Rating: 
Summary: misunderstands hermeneutics
Review: The author makes claims about hermeneutics which people in the business would not accept from an undergraduate. Has good use as a survey if one's looking to get a quick sense of common misunderstandings about hermeneutics, phenomenology, and more explicitly philosophical forms of literary criticism.For a much more conceptually sound intro to lit crit, there is none better than Hazard Adams' Critical Theory Since Plato.
Rating: 
Summary: good, thorough, 'til you get to the final dia . . . errr, ch
Review: the last chapter that is. a great, simple overview over 20th century lit theory until eagleton attempts self-defense without cause or justification fearing those who already knew him as a socialist was subjecting the readers to his theories. no, a great objective overview followed by a personal refutation.
Rating:
Summary: A good theory primer
Review: This book has deservedly become something of a standard primer on "literary theory" for advanced undergraduates and graduate students alike. Eagleton's incisive, wry humor is never far from the surface of his text, and it certainly eases the process of studying an often hopelessly dry and abstract subject.
Be warned that there are a few sloppy typographical errors, even in the second edition: e.g., "out" for "our" on the very first page of the text and "what" for "want" on page eight. Eagleton's writing itself, though, is usually clear and brisk. His style, like his wit, helps to minimize the obscurity and onanistic jargon usually associated with contemporary theory.
A standard objection to this book is that it is somehow tainted by Eagleton's own Marxist leanings. Indeed, Eagleton argues both explicitly and implicitly for Marxist interpretation of literature and history throughout his book, but he is also candid about doing so, and any astute reader will notice and ignore, if he or she chooses, the ideological slant.
If you wish to gain a general overview of developments in literary theory during the past 100 years, you could do worse than to pick up Eagleton's clear and eminently readable book.
Rating: 
Summary: Oxford don on his soapbox
Review: This book is completely mistitled. I read it to find out more about modern literary theories so that I could get a feel for which theories might be congenial to me and then go on to study them in detail. Instead, I found a tendentious attack on all the main theories of this century, whose point is to prove them all useless.Often more space was taken up with extrapolating in the most ridiculous terms a theory's political bias, even if (as was almost always the case) the theory was not overtly concerned with politics at all. The book's point, made in the first chapter, that English as a subject of university study is only about a century old, is valid and interesting--but hardly developed at all, in spite of the pages devoted to it, because Eagleton's own vitriol keeps getting in the way. A typical leftwing intellectual, full of elitist pride in his own intellect and a kind of incredibly misguided romanticism about "socialism". His lectures may have have been engaging, as another reviewer says, but his ideas are idiotic.
Rating:
Summary: Could be a great book if it weren't for the author
Review: This world is missing an accessible yet accurate and complete adult introduction to literary theory. Eagleton has attempted to fill the void, but, as the old proverb says (or ought to have said if ever there was such a proverb), "never trust a marxist." Just reading the preface, you know you are in for trouble. Eagleton expresses his surprise that his book should find a readership beyond university literature departments. He takes this as proof that literary theory, though difficult, is not elitist. He then writes "Those who complain of the difficulty of such theory would often .... not expect to understand a textbook of biology or chemical engineering straight off. Why then should literary studies be any different?" Why, Mr. Eagleton? Let me count the ways why: (1)because people (generally) read literature for pleasure, and though chemical engineers might derive a certain pleasure from their work, I venture to say that chemical engineers in their free time do not engineer new chemicals while sitting on the beach on their Acapulco vacations; (2) the simple fact that literary studies has been elevated to the level of university academic department does not mean that it must be taught with the same rigour and difficulty as the sciences (if we were elevate "interior design" to the level of university study, as has been done at many schools, must it by definition be as difficult and require as many years of study to master as physics or mathematics?); (3) the sciences, by their charge, must expand man's knowledge... scientific research that simply confirms what we already know is of considerably less value than research that yields new knowledge... it is problematic (to understate things) to level the same charge on those who would dare to talk about books... (what is wrong with simply wanting to talk about new books instead of having the burden of saying new things about old books?); (4) efforts to raise literature studies to the level of a rigorous science requiring years of formal schooling is itself an elitist project; (5) in acting surprised that people outside of academia would buy his book, Eagleton misses the point that people read books and talk about reading books, whether academia exists or not, and if people who read books outside of academia feel the desire to read a book like Eagleton's, it stems from a combination of curiosity to understand literature better and curiosity to understand why literature academics make such a fuss over their field of knowledge; (6) to suggest that non-academics are an unintended, and surprisingly unexpected secondary audience to his book suggests that Eagleton himself is an ivory tower snob (who but an academic elitist would be surprised that non-academics are interested in literature... I would have thought it was a given in any moderately literate society). Wow! All of this, and I haven't even started reviewing chapter 1 yet. As a survey, I think Eagleton has succeeded in giving a succint, mostly accurate summary of many different theorists' positions and the context within which such positions were put forward. As other reviewers have said, however, he does wander into dialectical materialist explanations for most everything. In the afterward he suggests that Derrida was a nessary & logical effect of the same social forces that caused the infamous Paris student uprisings of 1968. I have a tough time accepting that anyone is the causal product of their environment to the degree that Eagleton suggests. My recommendation is that you read this book critically, keeping in check the biases and attitudes of the author, and then use the excellent bibliography at the end of the book to explore directly the writings of the theorists whose apparent positions most coincide with your own feelings about literature (and don't be afraid if the theorists you like the best are the theorists Eagleton despises the most...) and continue your reading from there.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent; fulfills its mission
Review: to be an introduction to literary theory, plainly worded, with great (mostly marxist) challenges to the theories presented throughout the book. One of my favorite parts is his criticism (following his explanation) of deconstructionism. "It allows you to drive a coach and horses through everybody else's beliefs while not saddling you with the inconvenience of having to adopt any yourself. It is, in effect, an invulnerable position, and the fact that it is also purely empty is simply the price one has to pay for this." This mild sarcastic humor is great, it is his instructive method. On structuralism, he talks about how the fact that it goes AGAINST common sense is one of its strong points, as he slyly decapitates common sense: "The world is pretty much as we perceive it, and our way of perceiving it is the natural, self-evident one. We know he sun goes round the earth because we can see that it does..."
