

Usually, what someone will gain from a book is her own merit. Hardly different from Dante's effect that changed an entire nation, but ok. I can also write a book that will stabilish an idiom. And I promess to publish this here in the forum.

Hope that helps clarify the position - I don't think there's much rhetoric there, is there?

Actually, you avoind the question. "Good" is purelly your word that means nothing. You do not define any criteria, any reason why you think "Eragorn" is equal to "Iliad". So, still on vague definitions.

[JBI]

Meh, when it comes down to it also, a lot of books are enduring, because they are enjoyed by people outside of academia. Sure, many of us on these boards are English students, but many aren't. Why do those people read then? Could it perhaps be (gasps!) the fact that books give something to the reader, emotional reaction perhaps, or other such effects? Could it be that people actually respond to reading, and other forms of communication? Could it be that people gain meaning in their lives from these sorts of things, in the Sartian sense? Or perhaps it could be simply, that a book is an outlet to explore oneself, and come to a better understand of ones life. That too is a possibility.

There is no one answer, since books are often canonized, or prized for different reasons. The reason the canon exists, quite plainly, is because some books just happen to be enduring - happen to contain something that can entertain audiences other than their original. Shakespeare saw this, he sure mentions it a lot in his sonnets. The power for something to go beyond its original time, and become immortal, by talking beyond its speaker or writer.

Of course, I would cut some things from the canon. For the most part, I joke about cutting out almost everything from Milton to Wordsworth. But I'm not really serious. I would cut Pope, Johnson, and Swift out, but I don't really think that would fly. People still get some sort of reaction out of themselves from reading these works, and because of it, they endure.

[mayneverhave]

Of course, I would cut some things from the canon. For the most part, I joke about cutting out almost everything from Milton to Wordsworth. But I'm not really serious. I would cut Pope, Johnson, and Swift out, but I don't really think that would fly. People still get some sort of reaction out of themselves from reading these works, and because of it, they endure.

Throw Dryden in there too. It's hard to lose Johnson though with his contributions to criticism - though, which influential, I hardly care for. His poetry and prose though (aside from maybe Rasselas), is somewhat forgettable.

[Drkshadow03]

All very interesting and correct responses to Eagleton's nonsense. If anyone is curious here is my own response to Terry Eagleton from my blog post How Homer and Shakespeare are Oppressing me! Or the Revolution will Not be Televised:

Eagleton ends not by offering the latest trends in Feminism and Marxism literary theory, but hitting home the point that his entire book has really been one long polemic with the express goal of pointing out that all literary theory is political. He concludes with the provocative suggestion that Feminism and Marxism is the most productive methods of literary criticism since they can actually manage to accomplish real-world change as opposed to all these other “political” methods of literary theory that always seem to cut themselves short of being able to prepare the reader for activism. He finishes by telling us that literature should be seen as part of a larger material culture, and it therefore makes more sense to practice cultural studies rather than literary studies.

All this leads us into some of my own personal criticisms of Terry Eagleton’s so-called introduction to literary theory. When I first read the book as a way of preparing myself for grad school I was so captivated by all the new and strange theories that I hardly noticed Eagleton’s biases, but on a re-read the author’s Marxism pollutes every page.

Mark Bauerlein accuses the book of being fairly thin on conceptual analysis and finds the methodological descriptions hasty. It’s hard for me to judge that either way since I am not knowledgeable enough in the various theories to discern how well Eagleton explains them. Bauerlein points out that the whole book “reads like a textbook case of commentary by genetic fallacy and ethical consequence.” Eagleton is content to dismiss the validity of theories for having the wrong political origins or if they fail to be explicitly political in their effect.

Bauerlein in Theory’s Empire, the anthology I’ve been quoting, notes how stupid this argument is. There is nothing stopping someone who reads Othello in the New Critical method that Eagleton sees as “supporting the status quo” from protesting the unfair wages of the poor next week or attending a woman’s rights rally or engaging in Civil disobedience. Just because a person prefers to read in a more “traditional” manner doesn’t mean they’re a closet political conservative.

