DUNAREA DE JOS UNIVERSITY OF GALATI FACULTY OF LETTERS

AUTHOR & AUTHORITY

(An Elective Co !"e in En#li"$ Lite!%!& T$eo!& 'o! ("t Ye%! St )ent"* +n) "e,e"te!-

A""oci%te .!o'e""o! Stel t% St%n* .$D

G%l%ti +/(+

Content"

Introduction C$%0te! ( 1 F!o, 2io#!%0$ic%l C!itici", to +/t$ Cent !& Lite!%!& C!itici", %n) T$eo!&
1.1 Je est un autre Identity and Otherness 8 1.2 The Autonomy of the Literary Text 13

C$%0te! + 4 Author %n) Authorship +5

2.1 The Return of the Great A sentee 2! 2.2 The Author"Authorshi# Re$ationshi# in %etafiction 2& 2.2.1 The Identity Crisis in Postmodernity 2& 2.2.2 Playing with Structures of Authority in Metafiction 3'

Instead of conc$usion '1 G$ossary of Literary Terms '' References and (i $io)ra#hy !8

Int!o) ction

Int!o) ction
In his essay* +Orientation of ,ritica$ Theories* the first cha#ter of The Mirror and the Lam ! "omantic Theory and the Critical Tradition -1&!3.* the American $iterary critic* %eyer /o0ard A rams* sho0s that if* unti$ the Romantics* $iterature 0as usua$$y ex#ected to e and understood as a mirror ref$ectin) the rea$ 0or$d -mimesis.* the Romantics sa0 it more $i1e a $am#* the $i)ht of 0hich 0as the 0riters sou$ and mind i$$uminatin) the -same. 0or$d* and ex#ressin) it in their discourse -diegesis. -in Gray 1&&22 '2.. UNIVERSE 7 8OR9 7 AUTHOR The su 3ect of the course 7 AUDIENCE et0een the

ein) the re$ationshi#

author as ori)inator of meanin) and the other terms of the a o4e" mentioned dia)rammatic re#resentation* 0e thou)ht it fit to chan)e the order of the terms and #$ace the author in the centre* tryin) to ma1e the re$ations more dynamic and idirectiona$. 5e consider that this mi)ht e a usefu$ startin) #oint for the ana$ysis of the cent!%l* 0e!i'e!%l or no !ole %t %ll that the different critica$ and theoretica$ a##roaches assi)ned to the author2 UNIVERSE:E;TRALINGUISTIC REALITY 7 AUTHOR:<EANING .RODUCER 7 8OR9:TE;T:DISCOURSE %" .RODUCT:.RODUCING (RE-.RODUCER
=

7 AUDIENCE:READER: <EANING(S-

Int!o) ction

One of the crucia$ distinctions amon) the 4arious theories of $iterary inter#retation is intention%lit&* the amount of 0ei)ht )i4en to the authors o0n o#inions a out and intentions for a 0or1. 6or most #re"27th century a##roaches* the authors intentions are a )uidin) factor and an im#ortant determiner of the 8correct9 inter#retation of texts. The :e0 ,riticism 0as the first schoo$ to disa4o0 the ro$e of the author in inter#retin) texts* #referrin) to focus on 8the text itse$f9 in a c$ose readin). In fact* as much contention as there is et0een forma$ism and $ater schoo$s* they share the tenet that the authors inter#retation of a 0or1 is no more inherent$y meanin)fu$ than any other. Ta1in) into account 0hat has a$ready een considered an o4ertheori;in) of $iterature 0hich seems to undermine readin) as an <innocent acti4ity* the reader mi)ht fee$ frustrated to $ose this innocence. :e4erthe$ess* 0e stron)$y e$ie4e that a tru$y informed* acti4e reader cannot i)nore the =uestions the ma3or $iterary theories ha4e continua$$y as1ed durin) the $ast decades2 =uestions a out the author* the 0ritin)* the reader* or 0hat 0e usua$$y ca$$ rea$ity. As it ha##ens 0ith oth $iterary criticism and theory* e4en if the focus is on one of the terms* none of the others is com#$ete$y for)otten. It has een said so often that the modern s#irit is an interro)ati4e one* its di)nity and coura)e $yin) in the =uestions it raises* not necessari$y in the ans0ers it finds. ,onse=uent$y* startin) from the scheme a o4e* 0e sha$$ for0ard se4era$ sets of =uestions* )rou#ed to)ether accordin) to the terms they #oint at and the re$ationshi# et0een them. The same as in the #re4ious e $o)ica$ that this time 0e shou$d course* 8Rece#tion. Theory and >ractices9* 0here the focus 0as on the reader* 0e thou)ht it 0ou$d =uestions such as2 (- t$e !el%tion >et?een % t$o! %n) te@tA is the text the intentiona$ #roduction of an indi4idua$* or
5

try to shed some $i)ht u#on the author* tryin) to find ans0ers to

Int!o) ction

an on$y #artia$$y intentiona$ #roduction* the unintended determinants of 0hich ein) one of or a com ination of e$ements such as2 i. the #syche of the author ii. the #syche of the cu$ture iii. the ideo$o)y of the cu$ture i4. the #articu$ar socio"economic conditions of the #roduction -the #$acement and ro$e of the artist in the cu$ture* 0ho #ays for the #roduction* 0ho consumes it* 0hat are the re0ards for successfu$ #roduction* ho0 are they decided and* 0hat are the materia$ conditions of #roduction 4. the traditions of 0ritin) 0hich #ertain to the text su 3ect"matter in the cu$ture and in the )enre 4i. the traditions of the treatment of the #articu$ar

is the text in fact a$most entire$y the #roduction of the ideo$o)ica$ and cu$tura$ rea$m* in 0hich rea$m the author is mere$y a function* 0hose ro$e* as#irations* ideas and attitudes are created y the society in 0hich he $i4es? In this case* the text is a com#$ex structure of cu$tura$ and aesthetic codes* none of 0hich the author has created* arran)ed around traditiona$ cu$tura$ themes or to oi* 0hereas the author himse$f* 0hi$e an existent ein) -his existence and effort are not denied.* has $itt$e to do 0ith the +meanin) of the text* as he himse$f is sim#$y #art of -or* constructed circu$ation of meanin)s 0ithin the cu$ture. y. the

On the other hand* if 0e ta1e into consideration the ex#ressi4e function of the $iterary discourse* 0e can as1 a cou#$e of =uestions $i1e2 ho0 do 0riters introduce themse$4es to their readers2 as an im#ersona$ instance in the 0or1* or a #ersona$ one manifestin) itse$f throu)h the 0or1?
B

Int!o) ction

to 0hat extent and in 0hat 0ay do 0riters o#en or shut to the reader the access to the indi4idua$ity of the #erson 0ho #roduces the text and remains outside it or ste#s inside? 5hat mas1s do they ta1e on and 0hy?

+- t$e !el%tion o' % t$o! %n) te@t to "ociet&A as the author is o#eratin) 0ithin a certain cu$tura$ mi$ieu* in 0hat 0ays does she re#resent in her text* de$i erate$y and@or unconscious$y* the understandin)s of the 0or$d that the cu$ture ho$ds? in 0hat 0ays does she re#resent in her text* a)ain de$i erate$y and@or unconscious$y* the understandin)s of 0hat art is and does* the aesthetic ideo$o)-ies. of the time? %oreo4er* the text not on$y 0i$$ e an outcome of this situated ima)inati4e #rocess* ut 0i$$ e structured in its #roduction and in its rece#tion y 4arious materia$ socia$ forcesA conse=uent$y* one must as1 =uestions such as these2 0ho is the intended audience? 0ho has a say in the textBs fina$ form* direct$y -e.). editors.* or indirect$y ho0 is it #aid for* and ho0 it is distri uted* 0ho has access to it* under 0hat conditions* and 0hat effects mi)ht these conditions #roduce? 0hat status does that 1ind of 0ritin) ha4e in the cu$ture?

6- t$e !el%tion >et?een % t$o! %n) !e%)e! (t$e co,, nic%tion%l ,ec$%ni","-A 0hat are the status and the ro$e of the authoria$ 4oice? ho0 are the different hy#ostasis of the author@narrator trans#osed into the text? to 0hat extent does the author intend and succeed to esta $ish a dia$o)ic re$ation et0een him and a reader o#en to such a re$ation?

Int!o) ction

0hat is the freedom the reader is $eft to decode and inter#ret the text? These are on$y some of the #ossi $e =uestions raised y the

issue of the re$ationshi# et0een 0hat 0e ca$$ed the terms of a sim#$e e=uation* 0hich #ro4es anythin) ut sim#$e.

C$%0te! (

C$%0te! ( 4 F!o, 2io#!%0$ic%l C!itici", to +/t$ Cent !& Lite!%!& C!itici", %n) T$eo!&

(D( Je est un autre 1 I)entit& %n) Ot$e!ne""

The traditiona$ mode$ of the re$ationshi# et0een fiction and criticism is not entire$y disinterested2 critics need a canon as much as 0riters need tradition. This #ri4i$e)es authors* considerin) them the creati4e source 0ithout 0hich there 0ou$d the history of any countrys $iterature no4e$* of #oetry* etc. :ot $on) a)o* the 0e$$"1no0n #attern that teachers of $iterature used e4en in co$$e)es* not on$y in schoo$s* 0as to 0ith the historica$"socio"cu$tura$ e)in ac1)round of the author* then )o e nothin) $eft for the critic to ana$y;e. This is a mode$ that fore)rounds the author* ecomin) the story of exce#tiona$$y ta$ented 0riters 0ho created the )reat tradition of the

on 0ith his $ife -#u $ic or #ri4ate.* the #resentation of his@her entire 0or1 -usua$$y* from a chrono$o)ica$ #oint of 4ie0.* and* fina$$y* the ana$ysis #ro#er of the #iece of 0ritin) under discussion. This 0as made 0ith a 4ie0 to identifyin) #ossi $e - ut not a$0ays rea$. corres#ondences et0een the authors $ife and 0or1* the #assin) of the context into the text* the #in#ointin) of the authoria$ intentions. This ty#e of a##roach cou$d to offer a $itt$e e considered #$ura$istic* meant e of interest oth for it of any as#ect that mi)ht

the $iterary critic or theorist and the ordinary reader* a ho#e for a 1ind of )enera$ sur4ey. :e4erthe$ess* 0e consider that* 0hi$e #reser4in) the a0areness of the fact that there is a hu)e ran)e of #ers#ecti4es u#on the same 8#iece of rea$ity9* 0e sti$$ ha4e to choose out of this med$ey that #articu$ar #ers#ecti4e that 0e consider 4a$id for our inter#retation* and* in the same time* a$0ays 1ee# in mind that $iterature cannot e either recei4ed or tau)ht in a sin)$e* est 0ay.
E

C$%0te! (

T$e % t$o! i" neve! %lone ?it$ t$e !e%)e!* e%c$ on $i" "i)e o' % te@t t$%t >ot$ "e0%!%te" %n) nite" t$e, A ho0e4er* for the sa1e of a c$earer ima)e of the com#$ex of e$ements mediatin) and mode$$in) their re$ationshi#* the course 0i$$ consider as its startin) #oint t0o statements and Cu)en Dimion* res#ecti4e$y2
#Autorul$ unui te%t face ine&ita'il trimitere la un # ersona($ ) social* chiar dac+ nu ,ntotdeauna socia'il* ideologic* ur.eal+ de olitic* cultural* -i de acestora e de cealalt+. sihologic* estetic -.a.m.d. )* la o ,nsu-iri

e$on)in) to Li4iu >a#adima

e&enimente omene-ti e de o arte* de #imagini$ ale diseminate ,n s a/iul curio.it+/ii sau al memoriei u'lice

0imeni n1ar tre'ui s+ fie at2t de nai&* se .ice ) mai ales ast+.i3 1* s+ ia aceste #imagini$ dre t realit+/i. 4iecare n+d+(duie-te ,ns+ c+ cele e care le acce t+ sunt* dac+ nu #ade&+rate$* cel u/in rele&ante ) urt+toare ale unui anume fel de ade&+r. ->a#adima* 1&&&2 11.

5iscut2nd des re o er+ -i acce t2nd* ca un dat fundamental* rioritatea -i autonomia ei* suntem ne&oi/i s+ ne g2ndim* totu-i* -i ,ntoarce la 'iografismul la la cel care a scris1o* la omul e care noua noua critic+ l1a eliminat din ecua/ia anali.ei. 0u este &or'a de a ne 'eu&ian 6la detesta'ilul rocedeu de a e% lica o era rin &ia/a autorului. Punctul lui 6n.n. al rofesorului 7ugen Simion8 de &edere este c+* de de un anumit grad al &alorii estetice* o era ,-i reclam+ -i ,-i creea.+ autorul care are ne&oie... 9nce em s+ citim o era f+r+ s+ ne interese.e scris1o* dar* de la o trea t+ anumit+ de cunoa-tere* or/ile lecturii... citim o 'ucuriei creatori* rin for/a ei* a interesului -i al rea mult cine a

,nce em s+ c+ut+m e e%ilatul care a-tea t+ la carte de oeme -i* de la un unct al aceast+ a doua na-tere se mit intrat ,n mit.

estetice* &rem ca autorul s+ semene cu o era lui. La marii al autorului* du + ce autorul a creat o o er+ care* -Dimion* 1&&32 2"3* !.

roduce a roa e in&aria'il! o era creea.+ un

The t0o rather extended =uotations once a)ain a dissociation that 0e $on) time* se$f"e4ident2 e$ie4e to

rin) u# to discussion e 3ust and* for a 4ery

(/

C$%0te! (

on the one hand* there is

io)ra#hica$ criticism -the

inter#retation and the e4a$uation of a 0or1 ha4in) as a sin)$e criterion its authors $ife and his socia$@su#erficia$@em#irica$ se$f. 0hich is said to sta)e $on) a)oA on the other hand* the authors #rofound@#oetic y se$f and itse$f y -considered se$f mana)es -in.de#endent* to transmit -un.conditioned -itse$f. and e a fa$se critica$ method* ta1en out of

-un.conditionin) the socia$ se$f.* the extent u# to 0hich this re"create in@throu)h the text* a$$ this has een c$ose$y ana$ysed

#sycho"ana$ysis@#sycho"criticism and %arxist criticism* 0hi$e the conce#t of identity has o sessi4e$y #reoccu#ied feminist and #ostco$onia$ist criticism. >roust used the notions of su#erficia$@socia$ se$f and dee# se$f to critici;e the io)ra#hica$ in=uiry that Daint"(eu4e made use of 0hen he a##roached or e4a$uated 0riters and 0ritin)s. In the same manner* Cu)en Dimion sho0ed minute$y and res#onsi $y that >roust himse$f #ro4es )ui$ty of the 4ery same )ui$t. -1&&32 31.. Dti$$* the contradictions and inconsistencies that 0ere identified in >rousts essays cannot dri4e us a0ay from the main issue that he rin)s forth2 the dissociation that has to e made et0een the #erson and his 0or1* et0een author and oo1. The domination of ex#ressionism -characteristic of romantic aestheticism and its e$ief in the uni=ueness of the act of creation as a conse=uence of the uni=ueness of the creati4e indi4idua$. e)ins to dec$ine in the second ha$f of the 1&th century* 0hen the stron) and c$ose re$ationshi# existin) et0een the author and his 0or1 is )ettin) 0ea1er. The intention of -se$f.communication - ecause 0e sti$$ can ta$1 a out intention since 5imsatt and (eards$eys 8intentiona$ fa$$acy9 is not #art of the $andsca#e yet. is re#$aced y the #roducti4e intention* the text not the author ein) Dimions conc$usion is that 8nu metoda duce $a eEec* ci insistenFa Gn metodH9

((

C$%0te! (

en)a)ed in a dia$o)ic re$ationshi# 0ith the reader* a ne0 reader this time* in4ited to #artici#ate in the texts #roduction. To re$ati4i;e or attenuate the authoria$ instance is fre=uent$y e$ie4ed to #rototy#e e a reference #oint of modernist $iteratureA that a$so of the creati4e )enius* 4a$ued for his sincerity* meant the dec$ine of the myth of the ins#ired #oet* the romantic s#ontaneity and ima)ination. The fee$in) of the author se#arated from his 0or1 can ein) 0ritten* and e sensed e4en 0hi$e the #iece of 0ritin) is ecomes c$ear the 4ery moment the 0or1 is e sine scriind. roduc+torul s+u* o

done2 Scriitorul nu se e% rim+* ci se creea.+ Produsul artistic re re.int+* ,n ra ort cu 1&&&2 1I..

materiali.are a s a/iului dintre identitate -i alteritate ->a#adima* In 18J1* Rim aud formu$ates his famous sentence2 8Car (e est un autre9. If the Romantic a)e has the cu$t of the creator* the #ost"romantic #oets initiate the cu$t of the 0or1* and the t0o conce#ts* that of otherness and that of identity* 0i$$ used oth ex#$icit$y. and y those 0ho theori;e o4er their 0or1s. The coordinates of these #henomenon are extensi4e$y discussed y Dimion -1&&32 !!"&3.* 0ho identifies the causes that rin)s to the fore* in $ead to the emer)ence and e4o$ution of the #remises of the authors ima)e fa$$in) from interest* and 0ho the same time* the instances 0hen those #roc$aimin) it contradict themse$4es* 0hen their su t$e inte$$i)ence ma1es them acce#t the e4idence* that #oetry mer)es into the existence and 4ice4ersa* on$y to )i4e irth to a uni=ue and fascinatin) myth. 5e cou$d not ha4e #assed on to the #ositions of :e0 ,riticism* Dtructura$ism and >ost"structura$ism -0hich seem to tota$$y se#arate the author from his 0or1 0hi$e considerin) that his disa##earance cou$d e ut eneficent. 0ithout considerin) at $east one of the many exam#$es of 0hat is 1no0n as 8commited $iterature9* in 0hich the threefo$d re$ationshi# et0een the author* the text and the extra"textua$ 0or$d is more than o 4ious. e so often y modernist and #ostmodernist authors -im#$icit$y or

