Marxism and Literary Criticism

by Terry Eagleton

Is Marx relevant any more? Why should we care what he wrote? What difference could it make to our reading of literature? Terry Eagleton, one of the foremost critics of our generation, has some answers in this wonderfully clear and readable analysis. Sharp and concise, it is, without doubt, the most important work on literary criticism that has emerged out of the tradition of Marxist philosophy and social theory since the nineteenth century.

Genres: Nonfiction, Literary Criticism, Philosophy, Theory, Literature, Politics, Criticism

96 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1976

About the author

Widely regarded as England's most influential living literary critic & theorist, Dr. Terry Eagleton currently serves as Distinguished Professor of English Literature at the University of Lancaster and as Visiting Professor at the National University of Ireland, Galway. He was Thomas Warton Prof. of English Literature at the University of Oxford ('92-01) & John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature at the University of Manchester 'til '08. He returned to the University of Notre Dame in the Autumn '09 semester as Distinguished Visitor in the English Department.

He's written over 40 books, including Literary Theory: An Introduction ('83); The Ideology of the Aesthetic ('90) & The Illusions of Postmodernism ('96).
He delivered Yale's '08 Terry Lectures and gave a Gifford Lecture in 3/10, titled The God Debate.

Reviews

[Traveller · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very concise indeed. (I read it in almost a single sitting.) Pretty much concerned with form to the exclusion of almost anything else.

Eagleton looks at quite a lot of Marxist critics, but he seems to relate to them in this book mainly as far as form is concerned, and this doesn't even mean just genre, but also form of production-- you know, literature or "text" as a form of production as in: is it written by a lone author and distributed by hand from a small press, or is it a mass- produced thing written by many authors and other staff like history researchers and so on, and disseminated on a mass scaled platform such as mass media like television or the internet.

So it was reasonably interesting, but I guess not really what I was looking for with regard to "literary criticism'. It smacks more of communication science to me, to be honest.

In other words, it seems to be a Marxist treatment of human aesthetics as a production form and as product. (Eagleton looks at treating literature itself as a saleable product, where the writers are workers, and words and language their tools. Publishers then, would be the exploiters.)

..but what about people who write purely for pleasure or recognition or to prove a point, or for a myriad other reasons than making money out of it?

Also, where an author self-publishes--does he/she become both worker and exploiter at the same time?

[Hungry Rye · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was very interested. I never knew that there was a Marxist strain of literary criticism and I think the author did a good job of explaining the essences of what it is , different theorists, and the importance of Marxist literary criticism for the Revolution.

[Momina · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have some preconceived notions regarding books on theory, and there are things that I simply cannot help expecting from them. Clarity and communicability of thought might not be among them (you can’t ever get so lucky) but at least I expect some literary examples and their commentaries to go with the philosophy. It makes the theory way more accessible that way. Eagleton writes splendidly, considering especially that Marxism in itself is not an easy subject to tackle. He definitely does a good job of it. But essays overlap each other without reserve; hardly does one concept settle in your brain that another begins and it becomes hard to reconcile them. This book seems to be rushed as if the writer had a word count in mind to meet. Anyway…

One of the central concepts of Marxist literary theory, and which deeply interested me, is that of art being a construct contingent on prevailing social conditions. It seems actually elementary considering the base-superstructure dichotomy: being part of the concomitant superstructure, aesthetic sensibility is somehow influenced if not an outright result of economic conditions.

"Literary works are not mysteriously inspired, or explicable simply in terms of their authors’ psychology. They are forms of perception, particular ways of seeing the world; and as such they have a relation to that dominant way of seeing the world which is the ‘social mentality’ or ideology of an age. That ideology, in turn, is the product of the concrete social relations into which men enter at a particular time and place; it is the way those class-relations are experienced, legitimized and perpetuated. Moreover, men are not free to choose their social relations; they are constrained into them by material necessity—by the nature and stage of development of their mode of economic production."

But is literature only a “passive” mirror for the conditions of its time, or does the superstructure also act upon the base? This debate runs through the length of the book, taking on different forms as it proceeds, but never reaching a definite conclusion. A definite conclusion might not even be possible nor is it needed. The charm of the book lies in its numerous opinions and points of view. On one hand, literature can be seen as the reification of prevailing ideologies and, on the other hand, it defines and moulds these ideologies as it explores them.

"Two extreme, opposite positions are possible here. One is that literature is nothing but ideology in a certain artistic form—that works of literature are just expressions of the ideologies of their time…. The opposite case seizes on the fact that so much literature challenges the ideology it confronts, and makes this part of the definition of literary art itself. Authentic art, as Ernst Fischer argues in his significantly entitled Art Against Ideology (1969), always transcends the ideological limits of its time, yielding us insight into the realities which ideology hides from view."

The essay on The Reflectionist Theory in this respect is very interesting but, again, inconclusive. To communicate its social conditions, for some, is one of art’s nobler endeavors while for others, it greatly reduces its value and is a great limitation. Art must not simply reflect reality as it finds it but must also provide the necessary correctives. It should be a social commentary instead of being simply a social product.

The book ends with a discussion on Walter Benjamin and Bertolt Brecht. One of the winning aspects of this book is Eagleton’s study of Brecht’s "epic theatre" and its aesthetics. Very informative, indeed.

