Petrusevska 1

Biljana Petrusevska
Prof. Zoran Ancevski, PhD
Anglo-Saxon Literary Theories
28th April 2011

Borrowers, Physicians and Literary Theoreticians

With the boundaries of time, space and distance being broken down so easily in recent
times, it has become indispensable for us humans to attempt building the tower of Babylon
again. Paradox is something we experience every day, the world has been shrunk to its
minimal size and our reach and horizon has been amplified and diminished at the same time,.
It is a society of everyone for themselves and the greater good is a metaphysical idea, and so
are morals and values. Nothing is certain, and the ground is disappearing beneath our feet.
Becoming aware of this, some woolgatherers have already started on the foundations,
pulling strings and connections here and there. This attempt has been going on since humans
gained some consciousness about them selves, but the necessity to understand how things
work, is even greater nowadays. The emergence of new sciences and theories, and the
merging and surpassing of old ones have created a new inter-networked-plane. But if we trace
our attempts back through the footsteps of our ancestors, we shall see that it has always been
difficult to force a structure on things.
It had almost always gotten the best of us, and even the things we consider our
creations, the cultures and languages of the world have also shown their hidden and sharp
teeth, they eluded our grasp, turning and altering all we knew about them, or rather thought
we knew. This can perhaps be best compared to the relationship between a child and a parent,
when children develop in a quite different way than their mothers and fathers imagined.

Petrusevska 2
Language thus may have been created to put some order in the new and mystifying nature,
but meanings have been plastered on every bit in its structures and it has become a subject of
a completely different set of rules, which are as difficult to determine as the ones nature
seems to operate under.
Language is arbitrary; so to say it has no natural connection with material things. It
has further taken this arbitrariness to the next level, and turned it into a perpetum mobile,
which brings the question of how should one approach it. Could we treat it as alienated to us
as we do nature? After all we are part of both and they are a part of us. When such relations
exist on several levels, could one consequentially use the same methods to perceive them, to
understand them? By perspective mentioned here I mean perceiving things from a human
perspective, a kind with a similar genetic disposition in all of its representatives and their
thoughts, most of which overlap in different ways. One person is able to experience and
understand each sensation experienced by another one of their kind. This however doesnt
mean that they do this; it is just that they have the tools needed to get the job done. But before
making this a metaphysical work, I shall put a different perspective to explain what I am
trying to say.
Since the main of this research paper is literary scholarship, we must showcase a
mixed array of perspectives taking up much space in this field, and perhaps cover the
exponential aspects. The texts were reviewed many times and their literariness was
discussed, first by evaluating them according to some social and aesthetic standards, and then
by the rules and laws of language. The people were sometimes taken as a vital facet, but since
the death of the author and the disregarding of (or rather by) the reader, and the ups and
downs of social and historical alternatives, this thing has evaded our snatch. Also when
working through these theories, I would like to put some new light on the subject, borrowing
essences, threads and fibers of thought form a rather unusual source, a new theory which has

Petrusevska 3
been prophesized to unify some of the most famous concepts in physics and mathematics: the
theory of relativity, quantum mechanics and Newtonian gravity. As for the borrowers
mentioned above and their relation to their title-mates they will be called metonymic
agents of this work, referring, deferring what floats around the surface of this particle of
text, holding in line all the overlooked instances. They represent the essence of all beings in
an almost Darwinian matter of survival, adopting new traits as a way to adapt to the constant
growth of our world. This evolution occurs in every field and consequentially these fields
merge into each other. And we all have a purpose, us borrowers, that justifies our means,
trying to make some sense of it all.
In order for us to be off to a good start, let us see what some of the conclusions
brought forth by individual theoreticians are, in a brief overview of their views. The modern
literary theorists have certainly left their mark on the way we perceive literature but the
struggle between some of the schools of thought left unfilled gaps, disparities caused by their
contradictions. But funnily enough one can still note some kindred ideas between Platos
views on poetry and language and the structuralist and poststructuralist (deconstructionist)
views of the same, both claming that words can not refer to nature because they do not have a
natural connection, but rather an arbitrary one1. The traditionalist literary critics shared the
view of Shakespeares phrase holding a mirror up to nature until the nineteenth century,
when formalists (including the Russian Formalists and New Critics) made some changes,
turning ever so rapidly from positivism and in a logical continuation of issues the
Structuralists and Post-Structuralists carried along the torch of language, as the starting point
in any literary theory. Academic, was the new adjective describing literary theory, and it was
no longer the romantics idealistic escape, but an intellectually superior caste superior in the
understanding of literature and its laws. The context and meaning of a work were not
1