It progressively gets more and more 'marxist' but never really explains marxist literary theory, kind of egging you on to buy his other books in a way. A good bibliography, too.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent; fulfills its mission
Review: to be an introduction to literary theory, plainly worded, with great (mostly marxist) challenges to the theories presented throughout the book. One of my favorite parts is his criticism (following his explanation) of deconstructionism. "It allows you to drive a coach and horses through everybody else's beliefs while not saddling you with the inconvenience of having to adopt any yourself. It is, in effect, an invulnerable position, and the fact that it is also purely empty is simply the price one has to pay for this." This mild sarcastic humor is great, it is his instructive method. On structuralism, he talks about how the fact that it goes AGAINST common sense is one of its strong points, as he slyly decapitates common sense: "The world is pretty much as we perceive it, and our way of perceiving it is the natural, self-evident one. We know he sun goes round the earth because we can see that it does..."
It progressively gets more and more 'marxist' but never really explains marxist literary theory, kind of egging you on to buy his other books in a way. A good bibliography, too.
Rating: 
Summary: What is wrong with a little Eagleton-ism?
Review: To the reviewer who defended Eagleton: let me point out the fundamental flaw of Eagleton's (and most Marxist/post-structuralist) thinking: In the introduction Eagleton tells us that disinterested statements of fact such as "This cathedral was built in 1612" are in fact subjective value judgements. He writes, "in this sense, there is no possibility of a wholly disinterested statement." "The claim that knowledge should be 'value-free' is itself a value-judgement." I ask myself, are these not themselves statements of fact? If we accept as true statements the above statements, does that mean that the truth content of such statements is nil? Eagleton's (subjective) point is that the truth content is irrelevant because we cannot escape the subjectivity of the statements. The only way out of the vicious circle is to assume that somehow, Eagleton's "subjective value-judgements disguised as statements of fact" get closer to the truth than other statements of fact made by others. But what does that imply? That Eagleton's values are more truthful than other people's values. So Eagleton has built a logical castle on the principal that if you are to accept Eagleton's arguments regarding judgements and statements of fact as true, this means that anything Eagleton says is more true than what someone else who denies the subjectivity of statements of fact could say. Therefore, in a whirlpool of circularity, you have to accept Eagleton as right a priori if you are to engage in his arguments at all. But if he is write, there is nothing to contest and the case closes with Eagleton having the first, last, and final word... all because you accepted his statement that statements of fact are subjective value judgements in the intro of this book.
Rating:
Summary: The marxist view on a simple explanation
Review: Usually, it is hard to find books about literary theory that give an easy point of view to nonacademic readers. Eagleton achieves a simple yet complete explanation of the main literary theories of 20th. century. Even though he sustains a MArxist point of view he is able to explain and recognize the most important achievements of each current. I think the best of his ideas is that we should take a position when we talk about literature. Excellent book for beginners
Rating:
Summary: misunderstands hermeneutics
Review: Utterly remarkable! I had always believed that literary criticism was crap written by literary critics for other literary critics. And, in the long run, it served no purpose whatsoever but to provide tenures for think-alike professors. LITERARY THEORY proves this point. Whether you agree with his flavor of literary theory or not, Terry Eagleton has done readers of literature an invaluable service by ripping down the thin veneers of all the "ism" schools of criticism. One by one, feminism, structuralism, and all the others are set up and knocked down. And what's also remarkable is that Eagleton, whose vocabulary and knowledge could shame most self-professed experts, wrote this book with an ease and a humor that make it accessible to anyone interested in the subject. The introduction alone is a priceless essay.
|