All in all, I am not sure whether this book will be useful to the beginner though it has many interesting arguments in it. And I am also not sure whether to blame the writer for the book’s failings and its inaccessibility or the subject. Marxist theory, inarguably, is not something you can understand overnight. Sadly.

[lucía linares]

“El escritor no toma el mundo como algo dado sino que lo recrea, revelando su auténtica naturaleza de producto artificialmente construido”

estoy malísima llevo 3 días metida en casa solo consumiendo friends así que hoy he decidido poner mi cerebro a trabajar ! muy buena decisión lucía 💋! Como introducción está muy bien pk entiendes conceptos básicos y te deja con muchas ganas de más (la cantidad de cosas que tengo que leer, dios mío) Creo que si sí tienes algo de idea te dejaría queriendo más. No puedo decir mucho más allá pk no tengo conocimientos profundos sobre la mayoría de autores que trata: muchas ganas de leer sobre todo más benjamín y Brecht (y marx obvio).

Esta es la cita más relevante sobre las posibilidades de crear arte hoy en día, creo yo: “También hay que aclarar que la pregunta por cuán «progresista» debe ser el arte para tener alguna validez es una pregunta histórica, que no puede fijarse dogmáticamente para cualquier época. Hay períodos y sociedades en los que el compromiso político consciente y «progresista» puede que no sea una condición necesaria para la producción de grandes obras de arte; hay otros períodos —el fascismo, por ejemplo— en los que sobrevivir y producir como un artista conlleva la clase de cuestionamiento que puede terminar convirtiéndose en un compromiso explícito. En sociedades así, la toma de partido consciente y la capacidad de producir grandes obras van espontáneamente juntas. Tales períodos no se limitan al fascismo. Hay «fases» menos extremas de la sociedad burguesa en las que el arte queda relegado a un estatus menor, se vuelve trivial e impotente, porque las ideologías estériles de donde provienen no lo nutren de manera suficiente, incapaces de plantear conexiones significativas o de ofrecer discursos convenientes. En tales épocas, la necesidad de un arte explícitamente revolucionario se vuelve urgente. Es una pregunta para considerar con seriedad, aun si no es la época en la que nos toca vivir”!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Esto de la forma descentrada de Macherey me gusta mucho: “Para Macherey, una obra está ligada a la ideología no tanto por lo que dice como por lo que no dice. En los silencios significativos de un texto, en sus vacíos y ausencias, es donde mejor puede percibirse la presencia concreta de la ideología. La crítica debe hacer «hablar» a estos silencios. Al texto le está, por así decirlo, ideológicamente vedado manifestar determinadas cosas; y el autor, al tratar de decir la verdad a su manera, es llevado a revelar los límites de la ideología dentro de la cual escribe. Así, un texto es siempre incompleto, porque lleva inscriptos estos vacíos y silencios. Lejos de constituir un todo armonioso y coherente, despliega conflictos y contradicciones entre sentidos diferentes, y el sentido de la obra se encuentra en la diferencia más que en su unidad.”

“ Para Benjamin, el artista revolucionario no debe aceptar acríticamente las fuerzas de producción artísticas existentes, sino que debe desarrollarlas y revolucionarias. Al hacerlo, crea nuevas relaciones sociales entre el artista y su público, supera la contradicción que limita a mera propiedad privada de unos pocos las fuerzas artísticas potencialmente disponibles para todos. No se trata simplemente de imponer un mensaje revolucionario a través de los medios existentes: sino de revolucionar los medios mismos”

“Brecht no abandona el concepto de realismo. Más bien, pretende extender su alcance: “nuestro concepto de realismo tiene que ser amplio y político, soberano frente a los convencionalismos.(…) no debemos deducir el único realismo posible de ciertas obras existentes, sino usar todos los medios, viejos y nuevos, probados o por probar, los derivados del arte y los derivados de otras fuentes, para poner la realidad en manos de la gente de manera tal que la puedan controlar” !!!!!!!! Para Brecht, el realismo es menos un estilo o un género literario específico, “una mera cuestión de forma”, que una forma de de arte que descifre leyes y procesos sociales, y desenmascara las ideologías dominantes al adoptar el punto de vista de la clase que brinda las soluciones más amplias a los problemas sociales. Dicho texto no implica necesariamente verosimilitud, en el sentido limitado de recrear la textura y la apariencia de las cosas; más bien, es compatible con el uso más general de la fantasía y la invención”

Todo esto es por Chirbes, estoy demostrando una gran dedicación

[natalia · Rating 5 out of 5]

upsi dupsi olvidé esto. perfectísima introducción a la crítica marxista de la literatura que, por cierto, a menudo me suele parecer la crítica (cuando verdaderamente se enfoca en la literatura) que más verdades descubre acerca del fenómeno literario a día de hoy. el formalismo pudo servir en otros tiempos pero ya no logra explicar la literatura en su totalidad. quizás ahora me estoy dejando guiar por la euforia del examen de sociocrítica... genialísimo eagleton

[Matilda]

Ger en snabb koll på de marxistiska principerna för litteraturen. Lätt att läsa, desto svårare att helt förstå, speciellt utan förkunskaper...