Arbitrariness as first used by Saussure

Petrusevska 4
mistaken for its principal attributes. And the whole cannon of literary theorists is governed
by the anxiety of influence present since the beginning of culture. The terminology is a bit
more creative than the one in the sciences, and terms are used in an undefined ambiguous
manner2. And this is precisely what causes the problems in the first place; this arbitrariness of
terms leaves no space to define the issues.
The conclusion of all of these perspectives has culminated in the postmodernism, a
time when all the boundaries are blurred. The meaning of a certain text is forever-changing
and this activity of production is endless. Its evolution is able to even catch itself off guard
and elevate or disfigure in an instant. Those basic and stable texts which we all know as a
part of the humanities and sciences keep meaning at bay, by principles of common
knowledge. But since they themselves profess to hold a familiar structure which is constant
and generally known, the implication takes this claim further, encompassing that which is not
mentioned in them, whether it is thus prohibited, or excluded in the interest of control. The
connotation is there and the mind races after the language, going back and forth, not always
consciously.
Physics and Literary Theory
all the metaphysical determinations of truth, and even the one
beyond metaphysical onto-theology that Heidegger reminds us of, are more or
less immediately inseparable from the instance of the logos, or of a reason
thought within the lineage of the logos, in whatever sense it is understood
(Derrida 10)
In his monumental Literary Theory: An Introduction (1983) Terry Eagleton, makes
a statement in his preface, which I would very much like to point out. He says that there are
2

Not a natural use once more arbitrariness makes an appearance

Petrusevska 5
some who complain that literary theory is impossibly esoteric - who suspect it as an arcane
elitist enclave somewhat akin to nuclear physics. (vii-viii)
A true borrower (some of you might even say deconstructionist) will neglect the point
Terry makes here, and will use some of its connotations necessary for his/her theory. So with
this sentence taken out of context, we can imagine it to relate to the recent contributions to
literary theory by quantum mechanics, theory of relativity and chaos theory, which verify that
it is even easier to make use of a theory which promises to unite all these. Another thing we
must hark, is that the unifying described here doesnt subdue the identity of any of the other
theories, on the contrary it is a sort of a silver tray upon which they can be bared and
scrutinized even deeper, and to a degree gives them some perceivable attributes needed, if we
are to make use of them.
The current fixation of all natural sciences is to find a grand unification theory (GUT)
of everything; very similar to the way literary theory was handled from the twentieth century
onwards. In 2007, an enthusiastic surfer and physician, Garrett Lisi posted to the physics
arXiv on November 6, a paper titled Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything which
promises to unify all the fundamental forces in nature, on a subatomic level. The title it self is
a word-play, a touch of the influence of language, a pun of the algebraic group used the E8.
This is effectively one of the most complicated lie groups3, a 248 dimensional symmetric
group with a very beautiful geometric structure. The dark labyrinths of this numerical
endeavour would represent for the blind traveller a very risky and uncertain path, but in order
for us not to get tangled in the depths of mathematics and keep this explanation of the theory
simple, we shall keep only to the essential principles of this far reaching theory. I would also

Lie groups lie at the intersection of two fundamental fields of mathematics: algebra and geometry. A Lie group
is first of all a group. Secondly it is a smooth manifold which is a specific kind of geometric object. The circle
and the sphere are examples of smooth manifolds. Finally the algebraic structure and the geometric structure
must be compatible in a precise way.

Petrusevska 6
like to introduce a term used in physics and many other sciences, which would in my opinion
fit the occasion a particle.
When speaking of particles in this context we must first discharge them of the
syntagmatic protocol of grammatical meaning they carry. In grammar a particle is a function
word mostly used to encode grammatical categories (such as negation, mood or case), fill or
facilitate discourse. While the particles we are trying to put forth into this paper, through
Lisis theory, are a slightly different model which combines the physical and metalingual
attributes found in discourse. A particle here would be a certain instance of meaning mapped
out4 from when it appeared, charged with meaning, related to other of its kind and
overlapping with many more, as it makes its way through discourse and time. It doesnt leave
a trail behind it, it is hard for us to testify its existence, but we identify it by all the elements it
interacts with, by what it contains inside it, and by what it excludes in the process. This is the
very element that is called by many names intertextuality (not only in the sense of a certain
structure of texts, but on an even bigger scale), differance, and it is not perceivable precisely
because of these properties. These meaning carriers can be letters, words or sentences, as
indefinable and temporal as they always were.
As to the appearance of this particle, one should imagine it as a ring-like model, a sort
of a cloud of meaning and language which surrounds a certain object or sensation. We can
draw this conclusion closer to our understanding if we begin to contemplate the way meaning
accumulates. Lets imagine an item that we see for the first time, and know nothing about.
This item will represent our temporary core on to which we start to give attributes, we place it
into language (denotate it), and then as time passes more and more connotations5 are added.

