What do you think?
Rate this book
Modernism: A Literature in Crisis
An engaging, approachable introduction to literary modernism
Modernism represented an astonishing outbreak of cultural innovation, spanning artforms and nations. It was centred around feelings of growing alienation in an industrial world, and a desire to change how people live together in society. Art, architecture, literature, and music all underwent a radical revolution.
Although it was confined to small coteries of artists and lasted no more than thirty years, its techniques were appropriated by mass culture and became familiar to millions of citizens who have never heard of Paul Klee or Gertrude Stein. It represents one of the most productive moments in art since the Renaissance, which in its scope, originality, and imaginative audacity has never been equalled.
Terry Eagleton presents a compelling and entertaining guide to modernism. From Ezra Pound to Virginia Woolf, James Joyce to H.D., Eagleton explores the literature and ideas of prominent modernists, emphasising the profound impact they had on subsequent generations.
Modernism represented an astonishing outbreak of cultural innovation, spanning artforms and nations. It was centred around feelings of growing alienation in an industrial world, and a desire to change how people live together in society. Art, architecture, literature, and music all underwent a radical revolution.
Although it was confined to small coteries of artists and lasted no more than thirty years, its techniques were appropriated by mass culture and became familiar to millions of citizens who have never heard of Paul Klee or Gertrude Stein. It represents one of the most productive moments in art since the Renaissance, which in its scope, originality, and imaginative audacity has never been equalled.
Terry Eagleton presents a compelling and entertaining guide to modernism. From Ezra Pound to Virginia Woolf, James Joyce to H.D., Eagleton explores the literature and ideas of prominent modernists, emphasising the profound impact they had on subsequent generations.
- GenresLiterary Criticism
208 pages, Hardcover
Published September 30, 2025
6 people are currently reading
64 people want to read
About the author
Terry Eagleton
160 books1,281 followersWidely 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
September 13, 2025
This survey of literary modernism tackles the ever-frustrating question of how to define a famously evasive and historically indefinite movement, drawing together an international selection of modernists from its iconic English and American proponents (Woolf, Eliot, Stein, Pound, and co.) alongside counterparts in Russia, France, and Germany to explore the central concerns that define modernist writing. This broader scope means that Eagleton devotes less time to close readings of individual texts (aside from some welcome and insightful analysis of Joseph Conrad's THE SECRET AGENT and its perspectives on mass culture versus revolution), but does approach the ideological gradations between different modernists in a satisfyingly nuanced manner. A particular pleasure of this book is how Eagleton's sense of wit enlivens what is otherwise a densely academic topic: I especially enjoyed his comment that "A caricature of the typical modernist writer, then, would be one who writes a sentence, stares at it intently for an hour or two, puts in a semi-colon, stares at it again for the rest of the morning and then takes it out again just before lunch". For anyone wishing to gain a contextual understanding of the modernist movement, Eagleton's book is a thoroughly informative and approachable starting point.
December 30, 2025
Modernism’s elusive nature is simultaneously its most captivating and most intimidating quality. I'm incredibly glad I had the opportunity to read this compelling account; it manages to take a subject that can – at times – feel inaccessible and make it approachable. Eagleton treats Modernism as a ‘polythetic’ outbreak, rather than a single style; he emphasises how it was triggered by the ‘historical crisis’ of WWI and the ‘collapse of older liberal certainties.’ In his exploration, which undoubtedly covers a wide range of aspects existing in Modernism, I found the interrogation of thickening language and ‘internal exile’ particularly interesting.
The Ethics of ‘Difficulty’: Thickening Language
The common assumption that Modernist poetry tends to be difficult just to be elitist is flipped by Eagleton. His approach suggests that in a world where language has been cheapened and made ‘grubby and shop-soiled’ by the mass press, ‘easy’ writing, in a way, is a form of lying. I found the notion of ‘defamiliarisation’ – the attempt to ‘make the stone stonier’ – intriguing. In this sense, writers like T.S. Eliot and Moore thickened their language in an attempt to cure our ‘blunted’ perceptions. Eagleton suggests that by making the text difficult, a sense of ‘attentiveness’ is forced onto the reader which is often drained away due to modern life. This transforms the reader from passive to ‘active co-creator,’ reflecting the idea which Eagleton paraphrases by Moore, that it ‘ought to be work to read something that it was work to write.’ In this framework, difficulty is not necessarily acting as an affirmative barrier but rather as a technical necessity that stops us from reading mindlessly.