[dionne sparks]

yes this was for uni but i’ve read so much for class it has to count ok 😭

[Brumaire Bodbyl-Mast · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very brief introduction into Marxist critiques of literature/the literary form, which due to its brevity feels incomplete. Eagleton’s main purpose with the book is largely to introduce readers and those interested (whilst still adding some original comparative analysis to those more familiar with the literature) to Marxist literary analysis in a fairly easy to consume, quick-read way. The book does a good job jumping between about ~5 Marxist figures to help bring a more holistic view on Marxian literary analysis, and does make the reader more interested in diving deeper, though again, some of the comparisons are surface level. Eagleton also makes a slight show of trying to say the work is “non-academic,” though focuses on relatively palatable and semi academic marxists (Lukács, who though he disagrees with partly, is a heavy focus in the book) with Stalin and the socialist realist project receiving strong condemnation, and with no discussion of Mao, whose cultural revolution programs were perhaps more quintessential to the Chinese project than prolekult was to the USSR. Overall though, a decent introduction to the subject.

[Elliot Ratzman · Rating 3 out of 5]

What did Marx, Engels and Lenin think about art and literature? As if the secrets of the universe were hidden in their letters Marxist lit critics debate the contrary implications from the masters’ marginalia. Marx was crazy well-read; Lenin wrote essays about Tolstoy; Trotsky penned a whole book on literature (“We Marxists have always lived in tradition”). That being said, Eagleton’s mercifully short book is packed with dense details. Lacking the chronic wit and vivid examples of his later writings, Eagleton explicates the big theories and theorists—Brecht, Benjamin, Lukacs—who debate the relationship between art and ideology. Is art merely a reflection of its times? What is the purpose of criticism? Can the work of reactionary authors still help the revolution? The Stalinist “cultural thug” Zhdanov might put it in instrumental terms: “if poetry can help on the harvest it can also speed up steel production.” Maybe not, but Eagleton’s station on the cross of criticism is worth a pause.

[Cep Subhan KM · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my favorite books (to be honest, I always like Eagleton's book). It is a thin book but a very siginifant one about Marxist Literary Criticism: the holy book of that issue. Eagleton classifies and maps the theory in a way that makes learning it, both historically and “thematically”, easier. But, of course, this book will bring into so many other books despite the books suggested in the end of the book. I revisit the book everytime I am going to start a research by using Marxist theory. Surely I think I will always read it again and again in my whole life.

[Bárbara Bom Angelo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sempre bom ler Terry Eagleton. O livro é uma ótima introdução aos conceitos marxistas aplicados em análises literárias. E como sempre, o autor faz questão de escrever para ser compreendido - um grande feito no mundo teórico.

[Roos Zweers · Rating 4 out of 5]

A professor recommended this theoretical introduction to Marxist literary criticism to me, when I told him about wanting to do a Marxist analysis of a novel. I can say that for the most part, Eagleton’s writing is clear and precise. It did take me a few chapters to get used to the terminology, in only four chapters there is a lot to take in. I think this requires a reread. Nevertheless, this does seem a great way to start when doing research on Marxist literary criticism.

[Nathanael Chan · Rating 4 out of 5]

i still find it crazy that what james koh taught us six years ago in sec 3 still comes in handy in uni e.g. ideology naturalises what is artificial, the reality-text-reader light ray diagram (iykyk 😂)

[Gijs Koorevaar · Rating 4 out of 5]

A decent introduction to Marxism in relation to literary criticism. It is pretty much bereft of any concrete examples, and so in that sense it stays quite abstract and impractical, but it serves as a good starting point for further reading.

[Milena Machado · Rating 5 out of 5]

Importantíssimo. Pode esclarecer para alguns o que para mim já era óbvio: não existe literatura neutra.

[Maia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Terry Eagleton, I apologize for reading you so hastily when I was nineteen. I did not know!

This time around, I thought often of the difficulties in teaching, and how frustrated Joe Cleary must have been when no one did the reading for his seminar. Isabelle's recent review on Frankenstein feels especially poignant. Of course, my own attention is far from unfettered, but I am hoping that practicing long-form, academic reading again will allow me to regain some of my ability to care.

Don DeLillo begins Libra with the following note: “Even in our time, in the sightlines of living history, in the retrieved instancy of film and videotape, there are stories waiting to be finished, open to the thrust of reasoned analysis and haunted speculation. These stories, some of them, also undergo a kind of condensation, seeping into the texture of everyday life, barely separable from the ten thousand little excitations that define a routine day of visual and aural static processed by the case-hardened consumer brain.” By laying bare the story otherwise packed into the ‘case-hardened consumer brain’, a writer reveals the conditions of exploitation underlying everyday life.

Eagleton builds upon this notion (credit here is, of course, due to Walter Benjamin as well): the Marxist novelist displays a fragmentary sense of reality, a mirror of contemporary life. By highlighting conditions of isolation, the author creates a work made complete only in the mind of their audience. Like any social product, art gains totality only through use. Art ought to expose rather than remove contradiction, stimulating the audience to remove these conditions of oppression in their world. The Marxist novel shatters any optimism regarding bourgeois life.

In Conditions of Contemporary Realism (1958), Lukács calls for the writer to move beyond merely reflecting on "the despair and ennui of late bourgeois consciousness." One ought to reveal positive possibilities for the future. Here, I struggled. What would this look like? Perhaps the answer lies in other works by Eagleton and Lukács. Please stay tuned.

Still, The Problem remains: a novel will never be a revolution. A poem is not a gun.

But, if we are to write novels, why not make them about the truth, rather than a re-enactment of illusions?