Eagleton has the tendency to create Strawmen of liberal humanist critics. First, he attacks the idea of reading literature in an “objective” neutral way. There is obviously practical reasons for him to make this argument; by claiming that all “methods” are political, imbricated in society, and really reflections of ideological interests (even the ones that claim to be neutral), it defends his own questionable undeniably bias political methods of literary criticism. He already has an “effective” shield up. No matter what objection I raise he can point out that it is my ideological world-view that makes me say it, hence further proving him right and me unable to ever prove him wrong. If I criticize his bias methods, he can just respond that my methods aren’t any more neutral than his. Who has the most to gain by convincing people that all literary interpretation is really ideological and political? The ones who practice an explicitly political interpretation of it of course. The irony should not be lost on my readers that I am using his own method of argumentation right now against him. However, it seems to me there is a huge difference between reading a work and knowing what it will contain a priori (what I’ve in the past called checklist criticism that so many Feminist and Marxist critics practice) versus reading a work and being surprised by what you might find there, to the point where it has the ability to question and challenge your beliefs.

Second, he accuses liberal humanism of being ahistorical. I suspect Eagleton would be hard-pressed to find too many liberal humanist types who don’t think it is important to know the historical context of a work, the historical world it depicts (which may be different than the one it was produced in), and a bit about the author’s life, how the work was received in its time, etc. So what Eagleton is really talking about is a different understanding of history, one that isn’t focused on economics and class struggle as the central or only impetus of historical movement. Not to mention I would argue any liberal humanist historian or literary critic worth their salt is also interested in class struggles alongside all the other history that Eagleton no doubt would think of as a mask for history’s real impulses. It is precisely that liberal humanists are open-minded (an attribute Eagleton is willing to grant) and not so narrowly focused in their interests that allow them to have this rich, complex understanding of history that includes certain “Marxist” concerns, but isn’t dominated by them.

Most of his arguments seem to assume one can only read literature in a single way. I can only have one reading of a work and no more. Once I give my interpretation, that’s it, you’ve said your piece, and that is the only interpretation you can have. It makes you wonder why people would ever bother re-reading a book or discussing it in a group or reading other people’s interpretations in the form of criticism.

Literary theory courses themselves are often designed in such a way that one can apply the various theories to a single book; for example one might apply structuralism during week 1 to The Great Gatsby, a Post-Structuralist method during week 2, Feminism during week 3, Psychoanalysis during week 4. So what is to stop me from doing that with every book I read in the future if I so choose? Heck, even without the elaborate theoritical methods, what is to stop a reader from coming to multiple, sometimes even contradictory, interpretations of a work.

In this regard, Eagleton acts as if all liberal humanists will come to the same interpretation (that one interpretation of a work speaks for all liberal humanists); this isn’t surprising considering he probably thinks we’re all a bunch of middle-class repressed repressive bourgeoisie types sharing the same ideology. Nevertheless, take five of these liberal humanist robots and very often they will come to different interpretations of a single literary work, without the help of Marxism, Feminism, Structuralism, or Post-Structuralism. Why does this happen? Eagleton talks a good game about the many “contradictions” found in literary works, but never does anything with it. It’s not clear that Marxisim when it makes an interpretation is not creating a single unified meaning that smooths away contradictions in a text any less than New Criticism for example. The point is that literary works are full of contradictions, allowing for different ways of reading them regardless of method or world-view.

Lastly, literary works sometimes defy the way you want to read them, despite all of this. I’ve read many works that have challenged my beliefs. I’ve read many works that refused to adhere to how I wanted to interpret them or the world for that matter, instead having to let the author speak to me and say what he/she wanted me to understand. It’s very hard to perform a Marxist interpretation of Ayn Rand for example, other than to criticize her. It is very hard to read Joanna Russ’s “When it All Changed” as anything but a feminist story. Imagine the fact that one can enjoy writers who write against their world-view, I know what a conservatively liberal humanist radical thing to say. To claim that of course ignores that a person might not have a solid world-view, but rather a malleable one that is always in flux based off reading new material that asks new questions and gets them thinking about new answers, but hey we can’t all be Marxist intellectuals with the secret keys to understanding history (despite there being no such thing as those secret keys because you can never achieve an objective neutral vantage-point after all, unless you’re a Marxist apparently) who is longing for the Utopia just around the corner where there won’t be anymore Shakespeare or Homer. Wow, imagine such a paradise!

[JBI]

I think another problem with Marxist, and other approaches, is they only apply to works that can really be read in their light, but when you get to works that are rather ambiguous in nature, without clear cut social constructs, you end up only talking about the author, or dismissing the works. For instance, if they were given something like this;


And ever when the moon was low,
And the shrill winds were up and away
In the white curtain, to and fro,
She saw the gusty shadow sway.
But when the moon was very low,
And wild winds bound within their cell,
The shadow of the poplar fell
Upon her bed, across her brow.
She only said, "The night is dreary,
He cometh not," she said;
She said, "I am aweary, aweary,
I would that I were dead!"

I think they would be hard-pressed to come up with an interpretation on just the text, and would automatically resort to the author as a way of understanding, and criticizing the text. Some works, especially poetry, simply cannot be read in Marxist terms.

[The Comedian]

There is a standard of reading comprehension which is evolutionarily essential. (On the assumption that we are dealing with society as it has largely been for the past 200 years.)

At that level, I would expect a reader to be able to read and understand any coherently written book, from Shakespeare to the originally-mentioned and largely-ignored Mills & Boon.

I'm assuming that books published will be of at least reasonable correctness in terms of language, usage, etc.

Okay. So let me know if I get it. The argument goes something like this:

Insofar as one has the capacity to physically (more mentally), sound out letters, read words, and intuit meaning, then one has the potential "understand any coherently written book."

And, the argument goes, as a small side, that the text must follow the basic conventions of grammar.

These two elements make all books of equal quality/prove that literary "worth" does not exist.

At present, some books are rated "better" than others. Such ratings are done on a purely subjective basis by an elite comprised of students of language - and by "students" I mean people up to Professor level, and including all of the others in the group, teachers, students, critics, etc.

Once the evolutionary requirements of reading are taken care of, there is no need to read further non-technical books, just as there is no need to look at works of art. Some books bring pleasure to some people, other books bring pleasure to others.

In all studies of literature, there is a standard reading list comprised of the "classics" as nominated by the literary elite. Aside from "I like it", I haven't had a single argument as to why those books are better than others. The physical mechanisms of writing have been mentioned, but my counter of Frederick Forsyth hasn't been covered, so there's clearly no physicalism involved in what distinguishes good from bad. Based on the canons of literature as evinced so far, Mr Forsyth ought to be at the very forefront, but I'd be surprised if he's ever made a literary elite listing.

I contend that much of that literary elitist "classics" list comes more from cultural bases than real ones. The bias towards certain books is reinforced by being marked in studies in accordance with the prevailing theory of what those books are supposed to say and why they are important.

Given that if one person can gain something from an individual book, I find it hard to reconcile that other books may be "better".

Hope that helps clarify the position - I don't think there's much rhetoric there, is there?

This part, however, I don't think answers my question because it is not argument for the equality of all texts; rather its an argument against the idea that texts are not of equal quality based on many compelling ancillary arguments about the preferences snobbish people.

If I am correct in summarizing your position, and please correct me if I am not, then while your argument that literary worth is subjective has a lot of weight, I just don't see how you prove that worth/greatness doesn't exist at all unless you underpin it with the idea that all immaterial things either don't exist or have equalized value.