(+

C$%0te! (

K. >. Dartre* as 0e$$ as most #ost"0ar 0riters* $i4ed the ni)htmarish ex#erience of a 0ar 0hich destroyed a$$ the anchors of sta i$ity that #eo#$e had needed and re#$aced them 0ith chaos* nothin)ness and existentia$ist anxiety. 5e fe$t it 0ou$d e usefu$ to )i4e some of the main #rinci#$es that existentia$ism dea$t 0ith. Cxistentia$ism* the most famous re#resentati4e of 0hich is Dartre* stresses the ris1* the 4oidness of human rea$ity and admits that the human ein) is thro0n into the 0or$d* the 0or$d in 0hich #ain* frustration* sic1ness* contem#t* ma$aise and death dominates. It 0as durin) the Decond 5or$d 5ar* 0hen Curo#e found itse$f in a crisis and faced 0ith death and destruction* that the existentia$ist mo4ement e)an to f$ourish. Dartre e$ie4ed that #hi$oso#hy must not e di4orced from $iterature and the arts. /is theory that $iterature must ta1e side is ex#ounded in 85hat is Literature9. /e s1i$$fu$$y demonstrated ho0 #hi$oso#hica$ conce#ts and idea$s can e dramati;ed in $iterature. et0een In his 0or1s* he #ortrayed ho0 the indi4idua$ must decide

the eni)mas confrontin) him2 0hat is trueA 0hat is ri)ht and 0hat is 0ron)A 0hat to acce#t and 0hat to re3ectA 0hat to e and 0hat notA and* e4en* 0hether to human e* or not to e. /is o0n ans0er 0as that y diso0nin) there are no o 3ecti4e 4a$ues or authorities to re$y u#on. The ein) tries to a4oid the anxiety of freedom $i erty. (ut the human ein) must acce#t accounta i$ity 0ithout

su terfu)e. In the #$ays 5irty :and and The Condemned of Altona* he once more $oo1ed at the #ro $ems of $i erty* o $i)ation* and the assi)nment of action. (oth #$ays end 0ith the suicide of the main character. In his #$ays* the #rota)onist is ca$$ed to create his o0n 4a$ues. C4en thou)h the human 0or1* he 0rote2
6or a $on) 0hi$e I treated my #en as s0ordA no0 I rea$i;e ho0 he$#$ess 0e are. It does not matter2 I am 0ritin). I sha$$ 0rite oo1sA they are neededA they ha4e use a$$ the same.,u$ture sa4es nothin) and (6

ein) fee$s $ost in an a$ien and

hosti$e 0or$d* he e$ie4ed the human ein) must act. As for his o0n

no ody* nor does it himse$f throu)h it and sho0s him his ima)es.

C$%0te! ( 3ustify. (ut it is a #roduct of manA he #ro3ects reco)ni;es himse$f in itA this critica$ mirror a$one

-A1ram Tan0eer* 7ssays on 7%istentialism* mai$to2taI3Lco$um ia.edu.

6or Dartre* as for most #ost"0ar 0riters* the 0riter and ana$yst com#$ete$y committed to the text he #roduces* the re$ation et0een the #erson #roducin) the text and the text itse$f is a 4ery com#$icated matter* 0hich he sets out to ana$y;e ma1in) use of a #ers#ecti4e inte)ratin) #sycho"ana$ysis and %arxism. The fina$ outcome is not on$y the man 0ith his de#ths and his commitment ut main$y the %A: in a$$ his com#$exity. 5ithin the 0e$$"1no0n re$ation* 0or1@text"author@creator* ne0 conce#ts a##ear2 history* action* freedom* choice* commitment* a$ienation* etc. Dartre )i4es a ne0 meanin) to y@throu)h him* io)ra#hy* #$acin) the man y not on$y in re$ation to his 0ritin)* to the ima)inary uni4erse created ut* $ar)er than that* to an entire uni4erse 0hich he is assumed and 0hich he tries to ta1e u#on himse$f. Accordin) to Dartre* the creator is irre4oca $y and irremedia $y tied to* the man* the act of 0ritin) ein) a form of his existence in the y the rin)in) 8the )reat exi$ed sihologia 0or$d. This 0ay* he tries to re"create a $ost unity and* exam#$e he sets himse$f* attem#ts at man outside* omul a'isal+ -i -Dimion* 1&&32 &I.. This ne0 re"affirmation of the modern creators di)nity* so much a$i1e the se$f"#ride of the romantic )enius* sounds fami$iar. :o0* that the author is ac1 in the $iterary )ame* 0e #ro#ose to et0een him and his a##roach the #ro $emati;ation of the re$ation autonomy of the text.

ac1 into the city9* re"unitin) the creator inside the 0or1 0ith the rofun.imilor 6 e care ,l reclam+ sihanali.a8 -i omul unei condi/ii e%isten/iale asumate

creation from the #ers#ecti4e of those critics 0ho assert the

(D+ T$e A tono,& o' t$e Lite!%!& Te@t

(=

C$%0te! (

As a$ready #ointed out in the #re4ious su cha#ter* has #$ayed a $ar)e ro$e in $iterary studies* -0hich 0i$$ e $ater en$ar)ed u#on.* it has

io)ra#hy

ut e4er since the een thou)ht that y $iterary

American :e0 ,ritics raised the issue of the <intentiona$ fa$$acy io)ra#hy may actua$$y constitute an o stac$e to the study of $iterary texts. The im#ortance )i4en to the author studies tends* rou)h$y s#ea1in)* to im#ortance )i4en to s#ecifica$$y $iterary =ua$ities. Theories that concentrate on these =ua$ities are a#t to atttri ute on$y an incidenta$ ro$e to the author2 for instance* oth :e0 ,ritics and the Russian 6orma$ists fe$t it necessary to do0n)rade the author* in order to )uarantee the inde#endence of $iterary studies* and to sa4e them from ein) mere$y a second"rate form of history or #sycho$o)y. Those theories for 0hich the author is a centra$ #oint of reference 4ary =uite considera $y on the =uestion of ho0 far the authoria$ intentions 0hich are assumed to )o4ern a text are conscious* and ho0 one mi)ht account for any $ac1 of consciousness on the #art of the author2 traditiona$ %arxists and c$assica$ 6reudians 0i$$ o 4ious$y )i4e 4ery different accounts of this issue. An#lo4A,e!ic%n Ne? C!itici", The term +:e0 ,riticism is usua$$y used for the $iterary theory and criticism that e)an 0ith the 0or1 of I. A. Richards and T. D. C$iot y fi)ures such as efore the 0ar in Cn)$and* and 0as continued e in in4erse #ro#ortion to the

Kohn ,ro0e Ransom* 5. M. 5imsatt* ,$eanth (roo1s and A$$en Tate in the Nnited Dtates durin) the forties* fifties and sixties. A$thou)h it de4e$o#ed =uite inde#endent$y of the Russian 6orma$ism@>ra)ue Dchoo$ structura$ist theory* there are some fundamenta$ affinities et0een the t0o mo4ements. (oth re3ected #ositi4istic $iterary scho$arshi# and ca$$ed for a rene0ed attention to literature as literature -insistin) on the conce#t of literariness as the characteristic feature ma1in) the difference and the non"$iterary 1inds of 0ritin).A et0een the $iterary

oth )a4e a centra$ ro$e in

their definitions to ideas of structure and interre$atedness* and

(5

C$%0te! (

treated the $iterary text as an o 3ect essentia$$y inde#endent of its author and its historica$ context. The :e0 ,riticism a$most certain$y constitutes the Cn)$ish" s#ea1in) 0or$ds ma3or contri ution to $iterary theory* and as such it has exercised unti$ recent$y a dominant inf$uence on the teachin) of $iterature in the Nnited Dtates and* to a $esser extent* in (ritain. In the $ast fe0 years* ho0e4er* 0ith the entry of Curo#ean $iterary theory into (ritish and American academic $ife* its #resti)e has definite$y een on the 0ane. Dome )ood reason for continuin) to read the :e0 ,ritics 0or1 is that they formu$ated a num er of assum#tions a out $iterature and $iterary study that sti$$ #$ay a si)nificant #art in the academic 0or$d today. %ore im#ortant$y* their 0or1 is a 4a$id a$ternati4e to 6orma$ism and structura$ism* c$oser* may e* to many critics and readers fee$in)s a out $iterature and $ife. Nn$i1e 6orma$ism or structura$ism* the :e0 ,riticism* a$thou)h em#hasi;in) the s#ecia$ =ua$ities of $iterature* insisted on its connections 0ith the +rea$ 0or$d* and on the contri ution it can ma1e to co#in) 0ith the #ro $ems of e4eryday human existence. A)ain in contrast to 6orma$ism and structura$ism* the :e0 ,riticism may e said to mean a return to em#iricist and humanistic ut from a different stand. In the (ritish 4ariant* the criticism* focus

centre of interest is the ana$ysis of the readin) #rocess* the s#ecia$ ein) on the readers res#onse to $iterature and on the e4a$uation of this res#onse* startin) from the =uestion 95hat )i4es the ex#erience of readin) a certain #oem its 4a$ue? /o0 is this ex#erience etter than another?9 -Richards 1&IJ21.. Once %#%in* t$e % t$o! i" le't o t o' t$e 0ict !eD Across the ocean* the American :e0 ,riticism remains true to the s#irit of Richardss 0or1* a$so hi)h$i)htin) the distincti4e #ro#erties of the $iterary text* ut it is much $ess interested in the readin) ex#erience than in the o 3ecti4e features of the medium* the $iterary text itse$f -0hich Richards considered to e trans#arent* a mere 4ehic$e for con4eyin) the ex#erience of the author to the reader.A American :e0 critics s#end much $ess time on e4a$uation
(B

C$%0te! (

than on descri#tion and ana$ysis*

ein) a )reat dea$ c$oser to

6orma$ism* in this res#ect2 8c$ose readin)9 is the readin)@critica$ method they recommend* 0ith as $itt$e focus on emotion as #ossi $e. T. D. C$iot* a most inf$uentia$ fi)ure* had a stance stron)$y o##osed to that of Richards* refusin) to acce#t either that #oetry consisted in the use of emoti4e $an)ua)e* 9>oetry is not a turnin) $oose of emotion* ut an esca#e from emotionA it is not the ut an esca#e from #ersona$ity9 -in ex#ression of #ersona$ity*

Kefferson and Ro ey* 1&882 87.* or that #oetry 0as sim#$y a 4ehic$e for communicatin) the authors ex#erience to the reader 95hat a #oem means is as much 0hat it means to others as 0hat it means to the author9 -idem.. One further #oint that is often made to ex#$ain the nature of the :e0 ,riticism is that it de4e$o#ed outside the am it of the main uni4ersity )raduate schoo$s* in sma$$ co$$e)es main$y in the Douth. A$$en Tate* 0ho $i1e Kohn ,ro0e Ransom* 0as a #oet as 0e$$ as a critic* 0as a fierce critic of the historica$ scho$arshi# of the )raduate schoo$* 0ith its #ositi4istic assum#tion that the $iterary text +ex#resses its #$ace and time* or the authors #ersona$ity and nothin) more. -1&!&2 J* !'.

(C

C$%0te! (

Intention%l %n) %''ective '%ll%c& The idea of the authors disa conce#t* Kames Koyce earance is not a ne0fan)$ed ein) one amon) many modernists 0ho

stressed that the text stands a#art from and is different from the author* and that $iterature is an intertextua$ #henomenon* that texts mean in re$ation to other texts* not in re$ation to the $i4es of the authors. It is not a $on) ste# from the modernist #osition of the retreat or disa##earance of the author to the idea that the conce#t of the author as a conce#t throu)h 0hich to read and understand $iterature has $ost its 4a$idity and is more $i1e$y to mis$ead than to i$$umine. The same o##osition of criticism and scho$arshi# and the same demand that criticism shou$d concern itse$f 0ith s#ecifica$$y $iterary #ro#erties are the ins#iration of t0o of the est"1no0n y theoretica$ #roducts of the :e0 ,riticism* the essays on 8The intentiona$ fa$$acy9 and 8The affecti4e fa$$acy9 0ritten 3oint$y 5imsatt and (eards$ey and #u $ished in 1&'I and res#ecti4e$y. The t0o authors ar)ue that a #oem -short"hand* as usua$* for a $iterary 0or1 of art. is* and therefore shou$d e treated as an o 3ect in the #u $ic domain* not the #ri4ate creation of an indi4idua$. The authors ex#erience and intentions at the time of 0ritin) are matters of #ure$y historica$ interest* that do not contrary to the intentional fallacy in any 0ay determine the meanin)* effect or function of his creation. As far as the authors ex#erience is concerned* 0hat counts from the 4ie0#oint of criticism is on$y 0hat is em odied in the text* and that is 0ho$$y accessi $e to anyone 0ith a 1no0$ed)e of the $an)ua)e and cu$ture to 0hich the text e$on)s. As for the authors intentions -intention is desi)n or #$an in the authors mind* ha4in) o 4ious affinities for the authors attitude to0ards his 0or1* the 0ay he fe$t* 0hat made him 0rite.* 0hat counts is on$y 0hether or not he has succeeded in 0ritin) #oetry* and that too can e discerned y reference to the text a$one. Thus* most of 0hat #asses for $iterary scho$arshi# is exc$uded from the
(3

1&'&

C$%0te! (

s#here of criticism2 studies of authors $i4es* of their immediate en4ironment* of their ideas a out 0ritin) and of the )enesis of their 0or1s. Cu)en Dimions stand is that scriitorul ,-i structura cu&2ntului. 7u a- traduce a In 5imsatt and (eards$eys 0ords2
One must as1 ho0 a critic ex#ects to )et an ans0er to the =uestion a out intention. /o0 is he to find out 0hat the #oet tried to do? If the #oet succeeded in doin) it* then the #oem itse$f sho0s 0hat he 0as #oem is not and the critic must )o outside the #oem for did not ecome effecti4e in the #oem. -in tryin) to do. And if the #oet did not succeeded* then the ade=uate e4idence* Lod)e* 1&J22 33'"!. e4idence of an intention that

ierde structura ,n rin a trece.

ierde

5e osedarea 6 ierderea8 este* ,n fa t* o nou+ ,ntru are -1&&3212!..

Do* if the authors intentions do not come out c$ear$y from the text* then the critic is a$$o0ed to ste# out of it and ex#$ore the authors #sycho$o)y and@or io)ra#hy* ut then 0e can no $on)er ta$1 a out #oetic studies* ut a out #ersona$@ io)ra#hica$ studies2
There is criticism of #oetry and there is author #sycho$o)y* 0hich 0hen a##$ied to the #resent or future ta1es the form of ins#irationa$ #romotionA ut author #sycho$o)y can e historica$ too* and then 0e ha4e $iterary #oem io)ra#hy* a $e)itimate and

attracti4e study in itse$f* one a##roach O...P to #ersona$ity* the ein) on$y a #ara$$e$ a##roach. O...P there is dan)er of confusin) #ersona$ and #oetic studiesA and there is the fau$t of 0ritin) the #ersona$ as if it 0ere #oetic. -idem2 338"&.

The t0o authors distin)uish -to throu)h our ha itua$

et0een internal; u'lic e4idence of the $an)ua)e* throu)h

e disco4ered throu)h the semantics and syntax of a #oem* 1no0$ed)e

)rammars* dictionaries* and a$$ the $iterature 0hich is the source of dictionaries* in )enera$ throu)h a$$ that ma1es a $an)ua)e and cu$ture. and e%ternal; ri&ate e4idence for the meanin) of a #oem
(E

C$%0te! (

-re4e$ations in 3ourna$s* $etters or re#orted con4ersations a out ho0 or 0hy the #oet 0rote the #oem.. The use of io)ra#hica$ e4idence need not in4o$4e intentiona$ism* ecause 0hi$e it may e e4idence of 0hat the author intended* it may a$so e e4idence of the

meanin) of his 0ords and the dramatic character of his utterance. On t$e ot$e! $%n)* it ,%& not >e %ll o' t$i"D The t0o re#resentati4es of the :e0 ,riticism* 5imsatt and (eards$ey* attem#t to sho0 ho0* for exam#$e* T. D. C$iots $iterary a$$usions -often su##orted intention* yet they ou)ht to y notes. 0or12 8O...P 0hereas notes e 3ud)ed $i1e any other #arts of a seem to 3ustify themse$4es as externa$ indexes to the authors com#osition O...P9 -id.2 3'3.. C$iot himse$f* 0hen off )uard in a note* comments on the difficu$ty of sayin) 0hat a #oem means and adds2
I dont #retend that I =uite understand %y o0n meanin) 0hen I 0ou$d e 4ery fineA (ut the fact is that I ha4e nothin) #$anned Nn$ess it 0ere to e a moment merry. -idem2 3'3.