[Kyaw Zayar Lwin]

Form နဲ့ Productionတို့ရဲ့ ပြိုင်ပွဲ။
တဖက်မှာ ဟေဂဲလ်ဝါဒီဆန်တဲ့ Lukasတို့ ရှိတယ်။
အနုပညာဆိုတာ အလုံးစုံသဘော၊ပြည့်ဝတဲ့သဘောကို ပြသနိုင်ရမယ်။
သရုပ်မှန်ဖက်ကို ယိမ်းတယ်။
အရင်းရှင်စနစ်ကြောင့်ဖြစ်လာတဲ့ contradiction တွေ၊alienation တွေကနေ လွတ်မြောက်နေတဲ့ လက်ရာတခုကို ဖော်ထုတ်ပြန်ုင်ရမယ်။

တဖက်မှာတော့ ရုပ်ဝါဒီတွေဖြစ်တဲ့ ဝေါ်တာဘန်ဂျမင်နဲ့ ဘရတ်တို့ရှိမယ်။
အနုပညာလက်ရာရဲ့ ဟန်တွေ၊content တွေကိုတင် မက ဆက်စပ်ထုတ်လုပ်ပုံတွေကိုပါ တွေးခေါ်လာတယ်။
အနုပညာလက်ရာကိုယ်တိုင်ကိုက ထုတ်လုပ်ကုန်တမျိုးဖြစ်လာတော့ အခြားကုန်တွေလိုပဲ မာ့စ်ဝါဒအရ စဉ်းစားရမယ်။
Force of productionတွေ၊means of productionတွေ၊relationတွေကိုပါ ထည့်ကြည့်လာရပီ။
အနုပညာဟာ ကုန်ပစ္စည်းဆို relation ဆိုတာ ထုတ်လုပ်သူ နဲ့ လက်ခံသူကြား အချိတ်အဆက်ဖြစ်လာတယ်။
Labor powerတွေဖြစ်တဲ့ ဖန်တီးနိုင်စွမ်းဟာ အခြားဝေဖန်ရေးတွေမှာလို အဓိကနေရာမှာမရှိတော့ဘူး။
Means of production တွေဖြစ်တဲ့ ဘယ်လိုဖြန့်ချီတယ်၊ထုတ်လုပ်တယ်ဆိုတာတွေကလည်း အရေးပါလာပီ။
အနုပညာရှင်ဟာ meansကို သာမန်အတိုင်းလက်ခံလို့မရဘူး။
တော်လှန်ရမယ်။
အဲဒါမှ relationပါ ပြောင်းလဲမှာဖြစ်တယ်။

ဘန်ဂျမင်က ဘရတ်ရဲ့ အနုပညာဟာ ဘူဇွာတွေဖန်တီးတဲ့ သဟဇာတဖြစ်မှုအတုကို alienation ဖြစ်အောင်လုပ်ပီး မြင်သာစေတယ်လို့ဆိုတယ်။
ဘရတ်ရဲ့ အနုပညာမှာ relationပါပြောင်းနိုင်လိုက်တယ်။
ထုတ်လုပ်သူအနေနဲ့ပဲမနေတော့ဘူး။
ကြည့်သူဟာလည်း လက်ခံသူသက်သက်မဟုတ်တော့ဘူး။
ကိုယ်တိုင်ပါဝင်လာနိုင်တယ်။
အဲဒါမှ စစ်မှန်တဲ့သိစိတ်ကိုရလာမှာဖြစ်တယ်။

[Madhubrata · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book worked well for me at the point I stand now-only tentatively acquainted with some of what the text deals with. A great point to branch out from, in terms of starting to read more Marxist criticism.

[Alexander Pyles · Rating 3 out of 5]

A really dense primer on Marxist Criticism. I love Eagleton's writing a lot, but I believe this would have been better served on a lot of counts as a longer work. Looking forward to diving more into this field though.

[tamz · Rating 3 out of 5]

3 stars bc theory but at least eagleton makes SOME sense

[Iraultza · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ligero (es decir, corto y comprensible) y con cantidad de referencias. Como lectura introductoria me parece bastante factible

[Babak Radfar · Rating 5 out of 5]

در میانه کتاب بحثهای جالبی در باره شکل و محتوای آثار ادبی و تاثیر این دو بر هم داشت.

[Jay Rothermel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Terry Eagleton's Marxism and Literary Criticism.

1. Excerpts Pertaining to Base and Superstructure
The following paragraphs and sentences explicitly detail the Marxist concept of "base and superstructure" as it relates to literature and literary theory:

The fundamental framework:"From this economic base, in every period, emerges a 'superstructure' – certain forms of law and politics, a certain kind of state, whose essential function is to legitimate the power of the social class which owns the means of economic production. But the superstructure contains more than this: it also consists of certain 'definite forms of social consciousness' (political, religious, ethical, aesthetic and so on), which is what Marxism designates as ideology."

Art's placement within the model:"Art, then, is for Marxism part of the 'superstructure' of society. It is (with qualifications we shall make later) part of a society's ideology an element in that complex structure of social perception which ensures that the situation in which one social class has power over the others is either seen by most members of the society as 'natural', or not seen at all."
Literature as an active, non-mechanical reflection:"Literature may be part of the superstructure, but it is not merely the passive reflection of the economic base." "Engels wants to deny that there is any mechanical, one-to-one correspondence between base and superstructure; elements of the superstructure constantly react back upon and influence the economic base.

The unequal relationship between the base and art:"Marx is considering here what he calls ‘the unequal relationship of the development of material production to artistic production'. It does not follow that the greatest artistic achievements depend upon the highest development of the productive forces..."

Autonomy of elements within the superstructure:"Each element of a society's superstructure art, law, politics, religion – has its own tempo of development, its own internal evolution, which is not reducible to a mere expression of the class struggle or the state of the economy."

Form as a product of the base/content:"Forms are historically determined by the kind of ‘content' they have to embody; they are changed, transformed, broken down and revolutionized as that content itself changes. 'Content' is in this sense prior to 'form', just as for Marxism it is changes in a society's material ‘content', its mode of production, which determine the ‘forms' of its superstructure."

2. Five Important Points from the Prefaces and Each Chapter
Preface to the Routledge Classics Edition (2002)
Historical Context of Creation: The book emerged from a period of intense political radicalism (late 1960s to mid-1970s) right before Western history swung toward economic recession and political reaction (Thatcherism/Reaganism).

Survival of Marxist Critique: Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union (which Eagleton argues was not truly Marxist), Marxist critical theory remains valid because it shouldn't be judged by failed political practices, just as feminism isn't dismissed because patriarchy still exists.

Prophetic Nature of Capitalist Critique: The Communist Manifesto accurately predicted the modern 21st-century globalized market, the widening gap between the rich and poor, and the global instability that feeds modern issues like fundamentalism.

Cultural Materialism: Culture is ultimately not "what men and women live by," but political battles are inherently battles of ideas, making cultural criticism a vital battleground.
Systemic Resilience: Marxist politics have failed to break through in recent history not because capitalism has softened or changed, but because global capitalism is more pervasive, powerful, and totalizing than ever.

Original Preface (1976)
Historical Self-Awareness: Marxist criticism analyzes literature based on the historical conditions that produce it, and consequently, it must remain aware of its own historical conditions.

Rejection of Pure Academicism: There is a danger that Marxism will be sanitized into just another comfortable, "stimulating" academic approach sitting harmlessly alongside Freudian or mythological criticism.

Scientific Theory of Transformation: Marxism is fundamentally a scientific theory of human societies and the concrete practice of transforming them through the struggles of men and women against oppression.

Understanding Ideologies: Marxist criticism belongs to a larger framework of theoretical analysis aimed at understanding ideologies—the complex ideas, values, and feelings by which people experience their societies.

Literature's Unique Access: Literature is valuable to the historical struggle because certain societal ideas, values, and feelings are uniquely accessible only through literary texts.

Chapter 1: Literature and History
Marx and Engels' Literary Scope: Marx and Engels were formidably cultured individuals who deeply valued literature and laced their mature economic works with aesthetic concepts; they did not view art as a mere byproduct

Marxist Criticism vs. Sociology of Literature: Standard sociology of literature manages the means of production (publishing, literacy, taste) or treats texts as historical documentation. Marxist criticism goes deeper to fully explain a work's internal forms, styles, and meanings as products of history.

Materialist Foundation (Base/Superstructure): A society’s economic structure (forces and relations of production) forms the base from which a legal/political superstructure and definite forms of social consciousness (ideology) arise

Highly Mediated Relations: The relationship between a text and the economic base is not direct or mechanical; it is highly mediated through the author's class position, contemporary ideological shifts, available aesthetic techniques, and publication mediums.
Art and Ideological Distance (Althusser/Macherey): Art is held within ideology but manages to distance itself from it. By casting ideology into a determinate fictional form, literature exposes the limits, gaps, and silences of that ideology.

Chapter 2: Form and Content
The Ideology of Form: Lukács asserts that "the truly social element in literature is the form". Form is not just an aesthetic game; significant developments in literary form stem from shifts in historical ideology and how reality is perceived.
Primacy of Content Over Form: While dialectically related in practice, content maintains primacy over form. Changes in a society’s material content (modes of production) ultimately necessitate, shape, and revolutionize structural forms.

Lukács’ Realism vs. Naturalism: True "realism" links individualized characters to the broader "world-historical" forces of an epoch to form a complex totality. "Naturalism" (e.g., Zola) fails because it merely photographs surface details without penetrating to historical essences.
Genetic Structuralism (Goldmann): Literary works are expressions of "trans-individual mental structures" (world visions) belonging to specific social classes. The critic must dialectically move between the text, the class's world vision, and history.

Decentered Form (Macherey): Rejecting the Hegelian/Lukácsian requirement for unified "totality," Macherey argues a text is defined by its conflicts, disparities in meaning, and significant silences where ideology forbids it to speak.

Chapter 3: The Writer and Commitment
The Devastation of Stalinist Dogma: The 1934 introduction of "Socialist Realism" under Stalin and Zhdanov forced art to be explicitly propagandistic, party-minded, and overly optimistic, dealing a crippling and violent blow to genuine Soviet artistic culture.

Lenin and Trotsky’s Flexibility: Unlike Stalinist enforcement, Lenin recognized that literature requires immense imaginative freedom and that an artist's objective output matters more than their conscious philosophy. Trotsky insisted that art must be judged first by its own laws.
Objective Partisanship (Marx and Engels): Overt political commitment or solutions are unnecessary in fiction. If a writer conscientiously describes real social relations and shatters bourgeois optimism, the work is inherently and objectively partisan.

The Principle of Contradiction: A text's objective meaning can directly contradict its author’s subjective, conscious biases. For example, the reactionary Balzac produced progressive literature because his deep artistic perceptions overrode his Catholic and monarchist prejudices.
Flaws in English Reflectionism: 1930s English critics like Christopher Caudwell suffered from a theoretical confusion: they simultaneously viewed art mechanically as a passive reflex of the base, and romantically as an idealistic "dream" to spur human desire.

Chapter 4: The Author as Producer
Literature as a Capitalist Industry: Books are commodities, publishing houses are manufacturing plants, the theater is a business, and writers are wage-earning workers whose labor enriches publishers. Art is a concrete economic practice embedded in the base.

The Author within the Relations of Production (Benjamin): Walter Benjamin posited that instead of asking where a work stands with regard to the social relations of its time, we must ask where it stands within them. The revolutionary artist must actively revolutionize artistic techniques and media.

The Loss of Artistic "Aura": Technological advancements like film and photography destroy the alienating, privileged "aura" of traditional high art. Mechanical reproduction brings art closer to the masses and turns spectators into collaborators.

Brecht’s Epic Theater and Alienation: Brecht disrupted the seamless illusionism of bourgeois theater using the "alienation effect" (A-effect). By breaking organic unity through montage, song, and detached acting, he forced audiences out of passive empathy and into critical, dialectical thought.

The Author as a Worker/Transformer: Demystifying the Romantic concept of the author as a god-like "creator" who pulls art from nothing, Marxism defines the author as a producer. The author acts as a factory worker, taking pre-processed raw materials (languages, ideologies, myths) and transforming them using specific aesthetic tools.

[Peter Landau · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought I’d catch up on some reading to prepare me on how to read for the coming revolution, but then the revolution got postponed.

[Ongun]

Marksist eleştiri, yalnızca romanların nasıl yayımlandığıyla ve işçi sınıfından söz edip etmedikleri ile ilgilenen bir “edebiyat toplum bilimi“ değildir. Amacı edebi yapıtı çok daha bütünlüklü bir biçimde açıklamaktır ve bu da edebi yapıtların biçimlerine, biçimlerine ve anlamlarına hassas bir ilgi göstermek demektir.

O halde Marksist eleştirinin özgünlüğü, edebiyatı olan tarihsel yaklaşımında değil, tarihin kendisine ilişkin devrimci kavrayışında yatmaktadır.

“”Etten kemikten bir insana ulaşmak için insan insanların ne söylediklerinden, hayal ettiklerinden, kavradılarından ne de tanımlandığı, düşünüldü, hayal edildiği, kavrandığı biçimiyle insandan yola çıkılır; daha ziyade gerçekten etkin insandan yola çıkılır,… Bilinç, yaşamı belirlemez; yaşam, bilinci belirler

Üst yapı aynı zamanda Marksizmin ideoloji olarak adlandırdığı “toplumsal bilincin belli biçimleri” ni de (Siyasal, dinsel, etik, estetik, ve benzeri.) İçerir.

O halde Marksizm için sanat, toplumun “üstyapı “sının bir parçasıdır.

O halde edebiyatı anlamak, bir parçası olduğu bütün toplumsal süreci anlamak demektir.

Dahası, insanlar toplumsal ilişkilerini seçmekte özgür değildir; maddi zorunluluklar -ekonomik üretim biçimlerinin gelişim aşamaları ve doğa- tarafından sınırlandırılmışlardır.

O halde ilk nokta, bu yapıtlar ile içinde ikamet ettikleri ideolojik dünyalar arasındaki dolaylı, karmaşık ilişkileri anlamaktır; yalnızca “temalar” da ve “uğraştıkları meseleler“de değil, aynı zamanda biçem, ritim, imge, nitelik ve (daha sonra ele alacağımız) biçimde ortaya çıkan ilişkileri anlamaktır.

Çünkü bir ideoloji asla egemen sınıfın düşüncelerinin basit bir yansıması değildir. Aksine, dünyaya ilişkin çatışmalı, hatta çelişkili görüşleri kapsayan, daima karmaşık bir fenomendir. Bir ideolojiyi anlamak için o toplumdaki farklı sınıflar arasındaki belirgin ilişkileri çözümlemeliyiz ve bunu yapmak, bu sınıfların üretim biçimleri ile olan ilişkilerinde nerede durduklarını kavramak anlamına gelir.

İyi yazmak bir “biçem” meselesinden fazlasıdır; iyi yazmak aynı zamanda kişinin belirli bir durumda yaşadığı, ona nüfuz eden ideolojik bakış açısını bertaraf etmeye çalışması demektir.

Tarihe ilişkin materyalist kuram, sanatın kendi başına tarihin akışını değiştireceğini reddeder; ancak sanatın bu değişimde etkin bir öğe olduğunda da ısrar eder.

Marksist eleştiri her türden edebi biçimciliğe geleneksel olarak karşıdır; edebiyatın tarihsel önemini soyup soğana çeviren ve onu estetik bir oyuna indirgeyerek dikkati teknik özelliklere çeken biçimciliğe saldırır.

Biçimin, içeriğin biçimi olmadıkça hiçbir değeri olmadığını söylemesi estetik görüşlerine de aynı şekilde uygulanabilir. Marx, biçim ile içeriğin birlikliğini savunurken, miras aldığı hegelci geleneğe bağlı kalıyordu.

Her iki düşünür de, sanatsal biçimin birey olarak sanatçının bir parçası olan süslü hareketler olmadığı inancını paylaşır.

