Literary Theory: An Introduction

Rating:
Summary: Answers to vital questions
Review: "Can a chimaera bombinating in the void be nourished on secondary intentions?" Professor Eagleton not only convinces me that it can, but also that it would be highly reactionary to believe otherwise. Highly recommended to all those engaged in a Marxist critique of the standard bourgeois analysis of this issue.

Rating:
Summary: "The End Of English?"
Review: "Literary Theory" is a good introduction to a dead field. That field is not merely "literary theory," a field which many have been announcing the death of since the late 70s, but also "Literature" itself, which is currently emitting its death-rattle. One can hear that rattle in Eagleton's book, which spends a portion of its time detailing the growth of English literature as a subject. It might surprise some to know that English as an academic discipline is only a hundred years old or so. That fact is I think a very, very dangerous one; it would not surprise me to hear, maybe sooner than you might think, that English has been thrown out of the university entirely. Certainly, the Sokol Affair has already raised some alarm bells. In any case, "Literary Theory" is a good introduction to the subject for the undergraduate or beginning grad student--but I would warn you people, get into computer science now before it is too late.

Rating:
Summary: Only experts need apply. . .
Review: "Literary Theory" was one of the least useful books I've read in my career as a literature student. What poses as a general reader on theory studies instead gives Eagleton a forum for glorifying an academic elite. His eagalitarian stance aims to keep the "common folk" out of the white tower of academia. He is condescending and unwelcoming from the first chapter on, destroying any chance of engaging his LITERARY ideas. A sad waste of a potentially hepful book.

Rating:
Summary: To the reader from Chicago
Review: ... Who praises this work as the death knell of English as a study and advises us to start studying computer science, I have one thing to say: Get real! Eagleton's point may be that literature and literary theory are illusions, but only as defined, delimited objects, not as fields worthy of study or of methodologies worth to study with. Yes, the Sokal affair showed that often academics can become too wrapped up in their own jargon and ideology that they fail to see the obvious that may be 2 inches from their face, or may overlook the glaringly nonsensical in favor of trying to impress with their erudition. But is the realm of science free from such hoaxes? Were people bemoaning the death of physics when Cold Fusion was debunked? For someone who claims to enjoy Eagleton's book, your opinion seems like just the kind of capitalist market-centered hegemony that Eagleton decries: if it can't earn you a buck, it ain't worthwhile.
Anyway... I can't add much to the rest of the debate on this book, but my personal opinion is that it is a valuable text for an introduction to literary theory, especially one particular view of literary theory. But, by no means should anyone take this book as their chief and only source of literary criticism. It gives short shrift to many critical schools, especially those which Eagleton dislikes. Read this, read Norton's anthology, read other introductions, read the original works by the critics discussed... read read read.

Rating:
Summary: To the reader from Chicago
Review: ... Who praises this work as the death knell of English as a study and advises us to start studying computer science, I have one thing to say: Get real! Eagleton's point may be that literature and literary theory are illusions, but only as defined, delimited objects, not as fields worthy of study or of methodologies worth to study with. Yes, the Sokal affair showed that often academics can become too wrapped up in their own jargon and ideology that they fail to see the obvious that may be 2 inches from their face, or may overlook the glaringly nonsensical in favor of trying to impress with their erudition. But is the realm of science free from such hoaxes? Were people bemoaning the death of physics when Cold Fusion was debunked? For someone who claims to enjoy Eagleton's book, your opinion seems like just the kind of capitalist market-centered hegemony that Eagleton decries: if it can't earn you a buck, it ain't worthwhile.
Anyway... I can't add much to the rest of the debate on this book, but my personal opinion is that it is a valuable text for an introduction to literary theory, especially one particular view of literary theory. But, by no means should anyone take this book as their chief and only source of literary criticism. It gives short shrift to many critical schools, especially those which Eagleton dislikes. Read this, read Norton's anthology, read other introductions, read the original works by the critics discussed... read read read.

Rating:
Summary: If you only read one book about literary theory...
Review: ...who would blame you? Still, the educated layperson who wants to bump their understanding of contemporary literary criticism up to a respectable cocktail party level probably can't do much better than Eagleton's slim, thoroughly accessible introduction to the subject. "Literary Theory" traces the history of literature as a subject of academic study from English Romanticism, through Saussure and semiotics, all the way to the fashionable heavy-hitters of postmodernism. Neither an acolyte nor a debunker, Eagleton gives each theory a clear explanation and a fair shake in crisp, jargon-free prose. He is up front about his own ideological slants (feminist, Marxist), and although the last of these can at times make him sound quaintly Cold War, at no point does he drop into didacticism. This is a book that truly lives up to its subtitle.

Rating:
Summary: a good introduction, but with qualifications
Review: A blurb on the back cover of my copy of this book states that it is an excellent way to introduce the reader to the main trends in literary theory "in one day." I think that description is justified: the theories are covered in a lucid, readable style. It is also pointed out that Eagleton does not attempt an unbiased approach in this book. This, also, is true, and is not objectionable, until the last twenty pages or so. In these latter pages, Eagleton states he is not going to promulgate his own Marxist views on literature; but a careful examination of his end matter will reveal that he is arguing dialectically and materialistically, and dialectical materialism is, after all, Marxist. Eagleton has thus, to an extent, been intellectually dishonest with his reader. The only other major flaw is that he spends too little time on feminist literature. However, in terms of a good, general work on literary theory's essentials, this book is still quite adequate, and is refreshingly free of the English scholar's claustrophobic jargon which mars so much criticism these days.

Rating:
Summary: enlightening and Marxist
Review: A well-written obituary to modern literary theories. In the introduction, the author reveals his Marxist position, which is further elaborated in the final chapter. In between, the author stabs and thrusts with Marxist dagger non-Marxist oriented theories, including:New Criticism,"a recipe for political inertia, and thus for submission to the political status quo";Reception theory,"a simple fantasy bred in the minds of those who have spent to long in the classroom";Structuralism,"the dupe of an alienated theory of scientific practice";Yale school of Deconstruction,"who has managed to get rid of all his cards and sit with empty hands";just to name a few. But Marxism is more like a double-edged sword. The reader should always remind him/herself that "your (Eagleton's) finger only 'points' within a certain interpretation I make of what your are doing, one which leads me to look at the object indicated rather than up your arm."

Rating:
Summary: a remarkably simple introduction
Review: Eagleton gives us, what I believe to be, one of the most simple introductions to the topic of Literary Theory currently availiable. Granted, he does employ the jargon of theorists and infuses arguements with an obvious Marxist slant. I think, though, that we can forgive his bias. At least he is forthcoming in admitting he has one. Eagleton's arguments against many of the theories described within allows us to see that these theories, while providing useful tools for interpreting literary works, do not exist without failings. If teachers preface a study of Eagleton with a disclaimer making students aware of his Marxist bias, I do believe that this book would serve as one of the best texts for introducing literary theory to students, especially undergraduate students.

Rating:
Summary: A good survey flawed by Eagleton's Marxism
Review: Eagleton's introduction to literary theory is extremely accessible, but reflects his own, tragically outmoded, Marxist biases to a degree that is almost comic. Particularly entertaining is Eagleton's paranoia that a critic might have 'Christian leanings', where his language is oddly reminscent of that used by the right about Communism. English Literature seems tragically prone to taking up ideas ignored by other disclipines (Derrida, after all, is largely ignored by fellow philosophers, and Foucault by historians, but both exert a strange influence in Eng. Lit); witness that Marxist theory is still being taken seriously here. Overall, though, you could do a lot worse, and Eagleton's commentary is always amusingly acerbic.