5hi$e the intentiona$ fa$$acy is a confusion et0een the #oem and its ori)ins* tryin) to deri4e the standard of criticism from the #sycho$o)ica$ causes of the #oem and endin) in re$ati4ism* the affecti4e fa$$acy is a confusion io)ra#hy and et0een the #oem

and its results -0hat it is and 0hat it does.* tryin) to deri4e the standard of criticism from the #sycho$o)ica$ effects of the #oem and endin) in im#ressionism and re$ati4ism. A usefu$ distinction that t0o authors #oint to is that et0een 0hat a 0ord means and 0hat it suggests 0hen ta$1in) a out readers res#onses to texts. The affecti4e fa$$acy* they maintain* is the fa$$acy of ar)uin) that #oetry consists in the emoti4e use of $an)ua)e* and that the #rimary consideration of the critic must therefore e the effect that the #oem has on the reader. 5imsatt and (eards$eys 4ie0 is that a #oem is not 3ust a 4ehic$e for con4eyin) fee$in)s* ut an inde#endent o 3ect 0ith distincti4e features of its o0n. To study the effect of the o 3ect rather than the o 3ect itse$f is to #ut the cart
+/

C$%0te! (

efore the horse* since the cause of the effect is to e found in the o 3ect* and esides that* the effects of $iterary o 3ects 4ary 0ide$y e from one readin) and from one reader to another. It is 0ith meanin)* not 0ith the effect* that $iterary criticism must concernedA effect* ein) oth 4aria $e and #ri4ate* is much $eft outside the fie$d of en=uiry. The authors conc$usion is that the outcome of either fa$$acy is that the #oem itse$f* as an o 3ect of s#ecifica$$y critica$ 3ud)ment* tends to disa##ear. St! ct !%li", %n) .o"t4"t! ct !%li", The formu$a #ro#osed y the 0e$$"1no0n 6rench 0riter and $iterary est #ro4ided definition of critic* Ro$and (arthes* is* #erha#s* the etter

structura$ism2 a certain mode of analysis of cultural artefacts* in so far as this mode originates in the methods of contem orary linguistics -1&J72'12.. Do* any systematic extension of Daussurean conce#ts may* road$y s#ea1in)* e re)arded as structura$ist. The he)emony of the lin# i"tic ,o)el -the #remise of a$$ structura$ist thou)ht. ac=uires a s#ecia$ si)nificance in the s#here of lite!%t !e2 it* $i1e any other form of socia$ or cu$tura$ acti4ity* may system e ana$y;ed to disco4er the their use and nature of its com#onent si)ns and ho0 the )o4ernin) com inations o#eratesA un$i1e other systems* $iterature is not on$y or)ani;ed $i1e $an)ua)eA it is actua$$y made of $an)ua)eA $iterature is thou)ht y many structura$ists to ha4e a s#ecia$ re$ationshi# to $an)ua)e* in that it in4o$4es a uni=ue a0areness of the nature of $an)ua)e itse$f. It is a$0ays a out $an)ua)e* as T;4etan Todoro4 says* the 0riter doin) nothin) more than read $an)ua)e.
+(

C$%0te! (

The 4a$ue #$aced on this forma$ a##roach reminds us of the American :e0 ,riticism* and a$so of Russian 6orma$ism* and the 0or1 of Roman Ka1o son. :e4erthe$ess* structura$ist criticism differs from oth of them on some im#ortant issues* one of 0hich ein) that it does not share the :e0 ,ritics #reoccu#ation 0ith meanin)A its attention is main$y focused on the si)nifiers of $iterature* not on any si)nified* thus settin) aside a$$ =uestions of content. This means that the $an)ua)e of $iterature is no $on)er re)arded as su ordinated to the messa)e su##osed$y carried y the textA the #rimacy of $an)ua)e is stated. Its or)ani;ation #recedes any messa)e or rea$ity* a$thou)h* for #ractica$ #ur#oses in ordinary situations* 0e use $an)ua)e as if it 0ere trans#arent and as if meanin)s and intentions existed #rior to it. Lan)ua)e in a$$ its o#acity ecomes for the structura$ists the 4ery content of $iterature2
O...P $iterature certain 8'. O...P he is someone for 0hom $an)ua)e is a #ro $em. -(arthes* 1&II2 'I. ecomes a 1ind of extention and a##$ication of

#ro#erties of $an)ua)e O...P -Todoro4* 1&JJ2 1&.

The 0riter does nothin) more than read $an)ua)e. -Todoro4* 1&I&2

It is this recourse to the Daussurean mode$ 0hich )i4es rise to the most inno4ati4e of structura$isms extensions of the $in)uistic ana$o)y2 #oetics* the )enera$ science of $iterature. The shift of focus from the indi4idua$ text to $iterature in )enera$ rou)ht 0ith it a ne0 a0areness of the different nature of y them. (road$y s#ea1in)* these different ty#es of discourse a out $iterature*and of different 0ays of treatin) $iterature im#$ied discourses can e di4ided into readin)* criticism and #oetics* and in the structura$ist 4ie0 these di4isions are radica$. In (arthess 4ie0* c!itici", is =uite different from !e%)in#2

++

C$%0te! (

readin) is a #rocess of identification 0ith a 0or1 and a faithfu$ readin) 0i$$ re#etition of the textA e nothin) more than a 0ord for 0ord

criticism* on the other hand* #$aces the critic at a certain distance from the 0or1* )ettin) him acti4e$y in4o$4ed in constructin) a meanin) for a text and not in #assi4e$y deci#herin) the meanin). In the structura$ist 4ie0 there is no sin)$e meanin) in $iterary

0or1s. This insistence on the

lurality of meanings in a text

-(arthes says that if 0ords on$y had one dictionary meanin)* there 0ou$d e no $iterature. is the $o)ica$ conse=uence of the a'sence of any authorial intention in literatureA the authors a sence is far more radica$ than it is in the case of the :e0 ,ritics. The :e0 e ,ritics stress on the or)anic coherence of the $iterary text too1 o4er the tas1 of unifyin) meanin) 0hich cou$d no $on)er ta1e o4er this tas1* so that am i)uity attri uted to the author. In structura$ist theory there is nothin) to ecomes #o$ysemic* consistin) of an unreconci$a $e mu$ti#$icity of meanin)s. A ?o!F i" Gete!n%lH* a critic once said* not >ec% "e it i,0o"e" one ,e%nin# on )i''e!ent ,en* > t >ec% "e it " ##e"t" )i''e!ent ,e%nin#" to one ,%nD In a 4ie0 0hich sees meanin) as the #roduct of the ru$es and con4entions of different si)nifyin) systems* there is no role gi&en to intentions on the art of indi&iduals. This is 0hat is meant y the )ecente!in# o' t$e " >Iect in y #ost" structura$ist theory* most fu$$y de4e$o#ed in the #ost"structura$ist 0or1 of Lacan and Qerrida. One of the #ositions ta1en structura$ist theorists is that t$e % t$o! i" )e%). Its easy for any reader 0ho does not fu$$y understand 0hat the issues and the im#$ications rea$$y are to short"circuit such a theoretica$ #osition y sayin) 8of course there 0as an author 0ho 1ne0 0hat -s.he 0as doin) $oo1 at the drafts* the $etters to his@her friends* the inter4ie0s9* and so forth. O 4ious$y* such a res#onse 0ou$d not he$#fu$ for se4era$ reasons2
+6

ri&ate meanings or

C$%0te! (

the #erson doin) the theori;in) must ha4e a$ready thou)ht throu)h the dismissa$ of this #ro#osition and a #ossi $e ans0er to such a reactionA

e4en 0hen the author says he 1ne0 #erfec$y 0e$$ 0hat he 0as doin)* critics tend to consider that he didnt cou$d not inf$uenced ecause he e a0are of his socia$ or cu$tura$ ideo$o)ica$ y his o0n #ersona$ or cu$tura$ ex#eriences* or

en4ironment* or fu$$y a0are of ho0 #rofound$y he 0as re$ationshi#s* or of 0hat im#$ications the )enre he 0as 0ritin) in had for the e4entua$ meanin) of 0hat he had to sayA furthermore* it is the =uestion of inter#retation and meanin)2 ho0 do 0e 1no0 the author meant to mean 0hat 0e thin1 0e 1no0 he meant -the a$ready mentioned intentiona$ fa$$acy.? /o0 can 0e )uarantee -and shou$d 0e do that for that matter. that 0e are readin) the text exact$y as the author 0ou$d ha4e had us read it? ,onsider :amlet2 if it 0ere c$ear 0hat Dha1es#eare meant y :amlet* 0e 0ou$dnt ha4e the hundreds of artic$es and oo1s disa)reein) 0ith each other. 5e find ourse$4es tra##ed in a 1ind of hermeneutic circle2 the author 0e construct is out of our readin) of him* then 0e say he 1ne0 0hat he 0as doin) ecause she did exact$y 0hat 0e #redicted. The author is +in the text on$y insofar as 0e try to read him +out of it. One of the stri1es a)ainst auto io)ra#hies and io)ra#hies that they oth as )uides to an authors thou)ht and meanin)s is themse$4es are 0ritin)s* conformin) to certain

con4entions. As to the authors readin)s of his o0n 0or1s* La0rence once said trust the tale, not the teller. ,omin) cannot re#$ace ac1 to the synta)m* 8death of the author9* 0e ut mention that in 1&I8 (arthes #u $ishes his famous and the author 0ith the scri#tor -it characteri;es his

most inf$uentia$ essay* 8La mort de $auteur9* in 0hich he tries to structura$ist #eriod* mention necessary since he 0i$$ a$so ha4e a #ost"structura$ist one* in 0hich* as $ater indicated in the #resent
+=

C$%0te! (

study* he 0i$$ find it fit to nuance his #osition to0ards the authoria$ instance.2
The Author* 0hen e$ie4ed in* is a$0ays concei4ed of as the #ast of his o0n oo12 oo1 and author stand automatica$$y on a sin)$e $ine di4ided into a efore and an after. The Author is thou)ht to nourish the oo1* 0hich is to say that he exists efore it* thin1s* suffers* $i4es for it* is in the same re$ation of antecedence to his 0or1 as a father to his chi$d. In com#$ete contrast* the modern scri#tor is orn simu$taneous$y 0ith the text* is in no 0ay e=ui##ed 0ith a ein) #recedin) or exceedin) the 0ritin)* is not the su 3ect 0ith the oo1 as #redicateA there is no other time than that of the enunciation and e4ery text is eterna$$y 0ritten here and no0... 5e 1no0 no0 that a text is not a $ine of 0ords re$easin) a sin)$e +theo$o)ica$ meanin) -the +messa)e of the Author"God. ori)ina$* $end and c$ash. -(arthes in Lod)e* 1&&721!. ut a mu$tidimentiona$ s#ace in 0hich a 4ariety of 0ritin)s* none of them

In other 0ords* the scri#tor* un$i1e the author* 0i$$in)$y acce#ts to $ose 0hat (arthes ca$$s 8#ro#ria structurH Ei #e cea a $umii Gn structura cu4Rntu$ui9 -Gn Dimion 1&&32 12'.. The much de ated on re$ationshi# et0een the author;-a$ready. scri tor; et0een a $ife and a roducer and his wor<;-a$ready. writing is seen as a re$ationshi# of re$ationshi#s* not as a mere causa$ one 0ritin)2
=i dac+ e%ist+ un ra ort ,ntre autor -i o era lui 6cine l1ar nega> ? era nu ic+ din cer! numai critica utea

o.iti&ist+ crede ,nc+ ,n

Mu.+8* @...A e &or'a de un ra ort ,ntre tot autorul -i toat+ o era* un ra ort de ra orturi* o cores onden/+ omologic+* -i nu analogic+ . -(arthes in Dimion* 1&&32 12I"J.

Li1e the $ater 0or1 of (arthes* the 0ritin) of Ka=ues Qerrida is oth a continuation and a criti=ue of structura$ism from inside the structura$ist system. 5e cou$dnt ha4e ended this cha#ter 0ithout mentionin) his name attached to 0or1s $i1e 8Dtructure* Di)n* and >$ay in the Qiscourse of the /uman Dciences9 -1&I8.* 8Of Grammato$o)y9 -1&J8.* 8Qissemination9 -1&82.* 0hich inau)urated
+5

C$%0te! (

one

of

the

most

inf$uentia$

#ost"structura$ist

theories*

deconstructi&ism. Amon) the numerous conce#ts that Qerrida ma1es use of to de4e$o# his ar)ument* it is 0orth #ointin) to lo#ocent!i", and )i''J!%nce* 0hi$e his famous assertion Il ny a pas de hors-texte -There is nothing outside the te%t;nothing e%ce t te%t . is considered to e extreme$y inf$uentia$ for $iterary theory* in

)enera$* for this c$aim contains echoes of the #rinci#$es su##orted y a num er of the ma3or theories of $iterature that ha4e emer)ed in the 27th century. If $an)ua)e in )enera$ is not )o4erned y anythin) outside it* no more are indi4idua$ texts. This seems to ha4e o 4ious #ara$$e$s 0ith the Russian 6orma$ist attem#t to found an a##roach to $iterature that 0ou$d exc$ude a$$ factors externa$ to the texts history* #sycho$o)y* and so on. Dimi$ar$y* it a##ears to e4o1e the #rinci#$es ehind the :e0 ,ritics ?o!)" on t$e 0%#e axiom. There are certain as#ects of Qerridas o0n strate)ies of 0ritin) 0hich are $i1e$y to e fami$iar to anyone 0ith an ex#erience of $iterature. One that 0e too1 interest in in the #resent study is his attitude to0ards the texts he is 0ritin) a out2 Qerrida thin1s that he is ecause 0ritin) can ne4er e )o4erned y the intention and a4o0ed aims of its authors* ound* as 0e a$$ are* to say more* less or something Buite other than what he would mean;would li<e to say @&oudrait direA -in Kefferson and Ro ey* 1&88211I.. Literary criticism has often ta1en #recise$y this assum#tion as its startin) #oint* and has #resumed that a $iterary text is not necessari$y sayin) 0hat it intends to say or e4en 0hat it a##ears to say hence the need for critica$ inter#retation. In a sense* the 4ery institution of $iterary criticism is concrete testimony of this assum#tion. Dince Qerrida has no s#ecia$ cate)ory for $iterature* and since* accordin) to him* neither the $an)ua)e of the texts 0e read* nor the $an)ua)e of the discourse in 0hich 0e discuss them* is exem#t from diffCrance* his so$ution for the nature of the discourse a out $iterature* is grammatology and deconstruction. The former is
+B

C$%0te! (

the science of 0ritin) in so far as 0ritin) is re)arded as a )enera$i;ed #henomenon* as archi1CcritureA the $atter is the form )rammato$o)y ta1es 0hen it turns its attention to s#ecific texts. A deconstructi4e readin) tries to rin) out the $o)ic of the texts $an)ua)e as o##osed to the $o)ic of its authors c$aims.

T%"F" 'o! t$e "t )entA

1. 5rite a 3777 0ords essay startin) from the t0o am#$e =uotations on #a)es 21"2 -C. Dimion and L. >a#adima.* and se$ectin) e$ements of the different critica$ a##roaches to the conce#ts of author and authorshi#. 2. C$a orate -in J"877 0ords. on +affecti4e and +intentiona$ fa$$acy.

+C

C$%0te! +

C$%0te! + 1 A t$o! %n) A t$o!"$i0

+D( T$e Ret !n o' t$e KG!e%t A>"enteeH

5e thou)ht it 0ou$d e usefu$ to counter" a$ance some of the radica$ assertions 0e ha4e ana$y;ed so far* 0ith more author" friend$y stances. In this res#ect* 0e ha4e found e=ua$$y famous names. Thus* if (arthes sou)ht to re#$ace +author 0ith the term +scri#tor and announced 8the death of the author9 in 1&I8* not sentencin) to death the #erson #rofessor* Qa4id Lod)e* re#$ies2
:o0 my first reaction as a no4e$ist is to contest these remar1s to say to (arthes that I do fee$ a 1ind of #arenta$ res#onsa i$ity for the that the com#osition is* in an im#ortant sense* my suffer* $i4e for a oo1 0hi$e it is in no4e$s I 0rite*

ut his authority and his 8c$in)in)9

to his 0ritin) after it 0as done* the (ritish 0riter* critic and

#ast* that I do thin1*

#ro)ress... -Lod)e* 1&&721!.

%oreo4er* he considers that the 0ay in 0hich fiction is #roduced* circu$ated and recei4ed in the cu$ture is tota$$y at odds 0ith the assertions of (arthes2
The rece#tion of ne0 0ritin) has in fact #ro a $y ne4er een more o sessi4e$y author"centred than it is today* not on$y in re4ie0in)* ut in su##$ementary forms of ex#osure throu)h the media inter4ie0s and #rofi$es in the #ress and on TS* #ri;es* #u $ic readin)s and oo1 $aunches and so on. A$$ this attention is focused on the author as a uni=ue creati4e se$f* the mysterious* )$amorous ori)in of the text... -idem21!"I.

Tet* he admits that such extreme formu$ations* as (arthes* may seem attracti4e
+3

ecause they discoura)e a reducti4e$y

C$%0te! +

em#iricist readin) of ones 0or1* a readin) that tends to treat the text as a si)n of somethin) more concrete* more authentic* more rea$* 0hich the 0riter cou$d* if he or she cared to* hand o4er in its ra0 and na1ed truth. /e a$so admits that criticism de$4in) into the io)ra#hica$ ori)ins of ones fiction* see1in) to esta $ish a #erfect fit et0een the no4e$ists #ersona$ identity and his oeu&re may ecome o##ressi4e to the author. And he cites Graham Greene* 0ho* in a #assa)e in Days of 7sca e* says that there comes a time 0hen the esta $ished 0riter
is more afraid to read his fa4oura $e critics than his unfa4oura $e* for 0ith terri $e #atience they unro$$ efore his eyes the oo1s unchan)in) #attern in the car#et. If he has de#ended a )reat dea$ on his unconscious* and his a i$ity to for)et e4en his o0n 0hen they are once on the #u $ic she$4es* his critics remind him " this theme ori)inated ten years a)o* that simi$e 0hich came so unthin1in)$y to his #en a fe0 0ee1s years a)o... -idem21I. ac1 0as used near$y t0enty

Another 4oice risin) a)ainst +the anishin) of the author from the fortress+* a 4oice su##ortin) the idea that $iterary criticism is not disinterested 0hen ad4ocatin) the authors do0n)radin)* is that of Qona$d C. >ease. /e states that for $iterary exe)esis* the com#$ete dis#ara)ement of the conce#t of author meant the #romise of a s#ectacu$ar su stitution y means of 0hich the critic a##eared as an e#i#hany of the authorshi#2
5hereas (arthes dec$ares that the author is dead* the text he there y #roduces is not 0ithout an author. In (arthes criticism the auhtor returns " ut in the dis#$aced form of (arthes metatextua$ account of the 0ritin) acti4ity. In this 4ie0* then* the critic is the rea$ eneficiary of the se#aration of an author from a text. ->ease in Lentricchia* 1&&!2112.

(eyond any dis#ute for su#remacy

et0een the author* on

the one hand* and the critic* on the other* the former #ersists in not
+E

C$%0te! +

$ettin) himse$f dri4en a0ay or e4en anihi$ated. %any times* to the critics des#air* cu$ture 1ee#s #ayin) res#ect and homa)e to the author* or e4en* in Li4iu >a#adimas 0ords* it continues s+1-i mitologi.e.e scriitorii* ... asimil2ndu1i unor re ere sim'olice ein) a cardinale... ->a#adima* 1&&&21&. ,onsiderin) Qerridas assertion a out e4erythin) text* #rofessor Sa$entine ,unnin)ham* re#uted name on the (ritish scene of $iterary history and criticism* admits that it is a most im#ortant stand in the #ost"0ar criticism* ut he nuances it2
Di)ur* totu$ este textua$i;at* cum totu$ este construit* este #rodusu$ construcFiei umane* $umea Gn care ne naEtem este un construct* o $ucrare a ima)inaFiei. %odu$ Gn care $uHm cunoEtinFH de $ume este #$Hsmuit #rin #rocese de construire a textu$ui* de contextua$i;are. O...P Qar ideea cH $umea GnsHEi este doar un text mi se #are un #aradox deose it de interesant* ca sH nu s#un o enormitate. Lumea nu este doar text. OUP nu #utem textua$i;a #e seama a nimic. OUP Dcriem natura* e4ident* o ficFiona$i;Hm* o textua$i;Hm. Vi ca atare* textu$ naturii e a$tu$ de $a o e#ocH $a a$ta. OUP Qar materia$u$ $umii este doar atRt2 materia$ care de4ine text. -,unnin)ham in An)he$escu Irimia* 1&&&2111"2.

,unnin)hams #osition theories

ecomes ex#$icit from the stand he

ta1es to0ards conce#ts 0hich some radica$ #ost"structura$ist anter* 0hen they do not direct$y re3ect2 God* author* truth* and so on2
@oAdat+ discreditat+ ideea c+ ade&+r* oric2t am intra ,n ne ot e%ista enun/uri cu &aloare de

ro'leme de &aliditate a ade&+rului*

ceea ce im lic+ discu/ia des re realitate* imagina/ie* fic/iune etc.* oticnim e&ident. @oAdat+ discreditat+ ideea c+ este datoria oate mai 'ine ade&+rul* a(ungem scriitorului s+ redea c2t

ire ara'il ,ntr1un im as. 5e aceea sunt de +rere c+ este ericulos s+ se ersifle.e ideea c+ ade&+rul este un sco * fie ,n literatur+* ori ,n critic+. -idem211&"27.

6/

C$%0te! +

Another

(ritish

academic

- ecause this

is

main$y

the

en4ironment that #ro4ides the oi$ that ca$ms the #ermanent$y trou $ed American and* es#ecia$$y* 6rench 0aters. is %a$co$m (rad ury. >rofessor Lidia Sianu comments* in the cha#ter +At the Gates of ,ommonsense in Eritish 5es eradoes at the Turn of the Millenium* on 0hat she considers to e an exam#$e of inte$$i)i $e criticism that de"constructs in an ironic de"constructi4ist manner* and de"f$ates some of the #ost"modernist and #ost"structura$ist +airs. (rad urys oo1* My Strange Fuest for Mensonge* StructuralismGs :idden :er -1&8J.* e)ins 0ith %iche$ 6oucau$ts

=uestion in the essay 85hat Is an Author?92 Dhat difference does it ma<e who is s ea<ing> /ere is a $ist of short =uotations that seem to ha4e no need for su##$ementary comments2
OtPhan1s to Qeconstruction* truth is 4ery much an o#en =uestion. OtPhe a)e of the f$oatin) si)nifier* 0hen 0ord no $on)er attaches #ro#er$y to thin). OfPar from thou)ht ein) 0ritten in $an)ua)e* $an)ua)e 0as 0ritin) $o0in) e4ery0here* and the day of the thou)ht* and not doin) it 0e$$. The 0ind of chan)e 0as modern reader 0ho did not read a oo1 at a$$ 0as orn. 5hat e4eryone 0as 0aitin) for* e4eryone needed* 0as the comin) of the centre$ess centre* the #resent$ess #resent* the 0riter$ess 0ritin)* the si)n$ess si)n that 0ou$d dra0 e4erythin) to)ether and #ut it into its true $ac1 of re$ation. It -%enson)es oo1. a$so had considera $e a##ea$ for (ritish e. -(rad ury in critics* 0ho had a$0ays ta1en the 4ie0 that a$$ authors 0ere dead any0ay* or if they 0ere not then they shou$d Sianu* 1&&&2123"J.

%enson)e* in fact* has hard$y e4er

een seen or heard oo1

s#ea1in). /e is the core of mystery. /e did not 0rite* yet his

0as #u $ished and 4anished. /e is the author 0ho denies himse$f2 he is the a sent a sence* he$#in) the deconstructi4ists dream come true.

6(

C$%0te! +

Literary criticism meticu$ous$y sets a out deconstructin) 8the author as a #erson.9 The death of the author* #rere=uisite for the irth of the reader* is ex#$ained uried. /e y the Qeconstructionist author* oo1 is dead and 0ho )ets a$$ the attention* 0hi$e the ori)ina$ this an 8i$$o)ica$ity9*

ecomes the author -remem er >ease?.. (rad ury ca$$s ut he actua$$y means fraud. /e ex#$ains that

%enson)es non1 resence is e%actly what constitutes his authority* or rather* recisely* his lac< of it -idem212I.. The 8su#reme ne)ation9 has (rad ury s#$ittin) 0ith $au)hter* yet hidin) this heresy under the cu$t of %enson)e -$ie.. The )reat man dec$ares 9This is not the oo1 I did not 0rite* -.... and I refuse to ac1no0$ed)e it as not mine9 -idem212J.. Ta1in) a$$ this 0ith a #inch of -6rench@Cn)$ish. sa$t* 0e sha$$ see in the $ast #art of the #resent study that* once #ostmodernism sett$ed in $iterature* one can easi$y notice a sudden chan)e -for the etter* 0e 0ou$d daresay. in the authoria$ instance and in the interest in the man eyond his 0or1* and $iterary )enres* #re4ious$y considered as mar)ina$ -memories* auto io)ra#hies* confessions* diaries.* 0i$$ e reconsidered.

+D+ T$e A t$o!4A t$o!"$i0 Rel%tion"$i0 in <et%'iction

2.2.1 The Identity Crisis in Postmodernity 5e #ro#ose a short #resentation of the ostmodern condition -the ma3or focus for de ates on cu$tura$ #ostmodernism.* as Kean" 6ranWois Lyotard ca$$ed it* 0hen the +metanarrati4es or +)rands rXcits -that of human $i eration associated 0ith the Cn$i)htenment and the re4o$utionary tradition* or that of the #ros#ecti4e unity of a$$ 1no0$ed)e associated 0ith /e)e$ianism. $ose their credi i$ity - ecause they #roduced a ran)e of socia$ and #o$itica$ disasters* from modern 0arfare* Ausch0it; and the Gu$a) to nuc$ear threat and se4ere eco$o)ica$ crisis. and ma1e room for the more modest +e4ents or +#etits rXcits* a ne0 source of $e)itimation.
6+

C$%0te! +

If the modern Koyce a$$o0s the un#resenta $e to

ecome

#erce#ti $e in his 0ritin) itse$f* in the si)nifier* the #ostmodern* in Lyotards 4ie0 ex#ressed in the essay 8Ans0erin) the Yuestion2 5hat is >ostmodernism?9* is that 0hich #uts for0ard the un#resenta $e in #resentation itse$fA that 0hich denies itse$f the so$ace of )ood forms* the consensus of a taste 0hich 0ou$d ma1e it #ossi $e to share co$$ecti4e$y the nosta$)ia for the unattaina $eA that 0hich searches for ne0 #resentations* not in order to en3oy them ut in order to im#art a stron)er sense of the un#resenta $e2
A #ostmodern artist or 0riter is in the #osition of a #hi$oso#her2 the text he 0rites* the 0or1 he #roduces are not in #rinci#$e )o4erned y #re"esta $ished ru$es* and they cannot e 3ud)ed accordin) to a determinin) 3ud)ment* y a##$yin) fami$iar cate)ories to the text or to the 0or1. Those ru$es and cate)ories are 0hat the 0or1 of art itse$f is $oo1in) for. The artist and the 0riter* then* are 0or1in) 0ithout ru$es in order to formu$ate the ru$es of 0hat 0i$$ ha4e een done. /ence the fact that 0or1 and text ha4e the characters of an e4ent. -Lyotard in (roo1er* 1&&221'&.

Kean (audri$$ard* another inf$uentia$ theorist of #ostmodernity* te$$s us that 0e $i4e in the era of media re#roduction. /is ear$y 0or1 =uestioned the tenets of oth %arxism and structura$ism. /a4in) ar)ued for the dominance in modern ca#ita$ist societies of consum#tion o4er #roduction and of the si)nifier o4er the si)nified* (audri$$ard has turned his attention in recent years to a criti=ue of techno$o)y in the era of media re#roduction. /is increasin)$y a#oca$y#tic and hy#er o$ic statements inc$ude the sensationa$ist messa)es of +the $oss of the rea$ and of the a##earance of the cu$ture of +hy#er"rea$ity* in 0hich mode$s determine yet undermine the rea$. In a 0or$d in 0hich there is ta$1 a out the transition from si)ns that dissimu$ate somethin) to si)ns that dissimu$ate -the. nothin)* 0e can s#ea1 a out the transition from a theo$o)y of truth and its sometimes hidden character* to the era of the ima)e that has nothin) to do 0ith rea$ity* simu$acrum.
66

ein) its o0n

C$%0te! +

5hen the rea$ is no $on)er 0hat 0e 0ere sure it 0as* there a##ears* esides nosta$)ia* a 1ind of #anic in its #roduction 0hich #ara$$e$s the #anic of the materia$ #roduction. It is the reaction of the ein) 0ho no $on)er 1no0s 0ho it is* in 0hich of the 0or$ds it is* and* a o4e a$$* if it isA in an ocean of uncertainties* the ein) thin1s it can anchor on$y in 0hat it can fee$ and #ossess. ,onse=uent$y the un#recedented de4e$o#ment of techno$o)y in the nuc$ear era #ostmodernism2 rin)s a out the con" ,e!i"t "ociet& and the the cu$t of catastro#hy* the taste for the ,%""4c lt !e* 0hich* in their turn 0i$$ $ead to the )reat themes of a#oca$y#tic and the 4oid* the re#$acement of the e4ent 0ith the ha##enin)* the contin)ent* the exhaustion* anarchy and a sence. 5ith its nosta$)ic and cre#uscu$ar mood* #ostmodernity seems to e the ex#ression of a mu$ti#$e crisis* a #henomenon cree#in) into art* economy* #hi$oso#hy and socia$ $ife in the same time. The identity crisis tends to e considered the most sym#tomatic of a$$ the crises that #ostmodernity carries on or creates itse$f. The search for identity 0as an im#erati4e in modernism* reachin) a c$imax in existentia$ist $iterature* for the )ods a sence is fe$t as an %>"ence -%. /eide))er.. In #ostmodernism* man has a$ready $ost the essence and meanin) of his existence and this is no $on)er a tra)edy for him. The a sence of the )od does not affect him. /e turns his face to0ards the #ast* ut in a different 0ay than his #redecessors used to do it. This turnin) is an onto$o)ica$ need for s#iritua$ re)eneration. The modernist e#istemo$o)ica$ dou t -ho0 and if 0e can 1no0 the rea$ 0or$d. is re#$aced 0ith the onto$o)ica$ one -0hat is the nature of rea$ity* 0hat are the #ossi $e 0or$ds.. In the arts* this tendency has #eriodica$$y a##eared as a conse=uence of the exhaustion of the creati4e ener)ies* caused y mans fina$ im#o4erishment. The Romantics nosta$)ica$$y reco4ered the #ast* the ex#ressionists re4a$ued it 0ith excitement* the #ostmodernists #arodica$$y a$ter its su stance. The identity crisis is as o$d as man is. 6rom HhilgamesGs 7 ic to The 0ame of the "ose* a$$ the $iterary heroes ha4e existed throu)h the fer4our they #ro4e 0hen $on)in)
6=

C$%0te! +

after their se$4es or see1in) the essence and meanin) of $ife. %an has a$0ays tried to find his identity* the moment the se$f ut the crisis reached a c$imax e)an to disso$4e and disa##ear* 0hen the

artist disco4ered himse$f as otherness -other than Rim auds Car Je est un autre.* 0hen instead of harmony 0e find chaos and the 0or$d has a$ready re4ea$ed its $ac1 of meanin)* or at $east of a meanin) accessi $e to man. If* other* y this $oss of traditiona$ 4a$ues* the artist the #ostmodern author sim#$y 0itnesses ecomes an his o0n

disinte)ration. The de"#ersona$i;ation syndrome is s#otted in the modernist character. In #ostmodernism* it is the author himse$f 0ho is aimed at* he no $on)er ein) a creator of 0or$ds* ut himse$f a ein) fiction* a #roduct of the text* de"constructed y $an)ua)e. Once the 0or1 done* the author may disa##ear* exc$uded from the dia$o)ue et0een the text and the reader* the

ne0 s#oi$ed chi$d of criticism2 The author should die* says Cco* once he is done with his writing* not to trou'le the te%tGs direction . This ne0 authority of the text is so ,ritica$ termino$o)y i) that it )ets ecomes narcissistic* so 0ith terms as #reoccu#ied 0ith itse$f that it ecomes a ,et%te@t. richer inte!te@t %lit&* $&0e!te@t %lit&* unti$ it ,et%te@t %lit&* %!c$ite@t %lit&* 0%!%te@t %lit&* te@t %li",* te@t %l

en#inee!in#* a.s.o. The identity discourse concentrates u#on itse$f ecomes a ,et%)i"co !"e* #ro4o1in) a crisis that $eads to ein) an increased $oss of meanin)A throu)h exa))erated ref$exion on $an)ua)e* the si)ns tend to $ose their referentia$ 4a$ue* authors ta$ent@)ift. y some stran)e creatures that Iha reduced to mere $exemes* s1i$$fu$$y hand$ed -it is no $on)er the /assan ca$$s +$in)uistic anima$s. The -exa))erated. autonomy of $an)ua)e* conse=uence of the shade the si)nified 0as cast into* 0i$$ ca$$ for the a#oca$y#tic ima)e for0arded 0ere orn 0ithin himse$f.9 y %iche$ 6oucau$t* that of 8the man 0ho is a out to disa##ear* e4en to die from the si)ns that

65

C$%0te! +

Qa4id Lod)e =uotes in this res#ect >au$ de %ans essay* 8,riticism and ,risis9* in Elindness and Insight -1&J1.* on$y to contest him2
That si)n and meanin) can ne4er coincide is 0hat is #recise$y ta1en for un$i1e )ranted in the 1ind of $an)ua)e 0e ca$$ $iterary. Literature* e4eryday $an)ua)e* e)ins on the far side of this ref$ectin) mirror effect 4ery y means its a from on$y form of $an)ua)e free from the fa$$acy of existence*

1no0$ed)eA it is the

unmediated ex#ressionU The se$f"

of 0hich a 0or1 of fiction asserts* y its

se#aration from em#irica$ rea$ity* its di4er)ence* as a si)n*

meanin) that de#ends for its existence on the constituti4e acti4ity of this si)n* characteri;es the 0or1 of $iterature in its essence. It is a$0ays a)ainst the ex#$icit assertion of the 0riter that the readers de)rade the fiction y confusin) it 0ith a rea$ity from 0hich it has fore4er ta1en $ea4e. -de %an in Lod)e* 1&&721!.

Lod)e fee$s that the more 0e come to the actua$ ex#erience of 0ritin)* the more 0e encounter #aradox and contradiction* and $ists a series of =uestions that structura$ists and #ost"structura$ists 0i$$ )i4e one set of ans0ers to* 0hi$e humanist or ex#ressi4e rea$ist critics another set2

L e"tion" 'o! t$e "t )entA

are oo1s made out of the 0riters o ser4ation and

ex#erience* or out of other oo1s? does the 0riter 0rite his no4e$ or does the no4e$ +0rite the 0riter? is the im#$ied author of a no4e$ " the creati4e mind to 0hom 0e attri ute its existence* and 0hom 0e #raise or $ame for its success and fai$ure " the same as the actua$ historica$ indi4idua$ 0ho sat at his des1 and 0rote it* and 0ho has his o0n $ife efore and after that acti4ity* or an identity 0ho exists on$y at the moment of com#osition?
6B

C$%0te! +

can a no4e$

e +true to $ife or does it mere$y create a +rea$ity

effect? Is rea$ity itse$f such an effect? is the a sence of the 0riter from his o0n text that 0hich s#urs him to refine and #o$ish his $an)ua)e so that his meanin) 0i$$ e effecti4e$y communicated 0ithout the su##$ementary aids of 4oice* )esture* #hysica$ #resence* etc.* 0hich assist communication in ordinary s#eech? Or is the association of meanin) 0ith #resence a fa$$acy 0hich 0ritin)* throu)h its inherent am i)uity and o#enness to a 4ariety of inter#retations* he$#s to ex#ose? Lod)e sus#ects that most 0riters* himse$f inc$uded* 0ou$d e

inc$ined to say +Tes and no* or +(oth a$ternati4es are true. /e ta1es Kames Koyces 0or1 as an exam#$e of ve!>%l ,i,e"i"* of no4e$s that arise from their authors ex#erienceA a$most e4ery incident and character in his no4e$s and stories can to some fact of his o0n $ife and ex#erience* and he the city of Qu $in 0ere to from his e destroyed it cou$d e traced ac1 oasted that if

e reconstructed

oo1s* and yet he made $ar)e im#$icit and ex#$icit c$aims

for the time$ess and uni4ersa$ si)nificance of those narrati4es. :o4e$ists are and a$0ays ha4e een s#$it et0een* on the one hand* the desire to c$aim an ima)inati4e and re#resentati4e truth for their stories* and on the other the 0ish to )uarantee and defend that truth"c$aim y reference to em#irica$ facts2 a contradiction y e$a orate mystifications and metafictiona$ they see1 to dis)uise

#$oys such as framin) narrati4es* #arody and other 1inds of intertextua$ity and se$f ref$exi4ity or 0hat the Russian forma$ists ca$$ed + arin) of the de4ice. A$thou)h not a sent from the c$assic rea$ist no4e$* these #$oys are #articu$ar$y mar1ed in contem#orary fiction* as if in res#onse to or defence a)ainst the e#istemo$o)ica$ s1e#ticism of contem#orary critica$ theory.

2.2.2 Playing with

tru!tures o" Authority in #eta"i!tion

6C

C$%0te! +

In this cha#ter* 0e sha$$ see that the author* not on$y comes ac1 after ha4in) een exi$ed* ut he e4en #$ays 0ith his a'sent resence; resent a'sence under the readers eyes. %etafiction is fiction a out fiction2 no4e$s and stories that ca$$ attention to their fictiona$ status and their o0n com#ositiona$ #rocedures. The )randaddy of a$$ metafictiona$ no4e$s 0as Tristram Shandy* 0hose narrators dia$o)ues 0ith his ima)inary readers are on$y one of the many 0ays in 0hich Dterne fore)rounds the )a# et0een art and $ife that con4entiona$ rea$ism see1s to concea$. %etafiction* then* is not a modern in4entionA ut it is a mode that many contem#orary 0riters find #articu$ar$y a##ea$in)* 0ei)hed do0n* as they are* y their a0areness of their $iterary antecedents* o##ressed een said y the fear that 0hate4er they mi)ht ha4e to say has efore* and condemned to se$f"consciousness y the

c$imate of modern cu$ture. The $iterary critic* /aro$d ($oom* ca$$s this fear* an%iety of influence* and thin1s that this is 0hat ur)es authors to ex#eriment. In the 0or1 of Cn)$ish no4e$ists* metafictiona$ discourse most common$y occur in the form of asides in no4e$s #rimari$y focused on the traditiona$ no4e$istic tas1 of descri in) character and action. These #assa)es ac1no0$ed)e the artificia$ity of the con4entions of rea$ism e4en as they em#$oy themA they disarm criticism antici#atin) itA they f$atter the reader inte$$ectua$ e=ua$* so#histicated enou)h not to a s$ice of $ife. Qa4id Lod)e* in The Art of 4iction* sho0s that there are at $east t0o cate)ories to 6o0$es a$so e distin)uished here2 the a o4e one* and that of other modern 0riters* most$y non"(ritish -a$thou)h Kohn e$on)s in this com#any. the Ar)entinian (or)es* the y means of 0hich the 0riter can Ita$ian ,a$4ino and the American (arth* 0ith 0hom metafictiona$ discourse is not so much an a$i i occasiona$$y esca#e the constraints of traditiona$ rea$ismA rather* it is a centra$ #reoccu#ation and source of ins#iration. As the (ritish critic mentions* there a$so are dissentin) 4oices that consider such
63

y treatin) him or her as an e thro0n y the

admission that a 0or1 of fiction is a 4er a$ construction rather than

C$%0te! +

0ritin) as sym#tomatic of a decadent* narcissistic $iterary cu$ture* stories a'out writers writing stories* another regressus ad infinitum. (ut then* this is a$so 0hat (arth himse$f com#$ained a out in 8Life" Dtory9* one of the #ieces in his co$$ection* Lost in the 4unhouse. Lod)e characteri;es this ha it that 0riters of metafiction seem to ha4e* that of incor#oratin) #otentia$ criticism into their texts and thus 8fictiona$i;in)9 it* as ein) snea<y. Giani Sattimo considers the #ostmodern author to e a 80ea19 one* someone 0ho cannot he$# intrudin)* )ettin) on sta)e in an unex#ected manner* and* many times* in stran)e hy#ostases. This as1s for a 0e$$"informed* attenti4e #ostmodern reader* one 0ho is #re#ared to e attac1ed and@or in4ited to #$ay 0ith oth of the characters and the 6o0$ess The 4rench ex#eriments in narrati4e mode@techni=ue* 0ith mu$ti#$e fictiona$ 0or$ds* and 0ith chan)in) identities (arths 8Lost in authors. /ere fo$$o0s three exam#$es of such instances2 Kohn the 6unhouse9* Kohn LieutenantGs Doman* Murt Sonne)uts Slaughterhouse 4i&e. Jo$n 2%!t$A $ost in the %unhouse
/unch ac1s* fat $adies* foo$s that no one chose 0hat he 0as 0as un eara $e. In the mo4ies hed meet a eautifu$ youn) )ir$ in the e funhouseA theyd ha4e hairs" readth esca#es from rea$ dan)ersA hed do and say the ri)ht thin)sA she a$soA in the end theyd $o4ersA their dia$o)ue $ines 0ou$d match u#A hed e #erfect$y at

easeA shed not on$y $i1e him 0e$$ enou)h* shed thin1 he 0as mar4e$$ousA shed $ie a0a1e thin1in) a out him* instead of 4ice 4ersa the 0ay his face $oo1ed in different $i)hts and ho0 he stood and exact$y 0hat hed said and yet that 0ou$d e on$y one sma$$ e#isode in his 0onderfu$ $ife* amon) many others. :ot a turnin) #oint at a$$. ... One reason for not 0ritin) a $ost"in"the"funhouse story is that either e4ery odys fe$t 0hat Am rose fee$s* in 0hich case it )oes 0ithout sayin)* or e$se no norma$ #erson fee$s such thin)s* in 0hich case Am rose is a frea1. 8Is anythin) more tiresome* in fiction* than the #ro $ems of sensiti4e ado$escence?9 And its a$$ too $on) and ram $in)* as if the author. 6or a$$ a #erson 1no0s the first time throu)h* the end cou$d e 3ust around 6E

C$%0te! + the cornerA #erha#s* not im#ossi $y its

een 0ithin reach any e scarce$y #ast the

num er of times. On the other hand he may

start* 0ith e4erythin) yet to )et throu)h* an into$era $e idea.

The tit$e story of Lost in the 4unhouse traces (arths attem#t to 0rite a story a out a fami$y outin) to At$antic ,ity in the nineteen"forties. The centra$ character is the ado$escent Am rose* 0ho is accom#anyin) his #arents* his rother >eter* his unc$e Mar$* and %a)da* a chi$dhood #$aymate no0 a teena)er $i1e himse$f* and therefore an o 3ect of sexua$ interest. Cssentia$$y it is a story of ado$escent yearnin) for freedom and fu$fi$ment* an 8exhausted9 footnote to the )reat tradition of the auto'iogra hical1no&el1a'out1 'oy1who1will1grow1u 1to1'e1a1writer* such as A Portrait of theArtist as a Ioung Man and Sons and Lo&ers. It is intended to reach its c$imax in a funhouse* 0here Am rose is to )et $ost* thou)h in 0hat circumstances* and 0ith 0hat outcome* the author is ne4er a $e to decide. In the #assa)e =uoted here* the =uestionin) of con4entiona$ fictiona$ re#resentation is artfu$$y dou $ed. 6irst* Am roses ad art* romantic $on)in)s are rendered throu)h a #arody of /o$$y0oods 0ish"fu$fi$ment fantasies2 In the mo&iesJ This is o 4ious$y in contrast to 0hich the renderin) of Am roses actua$ frustrated* ton)ue"tied* a$ienated existence seems rea$istica$$y authentic. (ut then that re#resentation is undermined y a ty#ica$ metafictiona$ mo4e 0hat is 1no0n as >!e%Fin# t$e '!%,e. The authoria$ 4oice a ru#t$y inter4enes to comment that Am roses situation is either too fami$iar or too de4iant to e 0orth descri in)* 0hich is as if a mo4ie actor 0ere to turn to the camera sudden$y and say This is a lousy scri t. The 4oice of a car#in) critic is heard2 Is anything more tiresome* in fiction* than the The author seems to ro'lems of sensiti&e adolescents> e sudden$y $osin) faith in his o0n story* and

cannot e4en summon u# the ener)y to finish the sentence in 0hich he confesses that it is too $on) and ram $in). 5riters often $ose faith in 0hat they are doin)* ut do not norma$$y admit this in their texts. To do so is to ac1no0$ed)e fai$ure
=/

C$%0te! +

ut a$so to tacit$y c$aim such fai$ure as more interestin) and more truthfu$ than con4entiona$ success. 9 !t Vonne# tA laughterhouse %i&e

The no4e$ is as remar1a $e for its stunnin) frame" rea1in) effects as for its ima)inati4e use of time"shift -the f$ash ac1@ f$ashfor0ard of the cinema* ana$e#sis@ #ro$e#sis for rhetoricians.* y confessin)2 I would hate to tell you what this lousy little 'oo< cost me in money and an%iety and time. In his first cha#ter he descri es the difficu$ty of 0ritin) a out an e4ent $i1e the destruction of Qresden* and says* addressin) the man 0ho commissioned it* It is so short and (um'led and (angled* Sam* 'ecause there is nothing intelligent to say a'out a massacre. The #ersona$ ex#erience on 0hich it is ased 0as so traumatic and so #ainfu$ to return to that y $oo1in) ac1 u#on Sonne)ut com#ares his fate to that of Lots 0ife in the O$d Testament* 0ho sho0ed her human nature the destruction of Dodom and Gomorrah ut 0as #unished y ein) turned into a #i$$ar of sa$t2 IG&e finished my war 'oo< now. The ne%t one I write is going to 'e fun. This one is a failure* and it had to 'e* since it was written 'y a illar of salt. In fact* far from #eriod in Cn)$ish. Jo$n Fo?le"A The %ren!h $ieutenants 'oman One of the meanin)s of the term % t$o!it& is that of a #o0er or ri)ht to enforce o edience. Do* $iterary authority im#$ies the #ersuasi4e force y means of 0hich the 0riter mana)es to con4ince the reader* on the one hand* and mani#u$ate character* settin)* time and #$ot* on the other hand. It* therefore* constitutes itse$f into a s#ecific techni=ue of an authoria$$y intrusi4e sort* aimin) at someho0 turnin) the author into a tyrant and the text into a tyrannica$ construct. ein) a fai$ure* the no4e$ is Sonne)uts master#iece* and one of the most memora $e no4e$s of the #ost0ar

=(

C$%0te! +

In The Magus* 6o0$es offers the reader tota$ freedom of #ercei4in) the no4e$s messa)e2 So far IGm concerned* there is no gi&en KrightG reaction. -6o0$es* 86ore0ord9 to The Magus* 1&8'217. After t0e$4e cha#ters in 0hich he has #$ayed 0ith the historica$ fact anchored into the rea$ 0or$d* 6o0$ess narrator a ru#t$y confronts us 0ith an irrefuta $e fact of a different 1ind2
This story I am te$$in) is a$$ ima)ination. These characters I create ne4er existed outside my o0n mind. If* unti$ no0* I ha4e c$aimed to e readin) their minds and innermost secrets* it is ecause Im 0ritin)U 0ithin and accordin) to a con4ention uni4ersa$$y acce#ted at the time my story )oes* that the no4e$ist is $i1e a )od. /e mi)ht not e omniscient* ut he tries to #retend he is.

5ith this )esture* the i$$usory rea$ity of the fictiona$ 0or$d is destroyed* and 0e are offered instead* if not the real 0or$d* at $east a rea$ 0or$d. 6or 0hat is u$timate$y rea$ in the onto$o)ica$ structure of The 4rench LieutenantGs Doman* if not the authors #erformance in creatin) that 0or$d? The author occu#ies an onto$o)ica$ $e4e$ su#erior to his 0or$dA y rea1in) the frame around his 0or$d* the author fore)rounds his o0n su#erior rea$ity. The metafictiona$ )esture of '!%,e4>!e%Fin# is a form of su#errea$ism* and is a ris1y usiness. Intended to esta $ish an a so$ute $e4e$ of rea$ity* it #aradoxica$$y !el%tiviMe" !e%lit&A intended to #ro4ide an onto$o)ica$$y sta $e footho$d* it on$y desta i$i;es onto$o)y further. 6or the metafictiona$ )esture of sacrificin) an i$$usory rea$ity to a hi)her* +rea$er rea$ity* that of the author* sets a #recedent2 0hy shou$d this )esture not re#eata $e? 5hat #re4ents the authors rea$ity from in its turn as an i$$usion to so the su##osed$y a so$ute rea$ity of the author To re4ea$ the authors #osition 0ithin e ein) treated ecomes 3ust

e shattered? :othin) 0hatsoe4er* and

another $e4e$ of fiction* and the real 0or$d retreats further. the onto$o)ica$ structure is on$y to int!o) ce t$e % t$o! into t$e 'iction L far from a o$ishin) the frame* this )esture mere$y 0idens it to inc$ude the author as a fictiona$ character. In ,ha#ter 13* the 4oice of the
=+

C$%0te! +

author intrudes u#on his fiction to dec$are its fictiona$ity* This story I am telling ...A in cha#ter I1* the author enters his 0or$d in the #erson of an interferin) im#resario 0hose #hysica$ features caricature those of the rea$ Kohn 6o0$es. Thus* the cyc$e of metafictiona$ frame" rea1in) is re#eated t0ice* once at the $e4e$ of the fictiona$ 0or$d* once at the $e4e$ of the author* 0ho no0 is re4ea$ed as himse$f a fiction. In an effort to sta i$i;e this s#ira$ of fictions* metafictions* meta"metafictions* a##ears to and so on to infinite re)ress* 4arious #ostmodernist 0riters ha4e tried introducin) into their texts 0hat e the one irreduci $y rea$ rea$ity in their #erformance as 0riters the act of 0ritin) itse$f. Ron%l) S FenicFA T$i!teen Di#!e""ion" Thus arises the #ostmodernist to os of the 0riter at his des1* or 0hat Rona$d Du1enic1 has ca$$ed 8the truth of the #a)e92
The truth of the #a)e is that theres a 0riter sittin) there 0ritin) the #a)e. If the 0riter is concei4ed* oth y himse$f and is #re4ented y the from reader* as 8someone sittin) there 0ritin) the #a)e9* effecti4e

i$$usionism ecomes im#ossi $eU the reader

ein) hy#noti;ed y the i$$usion of that ma1e" e$ie4e so

in the hands of the nineteenth"century no4e$ists ut 0hich y no0 has ecome a #assi4e* esca#ist ha it of res#onse to a creati4e 0or1 instead he is forced to reco)ni;e the rea$ity of the readin) situation as the 0riter #oints to the rea$ity of the 0ritin) a$$o0in) him to esca#e the ut* one -Du1enic1* 1&8!2 2!. situation* and the 0or1* instead of truth of his o0n $ife* 1ee#s returnin) him to it ho#es* 0ith his o0n ima)ination acti4ated and re4ita$i;ed.

/ere 0e seem to 0hat cou$d

e in touch 0ith the rea$ 0or$d at $ast* for

e more undenia $y rea$ than the actua$ conditions

under 0hich the 0riter has #roduced the text 0e are readin)? Tet* accordin) to (rian %c/a$e in Postmodernist 4iction* am i)uities arise. Domeone sittin) there 0ritin) the #a)e is a$0ays
=6

C$%0te! +

on$y a fictiona$ reconstruction of the act of 0ritin) 0hich de#ends on what has 'een written on the text 0e read. In this sense* the 0ritin) itse$f is more rea$ than the act of 0ritin) that #resuma $y )a4e rise to itZ A$$ this $eads to an uncomforta $e circu$arity that de#ends on the stran)e$y am#hi ious onto$o)ica$ status* the resence;a'sence of the author. 5hene4er some e$ement of onto$o)ica$ structure or some onto$o)ica$ oundary is fore)rounded* the authors ro$e and acti4ity is fore)rounded 0ith it2 5ho e$se cou$d him? e he$d res#onsi $e for the #ractice of fore)roundin)* 0ho e$se cou$d e credited 0ith the intention to fore)round* if not her or

T%"F 'o! t$e "t )entA

,hoose any one excer#t on #a)es 38"'7 and ana$y;e the structure of authority in the metafictiona$ 0ritin)s they e$on) to.

==

In"te%) o' Concl "ion

In"te%) o' Concl "ion

The #ro $em of authors and authorities has

een a #u;;$in) eyond that

one for years. :o0adays its connotations ha4e s#read

of +creator"creati4e #ractice. Its modern history in4o$4es the history of cu$ture itse$f* and of the idea of cu$ture* as 0e$$ as of #articu$ar indi4idua$s* doctrines and a##roaches. Dtartin) from the o#inions formu$ated y the three ma3or Gree1 and Roman commentators on $iterature Aristot$e* /orace and Lon)inus1 " the su se=uent $iterary"critica$ acti4ity has $oo1ed at the issue in terms of $iterary de4e$o#ment and* at the same time* of the inertia of any esta $ished inte$$ectua$ disci#$ine. ,ritica$ discourse* conse=uent$y* is a re$ati4e$y chaotic state of en=uiry in 0hich different schoo$s com#ete 0ith one another and there is no common ody of e$ief. The indi4idua$ researcher is forced to state and defend asic assum#tions and has 4ery $imited

sco#e for ui$din) on the 0or1 of others Authors stam# their 0or1s 0ith #ersona$ features and e$iefs that are the resu$t of oth the sum of ac=uired 1no0$ed)e and the indi4idua$ ex#erience that dictates reactions to or a)ainst the #re4ious$y esta $ished socia$* cu$tura$* historica$ norms. In its modern* existentia$ist acce#tance* t$e N e"tion o' % t$o!it& i" 0%!%)o@ic%ll& one o' '!ee)o, %n) ent!%0,ent 2 once the author is a$$o0ed to mani#u$ate throu)h fiction* he ecomes a structure of authority that #re4ents him and others from free$y re"creatin) throu)h readin). The in4esti)ation of freedom in4o$4es the in4esti)ation of the nature of 'eing* the #$un)in) into consciousness. Today 0e
1

e$ie4e in the #o0er of fiction to free and $i erate

0riter and reader a$i1e* on condition that 0e ac1no0$ed)e the

see >atric1 >arrinder* Authors and Authority -1&&12 3.2 Aristot$e re$ies on the consistency of an inte$$ectua$ method and its 4erifia i$ityA /orace #rinci#a$$y on the force of his $iterary #ersona$ityA Lon)inus on the co)ent mani#u$ation of methods [nd assum#tions 0hich are shared.

=5

In"te%) o' Concl "ion

#ossi i$ity of demo$ishin) o$d #atterns and #retensions 0ith a 4ie0 to ui$din) other #ossi $e 0or$ds throu)h fiction. Today 0e no ut oth a #ersona$* su 3ecti4e meanin) that inc$udes the $on)er associate authority 0ith Qi4inity* 0ritin) 0ith ,reation* )i4e them /uman2
7%ist+ o singura definitie 'una a di&initatii ) li'ertatea care ingaduie e%istenta altor li'ertati. Si tre'uie sa ma conforme. acestei definitii. "omancierul continua sa fie un .eu* deoarece creea.a 6si nici chiar romanele moderne de a&angarda* cele mai aleatorii* nu au reusit sa elimine com let autorul8L ceea ce s1a schim'at este fa tul ca nu mai suntem conce tie teologica* -6o0$es* 1&&'2J8. rimul nostru .ei in acce tia e ocii &ictoriene* atotstiutori si autocratiL dar* in conformitate cu o noua rinci iu este li'ertatea* si nu entru :omo Sa iens . autoritateaJ Iata o definitie de 'a.a

Qe$i erate$y or not* a$$ modernist 0riters ha4e tried to f$ee from harsh rea$ity and esca#e into a dream"text 0here the mer)in) of i$$usion 0ith rea$ity ecomes #ossi $e. The exodus is countered ho0e4er y 4arious forms of the return to the se$f* the fami$iar* the end 0hich ecomes the start.2 The )eneration maturin) at the e)innin) of the century sa0 themse$4es ex#eriencin) a chan)in) a)e* 0here insta i$ity and uncertainty 0ere the factors that $ed to this retreat into the inner dimension -a$thou)h not a$0ays a4o0ed$y so.. The chaos that ru$ed the 0or$d and that had ru$ed the human mind 0as found a counter#art in the disordered* fra)mentary* essentia$$y dis$ocated uni4erse of fiction 0hen oth 0ere disco4ered un eara $e* the return to the end 0as #referred and death chosen as freedom. If some modernist 0riters sou)ht esca#e in death and committed suicide -S. 5oo$f* C. /emin)0ay.* the #ostmodernist ones* as a$ready #ointed at* 0ere 8cut off the hand9 y their critics. :e4erthe$ess* it is common sense to assume that it is as im#ossi $e
2

this pattern back to the self and then back to the moment before the self, to an original state of blank obscurity, is articulated in various ways in by Freud and Niet sche !see Beyond the Pleasure Principle and The Will to Power"

=B

In"te%) o' Concl "ion

for us to ima)ine a text 0ithout an author* or a

usy #en or

#aint rush 0ithout some hand ho$din) it* as it is for a text of any 1ind to exist 0ithout some text"ma1in) hand. Texts are not made y machines. It is in pra!ti!e impossi(le "or us to tal) a(out texts without the presen!e o" a presumed writing hand and o" the person the hand (elongs to, and *sooner or later+ the history, the !ontext, the ideology, the whole matrix o" that person, in&ading the dis!ussion, as these had no dou(t pre&iously in&aded the text.

=C

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

A""e!ti&e !riti!ism +Affect is a #sycho$o)ica$ term denotin) fee$in) or emotion attached to an idea. Affecti4e criticism examines $iterature in terms of the fee$in)s it e4o1es in the reader* a #rocedure denounced y the :e0 ,ritics as $ia $e to e distorted y #ersona$ su 3ecti4ity -see Affecti4e fa$$acy..Reader"Res#onse criticism has rene0ed interest in the affecti4e =ua$ity of $iterature. ,$ose examination of the #rocess of readin) as a chan)in) and dynamic ex#erience has sho0n ho0 the constant modification and mani#u$ation of fee$in) #$ays a si)nificant #art in the ex#erience of the text. A""e!ti&e "alla!y The tit$e of an essay y the American critics 5. M. 5imsatt and %. ,. (eards$ey* y #rinted in 5imsatts The Ser a$ Icon -1&!'.. They ar)ue that 3ud)in) a #oem

its effects or emotiona$ im#act on the reader is a fa$$acious method of criticism* resu$tin) on$y in im#ressionistic criticism. Dee a$so ,riticism* Intentiona$ fa$$acy* :e0 ,riticism. Author In the :e0 ,riticism it 0as considered 0ron) to examine a 0or1 in the $i)ht of the authors intentions or attac1 io)ra#hy* ecause the text 0as su##osed to e autonomous. The conce#t and si)nificance of authorshi# has een #ut under

y 6rench critics $i1e Ro$and (arthes* in his essay 8The Qeath of the

Author9 -1&I8.* and %iche$ 6oucau$t in 85hat is an Author?9-1&I&.. The first ar)ues that the critic+s o session 0ith authorshi# is a 0ay of fa$se$y #inin) do0n the meanin) of a text and refusin) to contem#$ate it as an infinite +tissue of si)ns. The second #$aces authorshi# in a historica$ context to sho0 that the conce#t is cu$tura$$y determined* and that different societies at different times ha4e not #ercei4ed oo1s necessari$y as the ori)ina$ creations of )ifted indi4idua$s. Those critics 0ho o 3ect to a hierarchy of discourses in a text #oint out that the conce#t of +author re$ates to the idea of authority. In the 4ie0 of Qeconstructi4e criticism* to thin1 of the author as a 1ind of a so$ute and s#ecia$$y #ri4i$e)ed creator of meanin) is a fa$sification of the nature of $an)ua)e2 as meanin) is constructed y the readers -not the 0riter.* no fina$ meanin) is a4ai$a $e for any text. To 4ie0 $iterary 0or1s as mysterious creations of )od"$i1e

=3

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

ein)s* in the 4ie0 of marxist critics* tends to e a 0ay of i)norin) the socia$ and #o$itica$ contexts in 0hich 0ritin) is #roduced. Carni&alisation

A $iterary #henomenon descri ed y the Russian critic %i1hai$ (a1htin* es#ecia$$y in his 0or1 "a'elais and :is Dorld -1&I!.. Accordin) to him some 0riters use their 0or1s as an out$et for the s#irit of carni4a$* of #o#u$ar festi4ity and misru$e. They +su 4ert the $iterary cu$ture of the ru$in) c$asses* underminin) its c$aim to mora$ mono#o$y. Duch forms and )enres are o#en and dia$o)ic. They a$$o0 mu$ti#$e #oints of 4ie0 to co"exist -rather than 0or1in) throu)h a sin)$e dominatin)* mono$o)ic 4oice.* and are 4a$ued for their a4ai$a i$ity to +#$ura$ inter#retations. Closure y the endin) of some $iterary

The im#ression of com#$eteness fina$ity achie4ed

0or1s* or #arts of $iterary 0or1s2 +and they a$$ $i4ed ha##i$y e4er after. Qurin) the $atter ha$f of the t0entieth century critics ha4e tended to #refer +o#en texts* 0hich defy c$osure and refuse to $ea4e the reader comforta $y satisfiedA and* y an extension of this #redi$ection* it is ar)ued that criticism itse$f shou$d a4oid c$osure* $ea4in) the text a4ai$a $e to mu$ti#$e inter#retations* and refuse to offer conc$usi4e 3ud)ments. Dee a$so Reada $e. Code y a )rou#. These systems o#erate accordin) to ru$es

Dtructura$ism and Demiotics ha4e demonstrated that meanin) is inherent in systems of si)ns shared system may and con4entionsA ho0e4er fami$iar the si)ns* the under$yin) ru$es that )o4ern the e in4isi $e to their users. In this res#ect* $an)ua)es are $i1e codes et0een writer and reader* and the that re=uire deci#herin). Literature a$so functions accordin) to ru$es* some o 4ious* some in4isi $e* that o#erate critics tas1 may as if it 0as a code. Competen!e y the $in)uistic #hi$oso#her :oam ,homs1y. They echo and et0een $an)ue and #aro$e enunciated in order to understand y the orro0ed ,homs1ys terms to su))est that com#etence e to ex#$ain or cata$o)ue these ru$es* and deci#her $iterature

Mno0$ed)e of $an)ua)e is +com#etence2 #erformance is its use. These terms 0ere in4ented extend the fundamenta$ distinction Daussure. ,ritica$ theorists ha4e readers must #ossess $iterary con4entions of a narrati4e or #oem. Criti!ism

=E

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

The inter#retation* ana$ysis* c$assification* and u$timate$y 3ud)ment of 0or1s of $iterature* 0hich has e made ecome a 1ind of $iterary )enre itse$f. A road di4ision can et0een pra!ti!al !riti!ism* 0hich focuses on the examination of

indi4idua$ texts* and theoreti!al !riti!ism* 0hich discusses the nature of $iterature* and the re$ationshi# et0een $iterature* the critic and society. A simi$ar distinction a$so exists et0een des!ripti&e !riti!ism* 0hich attem#ts to descri e $iterature as it is -0ithout reference to any o4er"ridin) $in)uistic* $iterary or socia$ theory* and 0ithout tryin) to e4a$uate.* and pres!ripti&e !riti!ism* 0hich -sometimes unconscious$y. ar)ues ho0 $iterature ou)ht to e. The aims and con4entions of $iterary criticism* $i1e $iterature itse$f* ha4e chan)ed constant$y throu)h the a)es* and there are many different ty#es of $iterary a##roach. In an essay on the 8Orientation of ,ritica$ Theories9* the o#enin) cha#ter of The Mirror and the Lam -1&!3.* the contem#orary critic %. /. A rams ex#$ores the di4ersity of critica$ a##roach 4ia a sim#$e dia)ram of the e$ements in4o$4ed2 UNIVERSE 7 8OR9 7 ARTIST AUDIENCE e defined accordin) to the 0ay in A rams ex#$ains that theories of art can

0hich they tend to concentrate on any of the three 4aria $es at the corners of the trian)$e* the uni4erse* the artist or the audience. Thus* a mimeti! theory of art sees the 0or1 of art as ref$ectin) the uni4erse $i1e a mirror2 Aristot$e* 0ho defined art as imitation in his >oetics -fourth century (,.* is the #rime exam#$e. a pragmati! theory of art sees the 0or1 as a means to an end* to teach or instruct2 the focus is chan)ed to the 0or1s effect on an audience. expressi&e theories centre on the artist -near$y a$$ Romantic and nineteenth century criticism )enera$$y re)ards art as #rimari$y concerned 0ith ex#ressin) the #oets fee$in)s* ima)ination* and #ersona$ity. It tends to 3ud)e the 0or1 y its sincerity or the extent to 0hich it has successfu$$y re4ea$ed the authorBs state of mind.. The :e0 ,riticism of the t0entieth century* and many of the other critica$ theories 0hich fo$$o0ed it* dominated the study of $iterature in uni4ersities and schoo$s unti$ the 1&87s. This may e termed o(,e!ti&e !riti!ism* 0hich focuses chief$y on the text* the 0or1 of art itse$f* and attem#ts to re)ard it as standin) free from the #oet* the audience and the 0or$d. 6rom a out 1&!7 ti$$ 1&87 +criticism tended to mean #ractica$ criticism. Dince the 1&J7s traditiona$ understandin) of the re$ationshi#s uni4erse* 0riter* audience and text has een #ut into turmoi$ et0een y the a##roaches

to $an)ua)e 1no0n as stru!turalism and de!onstru!tion* 0hich #$ace in dou t any sim#$e mimetic notion of $an)ua)e itse$f* and therefore $iteratureA the security that 0ords ha4e meanin) ecause they direct$y sym o$ise the thin)s

5/

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

contained in the 0or$d outside -the uni4erse. has een attac1ed. Lan)ua)e has come to e seen as a frame0or1 creatin) +truth and +rea$ity* rather than sim#$y descri in) thin)s. The conse=uences of these ideas for $iterature and criticism ha4e een 0ide"ran)in). One resu$t has een the #ro$iferation of $IT-.A./ een the shift a0ay T0-1./ as a su 3ect for study in its o0n ri)ht* usua$$y concentratin) on the theory of criticism rather than $iterature itse$f. Another has from the interna$ mechanisms of texts themse$4es in order to sho0 them in the context of society and #o$itics* #ossi $y y ado#tin) #arxist or "eminist critica$ #ers#ecti4es. (oth these a##roaches ha4e attac1ed the conce#t of the !annon* the idea that $iterature shou$d e com#osed of a co$$ection of s#ecia$ and hi)h$y 4a$ued texts. The s#ecific disci#$ines of narratology and reader-response !riti!ism ha4e a$so )ro0n out of the ferment caused y structura$ism. A 2e!onstru!tion, de!onstru!ti&e !riti!ism $an1et tit$e for certain radica$ critica$ theories that re4ise and de4e$o# the oo1s y the 6rench #hi$oso#her Kac=ues Qerrida* a$$ of 0hich 0ere een trans$ated in Cn)$ish 0ith the

tenets of structura$ist criticism. %any of the ideas of deconstruction ori)inate in three #u $ished in 6rance in 1&IJ and ha4e Driting and 5ifference -1&J8.. Qerrida

fo$$o0in) tit$es2 S eech and Phenomena -1&J3.* ?f Hrammatology -1&JI.* e$ie4es that a$$ notions of the existence of an a so$ute meanin) in $an)ua)e -a transcendenta$ si)nified. are 0ron). /e ar)ues that e4en in s#eech* the idea that the s#ea1er mi)ht fu$$y #ossess the si)nificance of the s#o1en 0ords* if on$y for a moment* is un#ro4en and a fa$se assum#tion. Tet this assum#tion a out s#eech and 0ritin) -0here there is not e4en the consciousness of the s#ea1er to 4a$idate meanin). has dominated 5estern thou)ht* and it shou$d e the aim of the #hi$oso#her and critic to +deconstruct the #hi$oso#hy and $iterature of the #ast to sho0 this fa$se assum#tion and re4ea$ the essentia$ #aradox at the heart of $an)ua)e. As in structura$ist ana$ysis* Qerrida sees any indi4idua$ statement as de#endin) for its meanin) on its re$ationshi# 0ith its surroundin) system of $an)ua)e2 it can on$y deri4e its meanin) dis#ersa$ of y its difference -0hich he s#e$$s difference* 0hich resu$ts in ca$$ed dissemination* $eads to the free #$ay of more than 3ust am i)uity* 0hich sti$$ dea$s 0ith fixed* if 4arious meanin)s. The meanin)* inter#retations. from a$$ the other #ossi $e meanin)s* un$imited in num er. :o more than the i$$usory effect of meanin) is #ossi $e in contact 0ith these un$imited different #ossi $e readin)s 2 meanin) does not reside in the si)nifier. Inter#retation of meanin) is then an end$ess mo4ement that can ne4er arri4e at an a so$ute* u$timate si)nified. Thus the +#$ay of si)nification is end$ess -+#$ayfu$ 0as a fa4ourite a##ro4in) 0ord for criticism in the 1&87s.. To +deconstruct a text is mere$y to sho0 ho0 texts deconstruct themse$4es ecause of this fundamenta$ indeterminateness at the core of $an)ua)e. Qeconstruction attac1s the 4ery asis of 5estern scho$arshi# and thou)ht. QerridaBs ideas ha4e een ta1en u#*

5(

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

de4e$o#ed and fierce$y attac1ed* es#ecia$$y in America. (ritish criticism* 0ith its stron) educationa$* #ra)matic em#hasis* is content to re"0or1 and ex#$ain ideas that ori)inated in 6rance and the NDA. The 0ord +deconstruction is no0 often used mere$y to refer to the re4e$ation of #artia$$y hidden meanin)s in a text* es#ecia$$y those that i$$uminate as#ects of its re$ationshi# 0ith its socia$ and #o$itica$ context* as is common in %arxist criticism. In its 0ea1est use* to deconstruct may mean no more than to re4ea$ the 0ay meanin) in any 1ind of text is a +construction +ana$y;e or +inter#ret. 2ialogi! y the 0riter or the reader* o#en to dissection y the critic* 0ho a$so has to construct meanin) A it has ecome another 0ord for

Texts that a$$o0 the ex#ression of a 4ariety of #oints of 4ie0 $ea4in) the reader 0ith o#en =uestions are dia$o)ic. The o##osite 1ind of text is mono$o)ic* dominated y a sin)$e 0ay of #ercei4in) thin)s* usua$$y #resumed to e the authors. It 0as a 4o)ue 0ord in the 1&87s* Russian critic %i1hai$ (a1htin. -pistemology orro0ed from the 0ritin)s of the

The #hi$oso#hica$ theory of 1no0$ed)e* ho0 it is ac=uired and of 0hat it consists. It 0as a centra$ concern of 18 th century em#iricism. In the ear$y 1& th century* one as#ect of romanticism 0as a turnin) a0ay from the notion that 0riters shou$d as#ire to0ards ex#ressin) uni4ersa$ truths. Instead* indi4idua$ ex#erience and fee$in) came to e seen as the #ro#er source of 1no0$ed)e. 0ermeneuti!s -G1. +science of inter#retation.

Ori)ina$$y a 0ord a##$ied to inter#retation of the (i $e A no0 a##$ied )enera$$y to the theory of ho0* to 0hat extent and y 0hat #rinci#$es and #rocedures 0e can inter#ret $iterary or any texts. The :e0 ,riticism stressed the im#ossi i$ity of examinin) a 0or1 y reference to its 0riters intention -the intentiona$ fa$$acy.* and the modern critica$ theories of structura$ism and deconstruction e=ua$$y deny the #ossi i$ity of disco4erin) a determinate readin) of a text. (y contrast* rece#tion theory ana$yses the conditions that contro$ textua$ inter#retation. 0ori3on o" expe!tations ac1)round net0or1 of ideas* y readers* and throu)h 0hich they

A term from rece#tion theory to descri e the attitudes and con4entions #ossessed

#ercei4e the o 3ect of their studies. As such a hori;on is constant$y chan)in)* readers of different eras cannot a4oid inter#retin) 0or1s in radica$$y different 0ays. Ideology -G1. +discourse a out or study of ideas.

5+

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

The co$$ection of ideas* o#inions* 4a$ues* e$iefs and #reconce#tions 0hich )o to ma1e u# the +mind"set of a )rou# of #eo#$e* that is* the inte$$ectua$ frame0or1 throu)h 0hich they 4ie0 e4erythin)* and 0hich co$ours a$$ their attitudes and fee$in)s -es#ecia$$y* #erha#s* assum#tions a out #o0er and authority.. 5hat 0e ta1e to e +rea$ity is contro$$ed y the ideo$o)ies of the era in 0hich 0e $i4e.

56

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

Implied author

5ayne (ooth in The "hetoric of 4iction -1&I1. defines the 0ay in 0hich e4ery narrati4e creates a sense of a #articu$ar 1ind of author* 0hich the reader infers from hints and statements in the text. This +second se$f is not the same as the author* 0or1s ut a #roduct of a #articu$ar 0or12 it may e =uite different in different y the same author. :o no4e$ist can esca#e this. C4en the no4e$ in 0hich

no narrator is dramati;ed creates an im#$icit #icture of an author* 0ho stands ehind the scenes* 0hether as sta)e mana)er* as #u##eteer* or as an indifferent God* si$ent$y #arin) his fin)ernai$s. 5hen a no4e$ist dramati;es him or herse$f as the narrator* this is sti$$ not the same as the im#$ied author* 0ho is the #resumed ar iter of a$$ the choices that ma1e u# the 0or1* the mouth#iece of those o#tions. Implied reader ein) and +#ecu$iar circumstance and ein) 3ust one

In his essay 8Of the Dtandard of Taste9 -1J'1.* /ume descri es an idea$ reader* 0ho attem#ts to for)et his +indi4idua$ #re3udice. Reader"res#onse criticism ar)ues that a$$ texts construct y im#$ication an ima)ined reader of 0hich /umes idea$ is on$y one #ossi i$ity. Other simi$ar terms are +su#er"reader* +informed reader and +encoded reader. In e4ery text a 4ariety of features 0i$$ #oint to0ards the 1ind of reader for 0hich it is intended. These inc$ude the tone* assum#tions a out 0hat a reader 0i$$ and 0i$$ not 1no0* difficu$ty or sim#$icity of ar)ument* the diction* 3ar)on* a$$usions* irony* and so on. Sery com#$ex and difficu$t texts +construct or im#$y -or re=uire. readers 0ith a hi)h de)ree of $iterary com#etence* as 0e$$ as inte$$i)ence* #atience and #erse4erance* to the #oint 0here readin) is an ima)inati4e #rocess not dissimi$ar to the creati4e act itse$f. Impressionisti! !riti!ism consider himse$f as +a man in )enera$ in order to rid himse$f of the distortions of

,riticism that concentrates on the critics #ersona$ res#onse to a 0or1 and attem#ts to re#roduce these fee$in)s in 0ords* rather than to examine a $iterary 0or1 in the $i)ht of some theory of $iterature. %uch of the criticism of the nineteenth and ear$y t0entieth centuries 0as im#ressionistic. The :e0 ,riticism and >ractica$ ,riticism sou)ht to res#onse. Intentional "alla!y rin) a more exact ri)our into the e4a$uation of

The American :e0 ,ritics 5. M. 5imsatt and %. ,. (eards$ey introduced this term for 0hat they re)arded as the mista1en critica$ method of 3ud)in) a $iterary 0or1 accordin) to the authors intentions* 0hether stated or im#$ied. They

5=

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

ar)ued that the 4a$ue and meanin) of each $iterary 0or1 resides so$e$y in the text itse$f* and any examination of #resumed intention is mere$y irre$e4ant* distractin) the critic to0ards the 0riters #sycho$o)y or freestandin) $iterary artifice -The Mer'al Icon* 1&!'.. Interpretation io)ra#hy* rather than focusin) on the use of $an)ua)e* ima)ery* tensions* and so on* 0ithin the

It is the act of ex#$ainin) the meanin) and effects of a $iterary text. Ostensi $y* one of the traditiona$ aims of studyin) $iterature -or made so after $iterary history and textua$ scho$arshi# 0ere ousted y the :e0 ,riticism in (ritain and the NDA.. Inter#retation is no0 a 4exed issue. 5riters in the 27th century ha4e often resented #ara#hrase* and ar)ued that the meanin) of a #articu$ar 0or1 cannot e ex#ressed 0ith any exactness in any 0ay other than its o0n uni=ue com ination of form and content in 0ords. Inter#retation* in so far as it arri4es at no more than oi$ed do0n meanin)s* may seem to de#ri4e the art0or1 of mystery and ener)y* and the desire to defy this $oss $ies ehind mo4ements in the arts from QAQA on0ards. The 0or$d0ide ody of texts. Dince the ear$y 1&J7s the #rofessiona$isation of $iterature teachin) has $ead to incessant inter#retati4e acts ein) conducted on an e4er"0idenin) #ossi i$ity of inter#retation has een attac1ed in $iterary and $in)uistic theories

-structura$ism and deconstruction.* 0hich ar)ue that meanin) is not u$timate$y inherent in $an)ua)e* and that texts are* in a #hi$oso#hica$ sense* un1no0a $e. Intersu(,e!ti&e

A 0ord sometimes used in the attem#t to so$4e the #ro $em of +su 3ecti4ity 4ersus +o 3ecti4ity of inter#retation2 o 3ecti4ity may e a human im#ossi i$ity* in so far as 0e can on$y e4er a##roach a text 0ith our 3ud)ment co$oured y uni=ue #ersona$ ex#erience. /o0e4er* a )rou# of #eo#$e sharin) the same cu$tura$ ac1)round are 4ery $i1e$y to a)ree a out the inter#retation or 3ud)ment of a text. They 0i$$ arri4e at a shared res#onse that may not ho0e4er #oo$in) their su 3ecti4ities. Intertextuality e +o 3ecti4e* ut 0i$$ y e +intersu 3ecti4e* there y esca#in) the $one$y #rison of se$f

Dtructura$ism ar)ues that a text is a system in 0hich $an)ua)e does not refer to +rea$ity ut on$y to itse$f and the #atterns created 0ithin the text. Literature as a 0ho$e is a$so #ercei4ed as a se$f"referentia$ system or structure. Intertextua$ity is a term in4ented y the 6rench critic Ku$ia Mriste4a to refer to the many and et0een texts* such as ada#tation* 4arious 1inds of re$ationshi# that exist

trans$ation* imitation* a$$usion* #$a)iarism and #arody. Jouissan!e

55

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

A 0ord used y the 6rench critic Ro$and (arthes in Le Plaisir du te%te -1&J3. in contrast to laisir to descri e different 1inds of readin) ex#erience -its one of his s#oradic attac1s on the tradition of rea$ism.. Kouissance is often trans$ated as + $iss* 0hich su))ests some of the sense of sexua$ #$easure that the 0ord has in 6rench. Duch a fee$in) is ex#erienced 0hen readin) texts 0hich force the reader into some 1ind of creati4e* acti4e #artici#ation in the act of inter#retation. These difficu$t* thou)ht"#ro4o1in) texts (arthes ca$$s scri#ti $e@0rita $e@0riter$y. On the other hand* rea$ist texts* that ma1e no demands on the reader* fami$iarity of their con4entiona$ as#ects* texts that can ecause of the e read easi$y are

$isi $e@reada $e@reader$y* and on$y #ro4o1e the $ess intense #$aisir 0hich is mere$y comfortin)* rather than stimu$atin). 6eminists use the 0ord to desi)nate and ce$e rate the 3oy of ein) fema$e. $iterariness y a 4ariety of s#ecia$ $in)uistic de4ices and features*

Accordin) to the theories of Russian 6orma$ism $iterary texts are distin)uished from non"$iterary texts most of them de4iations from ordinary usa)e* 0hich resu$t in defami$iari;ation -+ma1in) stran)e " the ca#acity of some 1inds of 0ritin) to stri# a0ay fami$iarity from the 0or$d a out us* so that 0e see thin)s ane0. Qe#artures from $in)uistic norms $ead to the fore)roundin) of unusua$ features* 0hich is common in $iterary $an)ua)e... The o 3ect of criticism is not $iterature itse$f* ut +$iterariness* and its #ur#ose is the descri#tion and definition of a$$ those features that ma1e a text $iterary rather than non"$iterary. $iterary theory

To e$a orate a theory of $iterature is to see1 ans0ers to fundamenta$ =uestions a out the nature* #ur#ose and 4a$ue of $iterature* and ho0 ans0ers to these =uestions can e ascertained. As a s#ecia$ ranch of $iterary critica$ discussion* $iterary theory has een inte$$ectua$$y fashiona $e and a source of 4i)orous

dis#ute in Curo#ean and American uni4ersities* es#ecia$$y from the 1&J7s on0ards. (y 1&&7* $iterary theory had een institutiona$i;ed* no0 ein) tau)ht as an academic su 3ect in its o0n ri)ht. Dome teachers of theory ar)ue that it is im#ossi $e to read a text 0ithout a theoretica$ stand#oint* a counterar)ument ein) that no $iterary theory can e #ro#er$y examined and discussed 0ithout some #rior 1no0$ed)e of texts. In the t0entieth century certain critica$ mo4ements ha4e tended to0ards the current em#hasis on theory2 the Russian forma$ists -formu$atin) 4ie0s of $iterary $an)ua)e that $ed a0ay from the study of indi4idua$ texts to definin) +$iterariness.* structura$ists -a$so shiftin) interest a0ay from indi4idua$ texts on to the re$ationshi# 0or$d of thin)s and the conditions et0een $an)ua)e and the y 0hich meanin) is understood or created.*

marxists -interested in #o$itics and socio$o)y* theorisin) a out $iterature as a

5B

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

socia$ institution* and its re$ationshi#s 0ith non"$iterary forms of artistic ex#ression* and 0ith the structures of #o0er #re4ai$in) in society..

5C

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

$ogo!entrism

Lo)os in ,hristianity is e=uated 0ith God the Don* the second #erson of the Trinity* and has a s#ecia$ force as a centre and ori)in of re$i)ious e$ief -Dt. Kohns )os#e$ e)ins 0ith2 +In the e)innin) 0as the 5ord.. The #hi$oso#hy of $an)ua)e ca$$ed deconstruction re)ards 5estern cu$ture as essentia$$y $o)ocentric* that is* or)ani;ed around the e$ief or ho#e that there is meanin) in $an)ua)e* and e4en some u$timate fina$ meanin)* such as God or Truth* rather than the end$ess #$ay of difference. 4ew Criti!ism

A ma3or critica$ mo4ement of the 1&37s and 1&'7s in America -Kohn ,ro0e Ransom* A$en Tate* R. >. ($ac1mur* 5. M. 5imsatt* ,$eanth (roo1s* Ro ert >enn 5arren.. The autonomy of $iterature is a 4ita$ tenet of the ne0 critics* 0ho defined 4arious 0ron)fu$ 0ays of $oo1in) at $iterature -the intentiona$ and the affecti4e fa$$acies .* the c$ose readin) of texts ecomin) the on$y $e)itimate critica$ #rocedure* seein) the 0or1 as a $in)uistic structure in 0hich a$$ the #arts are he$d in a tension of #aradox* irony and am i)uity * 0ords* sym o$s and ima)es. 1(,e!ti&e !riti!ism e a##$ied to much of the criticism since the 1&27s* inc$udin)

A term 0hich can

the ne0 critics* 0hich examines the 0or1 of $iterature as an autonomous creation* free from the #oet* the reader and the 0or$d* for its intrinsic com#$exity* a$ance* #attern* coherence* in order to re4ea$ the re$ationshi#s #arts* and not ecause it adds to our understandin) of $iterary history* or any of its other extrinsic features. 1&er-reading et0een its io)ra#hica$ 1no0$ed)e of the #oet* our

The dan)er of in)enious$y 0or1in) su t$eties of meanin) out of a $iterary #assa)e that do more credit to the critics ca#acity for fantasy or #edantry than common sense. The critica$ #ractice of deconstruction insists that the reader #roduces meanin)s that 0i$$ a$0ays theoretica$ im#ossi i$ity. Phenomenology y the y the German e indeterminate* and that there can e no fixed and a so$ute meanin) in $an)ua)e2 accordin) to this 4ie0* o4er"readin) is a

A #henomenon -G1. +a##earin). is an o 3ect or occurrence #ercei4ed senses. >henomeno$o)y is the method of en=uiry #romoted #hi$oso#her C. /usser$* 0hich

e)ins 0ith the in4esti)ation of ones o0n

consciousness and inte$$ectua$ #rocesses. A$$ #rior conce#tions* 0hether from #hi$oso#hy or common sense* ha4e to e $aid aside in a sus#ension of a$$ existin)

53

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

ideas a out the nature of ex#erience. Thus* e4en the +rea$ity of the o 3ects of consciousness has to de4e$o#ed y e he$d in dou t -+ rac1eted.. /usser$s 4ie0s 0ere in 6rance and /eide))er in Germany. %er$eau">onty

>henomeno$o)y has inf$uenced se4era$ different a##roaches to $iterature* nota $y the Gene4a Dchoo$ of ,riticism* Reader"Res#onse ,riticism and Rece#tion Theory. Pluralism, pluralist, plurality

A term much used in #ost"structura$ist criticism to indicate the desira $e o#enness of texts to many different inter#retations that the insi)hts of deconstruction a$$o0. As $an)ua)e has no 4erifia $e and a so$ute meanin)* no transcendenta$ si)nified* a$$ texts are o#en to the #$ay of innumera $e meanin)s* renderin) the search for meanin) infinite$y extenda $e and* it mi)ht of meanin) in texts. Postmodernism ut much in 4o)ue in the 1&87s* and of dis#uted meanin) and ecause it refers oth to inte$$ectua$ conce#ts and to sty$e. e ar)ued* therefore #oint$ess* thou)h deconstructionists continue to #ursue their o0n 1inds

A 4a)ue term

4a$ue* not $east

,u$tura$ #hi$oso#hers in4o$4e themse$4es in ar)uments of e0i$derin) a straction a out the nature of the +#ostmodern condition* 0hi$e a fashion 0riter may ree;i$y refer to a #air of shoes as +#ostmodern. %odernism ro1e 0ith the artistic traditions and con4entions that had #re4ai$ed for many centuries. (ut* in time* the ex#eriments of modernism itse$f came to $oo1 fami$iar and e4en con4entiona$* and often to endorse 4ery traditiona$ attitudes to society under the )uise of ex#erimenta$ forms. Dome contem#orary artists ha4e )one ac1 to #re" modernist 0ritin)s and resha#ed them in ne0 0ays -0itty and c$e4er ma)#ie orro0in)s of former sty$es are a characteristic of #ostmodernist sty$e* ma1in) a statement a out #$ura$ism* to$erance and ec$ecticism* as 0e$$ as re4ea$in) $imitations in the assum#tions inherent in former $iterary con4entions and methods.. Dome $iterature is #ostmodern in this sense of 1no0in)$y ma1in) use of methods and techni=ues of former a)es in the s#irit of serious #astiche. :o4e$s $i1e Kohn (arths Hiles Hoat1Eoy -1&II.* 0ritten in the form and sty$e of an ei)hteenth"century 0or1* #redated the in4ention of the term +#ostmodern. Kohn 6o0$ess The 4rench LieutenantGs Doman -1&I&. se$f"conscious$y recreates as#ects of 18th century no4e$* mixed 0ith ex#eriments -a dou $e* indeterminate endin).* and authoria$ inter4ention. %a)ic rea$ism creates e0i$derin) mixtures of the #$ausi $e and the im#ossi $e. Da$man Rushdies MidnightGs Children -1&81. )i4es the same status to the historica$ and the 0himsica$$y fantastic. One conc$usion inherent in this intersection of different $iterary sty$es and modes is the insi)ht common to many strands of #ost"structura$ism* that meanin) is neither inherent in $an)ua)e* nor in the 0or$d of thin)s* ut is