The mapping out is only mentioned here as an introduction to the further development of the relations between
these two theories
5
Words and meanings must have had a core at some point; it has just been dislocated

Petrusevska 7
By now we have created a sort of a ring of meaning, which expands constantly and
escapes our control, as it matures. But according to all the data we have extracted so far, as to
how language and meaning behave, it is logical that the centre (our core object) is eventually
shifted, moved and then tossed about. The remaining shape is what our particle looks like,
with the object still existing independently of it, but now we have before us two shapes
instead of one. This new particle is further influenced by many charges and factors, some of
which are the author, reader, critic, theoretician, translator; the society they live in, their
psychological disposition and knowledge of the individual work and the world around them
and etc. In this model we can keep some structures which dont take them selves too seriously
and are governed by some objective laws, which also alternate.
There is place for Jakobsons models of communication and functions of the
language, Frys mythology and many others, keeping their first meaning and upgrading and
developing it further. It is similar to deconstructive reading, because it realizes the
decentralization of meaning and uses this knowledge to import new dynamics into the
process.

The way in which these particles interact is something along these lines: they cross
section each other, a new sphere orbiting along that cross section, a process repeated gazillion

Petrusevska 8
times. This allows them to form a model similar to the E8, and representing these interactions
through its sacred geometrical shape would not be wrong; to a certain extent encouraged to
help us show how the whole work/text is constructed on a larger scale. When we observe it,
we dont see just the sections, but make out a group of meanings clustered in an area, a
jumble of fibres which cant successfully be singled out. Instead each one is caught in the
midst and torn between all the other possibilities. In a way it represents the easiest way to
regard the different realities and feel them, not being threatened by the same, but just to
experience something different and change our own context.
For Jacques Derrida one of the most important traits is the "iterability" of these
particles (off course he doesnt use the term particles). What this means is that the usage of
these particles must be repeatable, if comprehensible. The way this model combines it all
together, the different levels of interaction, the constant movements of the model and all the
connections possible in all the dimensions leaves room for the predicting of further aspects
discovered. Derrida blames Saussure for separating meaning into two concepts: signifiers and
signified and knows that thus doesnt account for all the alternatives included (this
paradoxically includes those not included) in one particle of language. Our argument to this
quarrel is that their structure is not original, nor has remained so diachronically, but was
expanded, stretched out, rotated, and has been stimulated and dealt upon.
A propos the E8, where Garrett Lisi talks about spinning all the particles assembled,
first in four dimensions based on the fundamental charges (electromagnetic, weak, strong,
and gravitational forces) and keeps on adding dimensions to this model, with new particles
and new charges emerge in each, and from then on the model cant help but expand further
with each new dimension observes how the symmetries relate to each other, and how the
previous broken symmetry of a lets say six-dimensional model, fits into a new seven-

Petrusevska 9
dimensional model and regains its symmetry. And this is very similar to how literary theories
were developed through the centuries. Each new theory tried to fix the broken symmetry of
its predecessor, being able to look at its strengths as well as its weaknesses from a new
perspective.

(A 2-D representation of E8)

At the turn of literature theory in the 19th and 20th century, its main concerns lay in the
attempt of setting things in a defined system, something graspable and not relying writing
simply on intuition. However this was the very problem that didnt allow them to push
through any system and things pretty much remained along the same lines for a longer period,
because there was always something uncanny about it, some unexplained trace and meaning
left behind, as deconstruction has been kind enough to point out. So the scales it took were
humongous and spread out so widely, that all sense was lost, and with it the essence of
literature. What poststructuralists tend to overlook is that, even though in todays world
words only refer to other words, some beginning must have existed, language has been made
metaphysical but was not always so. The difficulties in understanding the meaning of words
are merely unpractical and with that rendered elusive.
In light of this physics model, one might get the hope that it is possible to present all
of these systems and interactions in a single image. This single image, that might be able to

Petrusevska 10
make them palpable is borrowed from the, the E8 model we have been talking about, an eight
dimensional charge space next in line which is a map of all known particles as well as some
which havent been foreseen yet. Considering the literary particles we have been discussing,
we know that are not a part of a solid structure and are constantly moved about by charges.
Given their large number we cant keep track of them all, but just acknowledge their
existence as such, and be responsive to their metonymical and metaphorical properties. These
scientific theories dont really explain how everything works together, rather how each
force operates.
It is in the presentation of such a complex instantaneously which gives that sense
of sudden liberation; that sense of freedom from time limits and space limits; that sense of
sudden growth, which we experience in the presence of the greatest works of art. (Pound, A
Few Don'ts by an Imagiste)
Some of the weaknesses of theory can be lessened by using this method. The fact is
that theorizing about things has replaced actual creating of literary works to be studied and
these critics, paraphrasing, as well as the writers who deal exclusively with writing have been
affected and have no peace of mind. Literary theory no longer deals with the writing of
works, but with the subsequent criticizing and categorizing of them. There are some like Eliot
and Pound who realize this and insist that such endeavours should be brought to a minimum.
Deep mental processes and the surface expressions of deep social structures were
drawn as conclusions and summaries in many theories, and I guess that the cross sections in
our model would be what one calls the general markings of a text, but we must keep in mind
that they are just the most obvious ones. As we can clearly see, there are so many factors at
stake that it is a painstaking job to go through them all.