The Reactionary Irony:
Another idea which struck me is the ideological paradox within what Eagleton identifies as a ‘radicalism of the right.’ It is quite ironic that an ‘embarrassingly large number of modernists’ were politically obsessed with ‘hierarchy and authority’ while simultaneously breaking every rule of traditional art. The analysis of ‘internal exile’ by Eagleton explains this impeccably. Figures like Eliot, Joyce and Pound were ‘adrift’ and rootless, so what they did was turn their ‘lack of roots into a universal truth.’ However, in this, there is a very human vulnerability; the more uprooted they felt, the more they needed a rigid ‘safeguard’ to keep the ‘abyss’ at bay. This frames their work as a search for order in a world they found formless. In this sense, they use Nietzschean ‘convenient falsehood[s]’ not as a stylistic affectation, but as a way to survive the loss of any absolute meaning.
Breakdown of Form:
Ultimately, what I thought to be one of Eagleton’s most interesting points is the ‘torture chamber theory of truth.’ It suggests that we do not find truth in our daily routines, but rather, only when the ‘pure fiction’ of our social form is pushed to the limit. From this viewpoint, the truth only ‘flares out’ at moments of ‘unbearable pressure.’ While initially I found it to be a sobering way of looking at literature – that it only becomes ‘real’ when it’s falling apart – Eagleton is notably critical of what he calls this ‘Room 101 syndrome.’ He questions why the insights gained from terror should be more valid than those of ordinary life. I found it a compelling critique that frames the modernist disdain for the everyday as ‘aloofly indiscriminate,’ ultimately exposing the ‘implicit politics’ behind a movement that often valued the insights of terror and despair over the quieter truths of ordinary life.
The Ethics of ‘Difficulty’: Thickening Language
The common assumption that Modernist poetry tends to be difficult just to be elitist is flipped by Eagleton. His approach suggests that in a world where language has been cheapened and made ‘grubby and shop-soiled’ by the mass press, ‘easy’ writing, in a way, is a form of lying. I found the notion of ‘defamiliarisation’ – the attempt to ‘make the stone stonier’ – intriguing. In this sense, writers like T.S. Eliot and Moore thickened their language in an attempt to cure our ‘blunted’ perceptions. Eagleton suggests that by making the text difficult, a sense of ‘attentiveness’ is forced onto the reader which is often drained away due to modern life. This transforms the reader from passive to ‘active co-creator,’ reflecting the idea which Eagleton paraphrases by Moore, that it ‘ought to be work to read something that it was work to write.’ In this framework, difficulty is not necessarily acting as an affirmative barrier but rather as a technical necessity that stops us from reading mindlessly.
The Reactionary Irony:
Another idea which struck me is the ideological paradox within what Eagleton identifies as a ‘radicalism of the right.’ It is quite ironic that an ‘embarrassingly large number of modernists’ were politically obsessed with ‘hierarchy and authority’ while simultaneously breaking every rule of traditional art. The analysis of ‘internal exile’ by Eagleton explains this impeccably. Figures like Eliot, Joyce and Pound were ‘adrift’ and rootless, so what they did was turn their ‘lack of roots into a universal truth.’ However, in this, there is a very human vulnerability; the more uprooted they felt, the more they needed a rigid ‘safeguard’ to keep the ‘abyss’ at bay. This frames their work as a search for order in a world they found formless. In this sense, they use Nietzschean ‘convenient falsehood[s]’ not as a stylistic affectation, but as a way to survive the loss of any absolute meaning.
Breakdown of Form:
Ultimately, what I thought to be one of Eagleton’s most interesting points is the ‘torture chamber theory of truth.’ It suggests that we do not find truth in our daily routines, but rather, only when the ‘pure fiction’ of our social form is pushed to the limit. From this viewpoint, the truth only ‘flares out’ at moments of ‘unbearable pressure.’ While initially I found it to be a sobering way of looking at literature – that it only becomes ‘real’ when it’s falling apart – Eagleton is notably critical of what he calls this ‘Room 101 syndrome.’ He questions why the insights gained from terror should be more valid than those of ordinary life. I found it a compelling critique that frames the modernist disdain for the everyday as ‘aloofly indiscriminate,’ ultimately exposing the ‘implicit politics’ behind a movement that often valued the insights of terror and despair over the quieter truths of ordinary life.