Ayrıca Avrupa tiyatrosu’ndaki “doğalcılık “tan “dışa vururumculu“ a doğru yaşanan kopuş, yaklaşık olarak yüzyılın sonuna doğru gerçekleşmiştir. Raymond Williams’ın ifade ettiği üzere bu kopuş sırasıyla özel “duyguların yapısı“, gerçekliği algılamanın ve tepki vermenin bir dizi geçerli yolunu barındıran belli dramatik geleneklerde bir kopuşu işaret eder

Dışavurumculuk, sıradan burjuva Dünyası’nın eksiksiz olduğunu, bu dünyanın toplumsal ilişkilerinin yanılgılarını ve çözülüşü yarıp geçen, yabancılaştırıcı simge ve fanteziler vasıtasıyla zorlayan, “normallik“ i gizleyen bölünmüş bir benlik varsayan doğalcı bir tiyatronun sınırlarını aşma gereksinimi duyar. Öyleyse bir sahne geleneğinin değişmesi, burjuva ideolojisindeki derin bir dönüşümü işaret eder; tıpkı Victoria çağının ortasındaki kendinden emin kişilik ve ilişki kavramlarının büyüyen dünyanın kapitalist krizleri karşısında tuzla buz olması gibi.

O halde yazar bir biçim seçerken, seçimi çoktan ideolojik olarak sınırlandırılmıştır. Yazar, edebi bir geleneğin ona sunduğu biçimleri kaynaştırır ve dönüştürür; ancak yazarın bu biçimleri değiştirmesinin yanı sıra biçimlerin kendisi de ideolojik açıdan önemlidir. Bir yazarın önünde hazır bulduğu söz dağarcıkları ve araçlar zaten belli ideolojik algı biçimleri ile, gerçekliği yorumlamanın belli sistemli yollarıyla dolup taşmıştır.

Marksist Lukacs’ına göre en büyük sanatçılar insan yaşamının uyumlu bütünselliğini yeniden kavrayabilen ve yeniden yaratabilenlerdir.

Kapitalizmin “yabancılaşmaları“ vasıtasıyla genel ile özelin, kavramsal ile duygusalın, toplumsal ile bireysel giderek birbirinden koptuğu bir toplumda büyük yazarlar bütün bunları diyalektik biçimde, karmaşık bir bütünlük de bir araya getirebilenlerdir.

Tarihsel “gerçekçilik“ in üç büyük dönemi antik yunan, Rönesans ve 19. yüzyıl başları Fransasıydı.

Shakespeare, Scott, Balzac ve tolstoy büyük bir gerçekçi sanat ortaya koybilmişlerdir; çünkü tarihsel bir çağın çalkantılı doğumunda var olmuşlardır ve böylelikle kendi toplumlarının canlı şekilde görülen “kendine has“ çatışmalar ve dinamikler ile çarpıcı bir biçimde ilgilenmişlerdir. Onların biçimsel başarılarının temelinde yatan, bu tarihsel “içerik “tir: Lukacs bu yazarların “yarattıkları karakterlerin zenginliği ile derinliğini bütün toplumsal sürecin zenginliğine ve derinliğine bağlı olduğunu“ iddia eder.

Hedefleri edilgen bir biçimde zaten kepazeleşmiş kapitalist dünyaya dahil olurken, Balzac insanlığın kapitalist Çözülüşüne karşı son muhteşem mücadeleyi resmetmiştir. Tarihin bu yöndeki hareketi ve anlamı, sanatta bildiğimiz adıyla doğalcılıkla sonuçlanır. Lukacs, doğalcılıkdan gerçekçiliğin tarif edilmesini; zorlanın bir örneği olduğu, toplumun yüzeydeki fenomenlerinin anlamlı özünü hesaba katmadan yalnızca fotografik bir biçimde temsil etmeyi anlar.

Titiz biçimde gözlenen detaylar “karakteristik“ özelliklerin betimlenmesi yerine geçer;; insanlar ve dünya arasındaki diyalektik ilişkiler yerine ölü bir çevreye bırakır; olumsuz nesneler karakterleri ile bağlantısını yitirir; asıl “temsili“ “karakter “vasatlık kültü“ nde biriktirilir; bireyin eyleminin asıl belirleyicisi olarak tarihten mahrum bir psikoloji ya da fizyoloji ortaya çıkar. Bu, gerçekliğe dair yabancılaşmış bir bakıştır, yazarı tarihin etkin bir katılımcısından umarsız bir gözlemciye dönüştürür.

Bolşevik parti Merkez Komitesi’nin 1928 yılında aldığı karara göre edebiyat, yazarları inşaat alanlarini ziyaret etmeye gönderen ve sistemi göklere çıkaran romanlar üretmelerini isteyen partinin çıkarlarına hizmet etmeliydi. Tüm bunlar, Stalin ile gorki tarafından uydurulan ve Stalin’in kültürel haydutu Jdanov tarafından ilan edilen “sosyalist gerçekçilik“ görüşünün resmi olarak benimsendiği, 1934’teki Sovyet yazarları kongresi ile zirve noktasına ulaştı.

Bu görüş, yazarın görevini “devrimci gelişimi içerisinde gerçekliğin tarihsel somut, hakiki bir çözümlemesini yapmak “, “sosyalizm ruhu içerisindeki işçilerin eğitimi ve ideolojik dönüşümleri sorununa “çözüm bulmak olarak belirliyordu.

Sosyalist gerçekçilik öğretisi doğal olarak Marx ile engelden geldiği iddia edilebilir; ancak asıl taşıyıcıları daha ziyade Belinski, Kearney Chefs ve Dobrý Lyubov gibi 19. yüzyıl rus “devrimci demokratik“ eleştirmenlerdir.

Belinski ve Lukacs için olduğu gibi Plehanov içinde yazar, gerçekliği “tipler“ yaratarak en anlamlı biçimde yansıtır; yalnızca bireysel psikoloji betimlemekten ziyade karakterlerinde “tarihsel bireyselliği“ ifade eder.

Enges, cıvık ve acemi işi son romanını kendisine gönderen Minna Kautsky’ye 1885’te yazdığı mektupta Siyasal eğilimi olan kurgu romanlardan hiçbir biçimde hoşlanmadığını; bir yazarın açık bir biçimde partizan olmasını yanlış bulduğunu ifade eder.

Harkness doğru bir tipselliği unutmuştur; çünkü gerçek işçi sınıfını Betimleyiş ile işçi sınıfının tarihsel rolünü ve potansiyelinin gelişimini herhangi bir anlamda bütünleştirmekte başarısız olmuştur. Bu anlamda “gerçekçi” “’den ziyade “doğalcı“ bir yapı ortaya koymuştur.

Leon truck ki sanatsal yaratımın “sanatın kendine has yasalarına uygun olarak gerçekliğin saptıılması, değiştirilmesi ve dönüştürülmesi“ olduğunu iddia etmişti.

Brecht’e göre burjuva tiyatrosu “yanılsamacılık“ temeline dayanır; burjuva tiyatrosu tiyatral performansın doğrudan dünyayı yeniden üretmesi gerektiği varsayımını sorgulamaksızın kabul ediyordu.

Burjuva Tiyatrosu’nda izleyici, “gerçek“ olarak sunulan bitmiş, değiştirilemez bir sanat nesnesinin edilgin bir tüketicisidir. Oyun, izleyiciyi yapıcı bir biçimde karakterleri ve olayları nasıl sunduğunu, bunların nasıl daha farklı olabileceğini düşünmeye teşvik etmez. Tiyatral yanılsama, üzerine inşa edildiği gerçeği gizlediğiinden kusursuzdur; bu nedenle izleyicinin hem temsil biçimine hem de eylemlerin temsil ettiklerine karşı eleştirel bir düşünce geliştirmesini engeller.

Tiyatronun görevi, sabit bir gerçekliği “yansıtmak“ değildir; karakter ile eylemin tarihsel olarak nasıl üretildiğini, geçmişte de şu anda da ne kadar farklı olduğunu göstermektedir.

Yapıt kendinde simetrik bir bütün olmamalı; aksine, tıpkı herhangi başka bir toplumsal ürün gibi yalnızca kullanım ediminde tamamlanmalıydı.

[Irshaan · Rating 4 out of 5]

holy shit, i'll never read the same way again.

thanks big T.

[Rise · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here is a concise introduction to the subject of reading socio-political "relevance" in books. Terry Eagleton surveyed the rise of Marxist literary critics and their ideas and philosophies. It began with a definition of basic concepts of Marxist lit theory (base and superstructure) and then proceeded toward a critique of early interpretations of the theory. The approach was academic and somehow lacking some specific examples. The presentation of arguments was interesting even though it mentioned a lot of critics and books I'm not familiar with. The book will be most appreciated by those who have a background on the subject and its writers, from its originators Marx and Engels, to its modern interpreters Bertolt Brecht and Walter Benjamin. Eagleton specifically approved of the types of response and criticism produced by the latter two: Brecht for his plays which were meant to be performed with complete improvisation, and Benjamin in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction – at least Eagleton convinced me to look for these books. The basic precepts and conclusions of the book ranged from the obvious (a text should not be overtly political) to the ingenious (texts are valued as much for their content as for the behind-the-scenes modes of production that went toward their publication; and also, history is an active arbiter of the relevance of literary texts, a book can be hailed as a success or failure depending on its place – or on the timing of its publication – in history).

[Manuel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good introduction to the different understandings of literature that have sprung from Marxism. Eagleton discusses the issue in four broad areas: the connection between literature and history, the issue of the form, the problem of political commitment for a Marxist approach to literature, and finally a Marxist analysis of the author as producer and literature as a process of production.

It made me want to read his Literary Theory book. It seems like he's always olny showing you the tip of the iceberg, and that he's rushing through schools and authors. For an 80 page book, it's quite an achievement what he does.

The final chapter is really the gem of the book, where Eagleton introduces and critically examines the works and ideas of Walter Benjamin and Bertolt Brecht. Here I think is where the discussion becomes really interesting, and Eagleton only hints at it, mentioning briefly the "technological determinism" problem in Benjamin's approach to literature. Indeed, Eagleton did write a book on Benjamin's literary criticism, which I intend to read soon.

Overall, great way for people that dig Marxism to approach literature, and for people who dig literary theory and criticism to approach Marxism.

[Adrian Alvarez · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a clear and lucid introduction to Terry Eagleton's discussion of Marxist theory. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in either thinker.

[Ashley Marilynne Wong · Rating 4 out of 5]

A concise, highly readable and reasonably engaging introduction to Marxist literary criticism.