Petrusevska 11
To give a specific example of the charges I mentioned, influencing the on-and-about
of this particle, one can be identified as the dynamic principle introduced by Formalism,
meaning that whenever some material (and by material we mean what ever has accumulated
in that particle up until that moment) is acted upon, often transforms its appearance due to
this charge.. This is also a concept accepted in Structuralism and Post-structuralism, and here
it is one of the ways in which the meaning is added onto these particles. Whats more is that
here they didnt just have in mind the basic materials, but also the form and this allows us
to take all these effects into action. New Critics believed that the only historical approach that
is valid is the one regarding the history of words and their meaning, rather than the outside
circumstances. This model encompasses them both, the history of meaning is situated in the
principal particle, and the outside social and historical factors are the charges that move it
about.
What must be remembered is that in the very midst of the existence of everything,
there is a difference (differance). An event unfolding could really go both ways, and a
meaning of a word, or a work can also never fully bring its meaning forth, nor can a reader.
One can only move along an endless chain of signifiers and constantly rotate and alter his
credentials. But it is important for a person to be aware of the existence all those possibilities,
even if it is not the most natural thing in the world for him. This is why this first principle
unites these two theories, because it propheses to showcase the existence of these
heterogeneous features which govern the production of these alternatives and how much they
could alter and swivel between themselves.
And this is what literary theorists have come down to as well, that one meaning, one
interpretation, criticism and theory simply doesnt suffice in getting a hold of a wok of art and
that although it is not possible to escape all the different factors regarding the movings of a

Petrusevska 12
literary work, we must try to explore as many of its different possibilities as we can. We can
compare this to the way in which we perceive colour (which is by far one of the most
arbitrary elements of language) in short, objects absorb light which contains the whole
spectrum of shades in it, and the one that we do see, is the only one reflected by it. It is the
same with texts. Each writing paradoxically includes with in it self the things it does consist
of, and the ones which it leaves out at the same time.
No more are we faced with the spiraled time line of our Babylonian ancestors, and are
very far from the linear view, but are at the centre of a new age, a timeless zone. This is a
zone where time as we perceive it does not exist, but it is all around us, present, past and
future gathered into one space, and the events are not determined by perceivable factors, but
by their own intricate charges, forces, motivators, differences and influences. Quantum
physics says everything that can happen does, and this is true from many perspectives, so
we have all the right in the world to borrow this saying for our literary work.
In view of the many possibilities offered by the quantum world and in light of the
present disposition towards boundaries and definites, we mustnt allow our theories of
literature to elude our grasp and turn into a complete jumble. I do want you to note that I am
not speaking of extensive control, but of making it palpable (perceptible) so that readers,
writers, critics, theorists and translators are able to brush their fingers through it, as if they are
leaning over the boat and dipping their hand in the water. They can feel the pressure of the
water, and pass through it, but it is all very momentary. In a matter of seconds all traces, of
ones hand being there, disappear. Our reality is continually branching into different
possibilities, but they are not evident. We can hardly be aware of them all in the same
moment, but can perhaps stretch our horizon to encompass more in the same frame or even
give them space to appear, one at a time.

Petrusevska 13
Whether this theory proves true or not, and if it can really show the interaction of the
different particles, we can still use this blueprint of universality to view the interactions of
different works regarding the charges (factors) and between each other. However I am well
aware that one theory may be obsolete as soon as it is in print, because the evolution doesnt
pause at will. What I do hope is that this model will allow us to predict and live space for
changes and expansions in the near future, or at least long enough for this attempt to get some
use. Cause perception of something we are studying is necessary, we can not walk
somewhere with all of our senses excluded, we need to get a feel of it at least, how ever
elusive it may be, and that is what is necessary. I think all of us have been doing this for a
long time. Pulling threads from different theories, using and noting all the factors we can, in
order to properly translate the text we have been given, and not to feel like the constant
intruder. We need to feel at ease, to manage our own understanding and put it in some order
(not hierarchical) so that we can access one thought/aspect at a time and that will allow
further development and make up for past sins.

Petrusevska 14
Works Cited
1.

Derrida, Jacques. Of grammatology. Johns Hopkins Univ Pr, 1998. 10.

Google Books.

2.

"A Few Don'ts by an Imagiste by Ezra Pound [article/magazine]." Poetry

Foundation. Web. 22 Apr. 2011.
<http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/article/335>.

Images Cited
1. "Google for E8." http://www.jcrows.com. Web. 21 Apr 2011.
<http://www.jcrows.com/e8.html>.