December 19, 2025
insanın yurt dışında yaşayan arkadaşlarının olması müthiş bir olay. sayelerinde nispeten yeni bu esere erişebildim.
modernizm, onunla karşılaştığımdan beri aklımı kurcalayan bir kavram çünkü belli yazarlar için (Joyce, Proust, Woolf, Musil, Döblin vs.vs.) sıklıkla kullanıldığına rastlasam da, belki derinlemesine araştırmadığım için, derli toplu bir tanımdan yoksun görünen bir kavramdı benim için. orada Eagleton yardımıma yetişti.
işin aslı, daha hacimli, sistematiğini daha derinlerde kuran bir eser beklemiş ve istemiştim; sanki Eagleton, belki eserin daha geniş kitlelere ulaşması için biçemi denemeye daha yakın bir yerde tutmuş. edebiyata giriş üzerine yazdığı kitap kadar derinlere yayılan bir çalışma değil; nesnelerini yakın okumaya tabi de tutmuyor. bir anlamda, meseleye daha geniş bir perspektiften bakabilmek için nesneleriyle hatırı sayılır bir mesafe bıraktığını sezdiriyor ki bu anlaşılabilir bir tutum. ayrıca, benim gibi, bu konu üzerinde giriş seviyesinde -hangi yazarın modernist olduğunu bilecek denli- bir müktesebata sahipseniz son derece doyurucu bir eser.
evvela Eagletonın modernizm okuması krizden ayrılmıyor; krizde köklendiğini iddia ediyor onun.
One might claim that limanını pek sevdiğini fark ettirerek yaptığı iddiaların pek çoğu hakikaten zihin açıcı. ilk bölümde şöyle demiş mesela:
bir yazarın postmodernist mi modernist mi olduğunu söylemenin zorluğu onun da dikkatini çekmiş; bazı nitelikleri (ör. ironi) paylaştıkları için kolay değil bu. yine de kendisi, modernizmin politetik (ilineklerinden her birini içerebilen ama bu ilineklerden hiçbirinin onu tanımlamak için zorunlu [essential] olmadığı) bir kavram olduğu konusunda beni ikna etmeyi başardı.
modernizmin bir anlamda bir isyan, realizmden bir kopuş olduğu, bu bağlamdaki inovatif yanı, bir gediğin etrafında dönendiği, rahatsız edici bir boşlukta [void] temerküz ettiği, onu tarihsel bir dönem olarak kavramanın tehlikelerini, şimdi ile, tarihle, şehirle, Avrupa burjuvazisiyle, modernizasyonla olan bağlantılarını/dertlerini ilk bölümde güzelce ortaya koymuş.
çoğu zaman birlikte okunan, hatta eş anlamlılarmışçasına değişmeli kullanılan avangartla modernizmi ayırmak için yola çıktığı dördüncü bölüm en ilginç olanıydı benim için. vaktiyle Nevzat Kayanın "iyi romanlar sağcılardan çıkar" diye aklımda kalmış, gidiş yolu epey arızalı görünen o argümana bir cevap olarak dahi okumak mümkündü. bunu bir iyi-roman-kötü-roman meselesi olarak basitleştirmeyerek şöyle bir tespitte bulunmuş:
altını çizdiğim tüm yerleri burada zapt etmeye kalkarsam işim iş. muhtemelen tekrar tekrar ziyaret edeceğim, daha düşük bir ihtimalle de olsa muhtemelen üzerine bir inceleme yazacağım bir eser olduğunu da ekleyeyim. yapısalcılık, postyapısalcılık, postmodernizm ve metamodernizm okumalarına başlamadan önce iyi oldu. meraklısına tavsiye—
modernizm, onunla karşılaştığımdan beri aklımı kurcalayan bir kavram çünkü belli yazarlar için (Joyce, Proust, Woolf, Musil, Döblin vs.vs.) sıklıkla kullanıldığına rastlasam da, belki derinlemesine araştırmadığım için, derli toplu bir tanımdan yoksun görünen bir kavramdı benim için. orada Eagleton yardımıma yetişti.