5E

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

+constructed y con4entiona$ frame0or1s of thou)ht and $an)ua)e. C4en our ein) uni4ersa$ truths* they most cherished conce#ts* such as indi4idua$ity* human character* freedom* are su 3ect to the disso$4in) #ers#ecti4e that far from are constructs of a #articu$ar cu$ture and time* and therefore ha4e no a so$ute authenticity. Accordin) to the #hi$oso#hy of deconstruction* $an)ua)e itse$f is doomed to #er#etua$ non"meanin) in the end$ess #$ay of difference. This cha$$en)e to meanin) as 0e$$ as socia$ and #o$itica$ factors -the #ersistence of 0ar* the constant #ossi i$ity of nuc$ear ho$ocaust* a ne0 sense of the des#oi$in) of the en4ironment and the #$anet. ha4e a$$ com ined to create a sense of des#air and disi$$usion. In the face of meanin)$essness 0e can on$y #$ay 0ith sty$es and 4a$ues that used to ha4e meanin). In this res#ect* #ostmodernist sty$e shares and extends as#ects of the modernist mo4ement ca$$ed +the a surd. >ostmodern texts are often or)ani;ed to re4ea$ the insta i$ity of $an)ua)e* and to sho0 the reader ho0 #articu$ar meanin)s and 4a$ues are tem#orary and se$f")enerated constructions. Kud)ment may e sus#ended* for exam#$e* et0een mu$ti#$e narrati4e #ossi i$ities. In ca#ita$ist society the mu$ti#$icity of ima)es and si)ns* no0 e=ua$$y #ercei4ed as disconnected and em#ty of meanin)* in ads* te$e4ision and other media* adds to a sense of ein) om arded 0ith reminders of our inauthenticity. The ne0 disci#$ines of cu$tura$ and media studies ha4e ana$y;ed these #henomena from #oststructura$ist #ers#ecti4es. %any inte$$ectua$s re3oice in the freedom of inter#retation that #ostmodernist ideas a$$o0* #articu$ar$y the #romise of #$ura$ism. The distinctions et0een +hi)h and +$o0 art ha4e may een thro0n aside* a$$o0in) )raffiti to e examined 0ith the same scru#u$osity as Min) Lear since oth are cu$tura$ and socia$ constructs and

e e=ua$$y re4ea$in) a out the nature of meanin) and the #o$itica$ and

cu$tura$ rea$ities of our existence* or a out the nature of non"meanin) and inauthenticity. As a means of re"examinin) the nature and history of #resent"day ca#ita$ist and consumerist society in terms of #oststructura$ist attitudes to meanin)* the conce#t of +#ostmodernism has Postmodern Condition -1&8I. een defined and redefined and 6rederic Kameson in y cu$tura$ essays $i1e historians and #o$itica$ #hi$oso#hers such as Kean"6rancois Lyotard in The 8>ostmodernism* or the ,u$tura$ Lo)ic of Late ,a#ita$ism9 -1&8'.. Post-stru!turalism und$e of different a##roaches to $an)ua)e and $iterature ui$din) and refinin) the y the $in)uistic theories of

A term co4erin) the

-and other fie$ds. 0hich share the common feature of attitudes to 1no0$ed)e and cu$ture initiated

Daussure* 0hich $ed to the de4e$o#ment of the net0or1 of ideas ca$$ed structura$ism. A asic and shared tenet is that meanin) is not inherent in 0ords* ut de#ends on their mutua$ re$ationshi#s 0ithin the system of $an)ua)e* a system that is ased on difference. The sin)$e most si)nificant #oststructura$ist

B/

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

de4e$o#ment is the $in)uistic #hi$oso#hy de4e$o#ed in the 1&J7s and the 1&87s in 6rance* chief$y y Kac=ues Qerrida* ca$$ed deconstruction* 0hich has stron)$y inf$uenced $iterary and critica$ theory.

B(

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

Pragmati! !riti!ism e a##$ied to those 1inds of criticism that see $iterature as

+>ra)matic may

desi)ned to achie4e effects on its audience -instruction* aesthetic #$easure* etc.. and 3ud)e it accordin) to the successfu$ achie4ement of this assumed aim. .eada(le oo1* su))estin) 0i$$in)ness and de$i)ht on the

Nsua$$y a term of #raise for a

#art of the reader. /o0e4er* amon)st adherents of the criticism of Ro$and (arthes it has a s#ecia$ meanin)2 a reada $e@reader$y text text is one that is easi$y and 0orth$ess$y assimi$ated* ecause it ref$ects a con4entiona$ and anodyne ideo$o)y that does not stimu$ate the reader. .eader-.esponse !riti!ism

A )enera$ $a e$ for a num er of different $iterary a##roaches and theories common in the 1&87s that share a focus on the acti4e re$ationshi# of the reader 0ith a text. As#ects of #sychoana$ytic criticism and structura$ism can e assimi$ated here* in so far as they consider the readers ro$e in inter#retin) $iterature. 5hat is shared amon) these different a##roaches is a re3ection of the assum#tions of the ne0 critics a out the autonomy of the text* and the fixity and +o 3ecti4ity of e4a$uation and meanin). Rather they see the meanin) of a text as +created or +#roduced y readers* and therefore as an unsta $e or chan)ea $e entity. The many ex#onents of reader"res#onse criticism differ in the em#hasis that they #$ace on as#ects of the readin) #rocess* and in the de)ree to 0hich they a$$o0 any +o 3ecti4ity in an inter#retation of a text2 is it #ossi $e* for exam#$e* to #ro4e that a readin) is 0ron)? The German critic 5o$f)an) Iser -The Act of "eading* 1&J8. examines the 0riters contro$ of the readers res#onses #articu$ar$y in terms of the +indeterminate e$ements in texts* the )a#s and a sences 0hich the reader must fi$$ in* a #rocess of antici#ation* )uess0or1* creation* frustration and reconstruction. In the NDA Dtan$ey 6ish has de4e$o#ed a c$ose examination of de4e$o#in) reader"res#onse 0hich he ca$$s +affecti4e sty$istics. /e a$so examines the nature of +mista1es critics ha4e made in dea$in) 0ith texts to su))est that different readin) strate)ies are ado#ted and that no sin)$e readin) can 1&87.. .e!eption theory ranch of reader"res#onse criticism de4e$o#ed y /ans Ro ert Kauss* rin) to the text the y different +inter#reti4e communities* e authoritati4e - Is there a Te%t in This Class> *

A s#ecific

that focuses on the chan)in) history of the reaction to texts y readers -+Literary /istory as a ,ha$$en)e to Literary Theory* 1&IJ.. Readers +aesthetic hori;on of their time a co$$ection of ex#ectations* #re3udices and

B+

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

to$erances* that is constant$y shiftin) and e4o$4in)* not $east in re$ation to a #articu$ar text* and ecause it ui$d u# encom#asses and a sor s into itse$f the tradition of inter#retations that

ecome a #art of its meanin). There is no

fixed 4a$ue or meanin) in texts* ut on$y that 0hich is #roduced y the +dia$o)ue et0een the hori;ons of different )enerations of readers and the text. .hetori!al !riti!ism y the narrator

A term sometimes used for the 0or1 of critics of the 1&I7s and 1&J7s 0ho ana$y;ed $iterature in terms of the many authoria$ de4ices used to de4e$o# a #articu$ar re$ationshi# 0ith the reader. The American 5ayne (ooths study of the no4e$* The "hetoric of 4iction -1&I1.* 0as a semina$ study of this 1ind. to!) response y sensiti4ity* inte$$i)ence or

Nnthin1in) and uncritica$ res#onse to a 0or1 of artA usua$$y used in a #e3orati4e sense to $a e$ a crude reaction uni$$uminated understandin). tru!turalism, stru!turalist !riti!ism

It examines as#ects of human society* inc$udin) $an)ua)e* $iterature and socia$ institutions* as inte)rated structures or systems in 0hich the #arts ha4e no rea$ existence on their o0n* ut on$y deri4e meanin) and si)nificance from their #$ace 0ithin the system. Dtructura$ist critics often ex#$ore indi4idua$ 0or1s of $iterature y ana$y;in) them in terms of $in)uistic conce#ts and concentrate on examinin) the con4entions and ex#ectations 0hich a 1no0$ed)ea $e reader understands im#$icit$y 0hen readin) the 0or1 -$iterary com#etence.. ,ertain as#ects of structura$ist thou)ht run counter to ordinary notions a out the re$ationshi# et0een $an)ua)e* the 0riter and the reader. 5ritin) -Xcriture. y its o0n codes and con4entions* eyond or outside the system. %any y the 0riter is mere$y a is concei4ed as an acti4ity )o4erned so$e$y and these ha4e no reference to any rea$ity

structura$ists* #articu$ar$y (arthes* deny that there is any communication et0een author and reader2 the #ersona #ro3ected the $iterary con4entions 0ithin the system. u(,e!ti&e $iterary construction* and readin) itse$f is mere$y an im#ersona$ +ma1in) sense of

Often used in contrast to +o 3ecti4e to distin)uish t0o methods of #erce#tion* meanin) the #ri4ate and #ersona$ #oint of 4ie0* as o##osed to the ex#$icit* 4erifia $e and a)reed o 3ecti4e treatement of thin)s. The su 3ecti4e is the inner* iased* 4isionary 0or$d* rather than the outer +rea$ 0or$d. Sarious critics* nota $y R. Lan) aum in The Poetry of 7% erience -1&!J.* ha4e ar)ued that such a distinction is an o4ersim#$ification of the 0ay $iterature a##rehends the 0or$d*

B6

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

and that a$$ 0ritin)* 0hate4er its a##earance* is neither sim#$y o 3ecti4e nor su 3ecti4e* ut is in fact a meetin) #oint et0een the outer and the inner 0or$ds.

B=

Glo""%!& o' Lite!%!& Te!,"

ympathy

Often used in $iterary discussion to ex#ress the readers fee$in)s to0ards a character in a oo12 a 0riter may e said to mani#u$ate the readers sym#athies y the de#iction of a )ood or ad character. 'eltans!hauung

A #hi$oso#hica$ 4ie0 of the 0or$d* #erha#s ex#ressed y a sin)$e 0riter* or ty#ica$ of a 0ho$e #eriod. 5eitgeist

The s#irit or inte$$ectua$ atmos#here of an a)e or #eriod.

B5

Re'e!ence" %n) 2i>lio#!%0$&

Re'e!ence"
An)he$escu Irimia* %. 5ialoguri Postmoderne* Cd. 6undaFiei ,u$tura$e RomRne* (ucureEti* 1&&& (arthes* R. 8The Qeath of the Author9 in >hi$i# Rice and >atricia 5au)h -eds. Modern Literary Theory* ON>* 1&8& (roo1er* >. -ed..* Modernism;Postmodernism* Lon)man* London and :e0 Tor1* 1&&2 ,uddon* K. A.* 5ictionary of Literary Terms* >en)uin (oo1s* London* 1&82 ,unnin)ham* S. In the "eading Haol ) ostmodernity* te%ts* and history *

Cd. ($ac10e$$* Oxford NM \ ,am rid)e NDA* 1&&' 6ederman* R. Ta<e It or Lea&e It* :e0 Tor1* 6iction ,o$$ecti4e* 1&JI 6oucau$t* %. +5hat is an author?* in Qa4id Lod)e -ed..* Modern Criticism and Theory* Lon)man* :e0 Tor1* 1&&8* ##.1&I"217 6oucau$t* %. 8The Order of Qiscourse9* in >hi$i# Rice and >atricia 5au)h -eds. Modern Literary Theory* ON>* 1&8& 6o0$es* K. Iu'ita locotenentului france.* Cd. Nni4ers* (ucureEti* 1&&' 6o0$es* K. Mantissa* (oston* Litt$e (ro0n* 1&82 /arrison* (. +Rhetoric and the De$f* Gn Incon&enient 4ictions. Literature and the Limits of Theory* Ta$e Nni4ersity >ress* :e0 /a4en and London* 1&&1 Kefferson* A.* Q. Ro ey -eds..* Modern Literary Theory* (. T. (atsford Ltd.* London* 1&88 Lod)e* Q. After Ea<htin. 7ssays on 4iction and Criticism * Rout$ed)e* London* 1&&7 Lod)e* Q. The Art of 4iction* >en)uin (oo1s* Cn)$and* 1&&2 %a4rodin* I. Poietic+ -i Poetic+* Cd. Dcrisu$ RomRnesc* ,raio4a* 1&&8 %cC4an* :. The Sur&i&al of the 0o&el. Eritish 4iction in the Later Twentieth Century* %ac%i$$an >ress* 1&81 %c/a$e* (. Postmodernist 4iction* Rout$ed)e* London and :e0 Tor1* 1&8J >a#adima* L. Literatur+ -i Comunicare. "ela/ia autor ) cititor ,n a-o tist+ -i ost a-o tist+* Cd. >o$irom* (ucureEti* 1&&& >arrinder* >. Authors N Authority! 7nglish and American Criticism 1OPQ1 1RRQ* %ac%i$$an* London* 1&&1 >ease C.* Q. 8Author9* in 6ran1 Lentricchia and Thomas %cLau)h$in -eds..* Critical Terms for Literary Study * The Nni4ersity of ,hica)o >ress* NDA* 1&&!* ##.17!"11I ro.a

BB

Re'e!ence" %n) 2i>lio#!%0$&

De$den* R.* >. 5iddo0son -eds..* A "eaderGs Huide to Contem orary Literary Theory* /ar4ester"5heatsheaf* /ertfordshire* 1&&3 Dimion* C. 4ic/iunea (urnalului intim* 4o$. I* 8CxistH o #oeticH a 3urna$u$ui?9* Cd. Nni4ers Cncic$o#edic* (ucureEti* 2771 Dimion* C. 9ntoarcerea autorului. 7seuri des re rela/ia creator ) o er+ * (i $ioteca #entru toFi* Cd. %iner4a* (ucureEti* 1&&3 Du1enic1* R. +The Qeath of the :o4e$* in The 5eath of the 0o&el and ?ther Stories* :e0 Tor1* The Qia$ >ress* 1&I& Du1enic1* R. +Thirteen di)ressions* Gn In 4orm! 5igressions on the Act of 4iction* ,ar onda$e and Cd0ards4i$$e* Douthern I$$inois Nni4ersity >ress* 1&8! Du1enic1* R. ?ut* ,hica)o* D0a$$o0 >ress* 1&J3 Sianu* L. 8At the Gates of ,ommonsense9* in Eritish 5es eradoes at the Turn of the Millennium* Cd. A$$* (ucureEti* 1&&& Sonne)ut* M. Slaughterhouse14i&e* :e0 Tor1* Qe$$* 1&J1 5imsatt* 5.* %. (eards$ey* 8The Intentiona$ 6a$$acy. The Affecti4e 6a$$acy9* in Qa4id Lod)e -ed..* 2Qth Century Literary Criticism ) A "eader * Lon)man* London* 1&J2.

2i>lio#!%0$&
(ahtin* %. Pro'leme de literatur+ -i estetic+* (ucureEti2 Nni4ers* 1&82. (arthes* R. Sntying the Te%t! A Post1Structuralist "eader* London2 Rout$ed)e* 1&81 (e$$in)er* L. Les methodes de lecture* >aris 2 >resses uni4ersitaires de 6rance* 1&8& ,or ea* A. 5es re KtemeG. 7% lor+ri ,n dimensiunea antro ologic+ a literarit+/ii* IaEi2 Cd. Nni4ersitHFii 8A$. I. ,u;a9* 1&&! ,or ea* A. 8Lestheti=ue de $a rece#tion comme theorie du dia$o)ue9* in Cahiers roumains dGetudes litteraires* nr.3@ 1&8I ,ornea* >. 86rom Readers 6iction to the Rea$ity of Readin)9* in Cahiers roumains dGetudes litteraires* nr.3@1&8I ,ornea* >. Introducere ,n teoria lecturii* IaEi2 >o$irom* 1&&8 ,orti* %. Princi iile comunic+rii literare* (ucureEti2 Nni4ers* 1&81 Qima D. Lectura literar+ ) un model situa/ional* IaEi2 Ars Lon)a* 2777 Qucrot* O. and K.%. Dchaeffer. 0oul 5ic/ionar al =tiin/elor Lim'a(ului * (ucureEti2 (a e$* 1&&I Cco* N. Lector in fa'ula* (ucureEti2 Nni4ers* 1&&1 6ish* D. +Is There a Te%t in this Class>G in The Authority of Inter reti&e Communities* ,am rid)e* 1&87

BC

Re'e!ence" %n) 2i>lio#!%0$&

6o11ema* Q. and 5. Literary :istory* Modernism and Postmodernism * Amsterdam\>hi$ade$#hia* 1&8' Green M. and Ki$$ Le(ihan. Critical Theory and Practice. A Course'oo< * :e0 Tor1\London2 Rout$ed)e* 1&&I /o$u * R. "ece tion Theory. A Critical Introduction * London\:e0 Tor1* 1&8' Kauss* /. R. 7% erien/a estetic+ -i hermeneutica literar+* (ucureEti2 Nni4ers* 1&83 Kefferson* A. and Qa4id Ro ey -eds... Modern Literary Theory* London2 Rout$ed)e* 1&8I Leenhard* K. 8Les instances de $a com#Xtence dans $acti4itX $ectrice9 in Acres du colloBue de "eims. La lecture littCraire* >aris* 1&8' Lod)e* Q. -ed... Modern Criticism and Theory* :e0 Tor1* 1&88 Lu#u* A."%. Le theatre romantiBue roumain! du modele a la re liBue * (ucureEti2 Lo)os* 1&&& %ain)ueneau* Q. PragmatiBue 1&&7 %arian* S. 8Textu$ #oetic Ei ori;ontu$ de aEte#tare9 in 7&olu/ia artei -i e%igen/ele rece t+rii* (ucureEti2 %eridiane* 1&8! %arino* A. :ermeneutica ideii de literatur+ * ,$u3* 1&8J De$den* R. and >eter 5ido0son. A "eaderGs Huide to Contem orary Literary Theory* London* 1&8! Dtroia* Gh. 8Cstetica rece#tHrii9 in 7&olu/ia artei -i e%igen/ele rece t+rii * (ucureEti2 %eridiane* 1&8! Du$eiman* D. and I. ,rosman -eds..* The "eader in the Te%t! 7ssays on Audience and Inter retation* >rinceton* 1&87 Tom#1ins* K. >. -ed... "eader1"es onse Criticism! from 4ormalism to Post1 Structuralism* (a$timore* 1&87 Sianu* L. Eritish 5es eradoes at the Turn of the Millenium * (ucureEti2 A$$* 1&&& our le discours littCraire * >aris2 (ordas*

B3