işin aslı, daha hacimli, sistematiğini daha derinlerde kuran bir eser beklemiş ve istemiştim; sanki Eagleton, belki eserin daha geniş kitlelere ulaşması için biçemi denemeye daha yakın bir yerde tutmuş. edebiyata giriş üzerine yazdığı kitap kadar derinlere yayılan bir çalışma değil; nesnelerini yakın okumaya tabi de tutmuyor. bir anlamda, meseleye daha geniş bir perspektiften bakabilmek için nesneleriyle hatırı sayılır bir mesafe bıraktığını sezdiriyor ki bu anlaşılabilir bir tutum. ayrıca, benim gibi, bu konu üzerinde giriş seviyesinde -hangi yazarın modernist olduğunu bilecek denli- bir müktesebata sahipseniz son derece doyurucu bir eser.
evvela Eagletonın modernizm okuması krizden ayrılmıyor; krizde köklendiğini iddia ediyor onun.
One might claim that limanını pek sevdiğini fark ettirerek yaptığı iddiaların pek çoğu hakikaten zihin açıcı. ilk bölümde şöyle demiş mesela:
One might claim that in that respect literary modernism proper is born when the forces of social disintegration begin to invade the very forms of artistic work—(s 8-9)
bir yazarın postmodernist mi modernist mi olduğunu söylemenin zorluğu onun da dikkatini çekmiş; bazı nitelikleri (ör. ironi) paylaştıkları için kolay değil bu. yine de kendisi, modernizmin politetik (ilineklerinden her birini içerebilen ama bu ilineklerden hiçbirinin onu tanımlamak için zorunlu [essential] olmadığı) bir kavram olduğu konusunda beni ikna etmeyi başardı.
modernizmin bir anlamda bir isyan, realizmden bir kopuş olduğu, bu bağlamdaki inovatif yanı, bir gediğin etrafında dönendiği, rahatsız edici bir boşlukta [void] temerküz ettiği, onu tarihsel bir dönem olarak kavramanın tehlikelerini, şimdi ile, tarihle, şehirle, Avrupa burjuvazisiyle, modernizasyonla olan bağlantılarını/dertlerini ilk bölümde güzelce ortaya koymuş.
çoğu zaman birlikte okunan, hatta eş anlamlılarmışçasına değişmeli kullanılan avangartla modernizmi ayırmak için yola çıktığı dördüncü bölüm en ilginç olanıydı benim için. vaktiyle Nevzat Kayanın "iyi romanlar sağcılardan çıkar" diye aklımda kalmış, gidiş yolu epey arızalı görünen o argümana bir cevap olarak dahi okumak mümkündü. bunu bir iyi-roman-kötü-roman meselesi olarak basitleştirmeyerek şöyle bir tespitte bulunmuş:
When it comes to the politics of modernism, the avant-garde can usually be found on the political left, while an embarrassingly large number of modernists adhere to the political right. Yet the contrast is far from absolute. (s 165)
altını çizdiğim tüm yerleri burada zapt etmeye kalkarsam işim iş. muhtemelen tekrar tekrar ziyaret edeceğim, daha düşük bir ihtimalle de olsa muhtemelen üzerine bir inceleme yazacağım bir eser olduğunu da ekleyeyim. yapısalcılık, postyapısalcılık, postmodernizm ve metamodernizm okumalarına başlamadan önce iyi oldu. meraklısına tavsiye—
August 17, 2025
I picked this up in a bookstore the other day where it had been put out by accident -- thank you to the clerk who still was willing to sell it to me, a few days earlier than the release!
This is a fantastic read. It felt like attending a spirited, engaging lecture. I also appreciated the dry humour that was evident throughout. Modernism's manifesto sometimes feels like it should be 'make it difficult', not 'make it new', but this book was clear and lighthearted, without simplifying the topic.
Already on the read again pile.
This is a fantastic read. It felt like attending a spirited, engaging lecture. I also appreciated the dry humour that was evident throughout. Modernism's manifesto sometimes feels like it should be 'make it difficult', not 'make it new', but this book was clear and lighthearted, without simplifying the topic.
Already on the read again pile.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews