What do you think?
Rate this book
Hooked: Art and Attachment
How does a novel entice or enlist us? How does a song surprise or seduce us? Why do we bristle when a friend belittles a book we love, or fall into a funk when a favored TV series comes to an end? What characterizes the aesthetic experiences of feeling captivated by works of art? In Hooked , Rita Felski challenges the ethos of critical aloofness that is a part of modern intellectuals’ self-image. The result is sure to be as widely read as Felski’s book, The Limits of Critique .
Wresting the language of affinity away from accusations of sticky sentiment and manipulative marketing, Felski argues that “being hooked” is as fundamental to the appreciation of high art as to the enjoyment of popular culture. Hooked zeroes in on three attachment devices that connect audiences to works of identification, attunement, and interpretation. Drawing on examples from literature, film, music, and painting—from Joni Mitchell to Matisse, from Thomas Bernhard to Thelma and Louise —Felski brings the language of attachment into the academy. Hooked returns us to the fundamentals of aesthetic experience, showing that the social meanings of artworks are generated not just by critics, but also by the responses of captivated audiences.
Wresting the language of affinity away from accusations of sticky sentiment and manipulative marketing, Felski argues that “being hooked” is as fundamental to the appreciation of high art as to the enjoyment of popular culture. Hooked zeroes in on three attachment devices that connect audiences to works of identification, attunement, and interpretation. Drawing on examples from literature, film, music, and painting—from Joni Mitchell to Matisse, from Thomas Bernhard to Thelma and Louise —Felski brings the language of attachment into the academy. Hooked returns us to the fundamentals of aesthetic experience, showing that the social meanings of artworks are generated not just by critics, but also by the responses of captivated audiences.
213 pages, Paperback
Published November 20, 2020
26 people are currently reading
430 people want to read
About the author
Rita Felski
20 books79 followersRita Felski is William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor of English at the University of Virginia, and editor of New Literary History. Felski is a prominent scholar in the fields of aesthetics and literary theory, feminist theory, modernity and postmodernity, and cultural studies.
Felski received an honors degree in French and German literature from Cambridge University and her PhD from the Department of German at Monash University in Australia. Before coming to the University of Virginia in 1994, she taught in the Program for English and Comparative Literature at Murdoch University in Perth. She served as Chair of the Comparative Literature Program at Virginia from 2004 to 2008.
From 2003-2007 Felski served as U.S. editor of Feminist Theory. She has also served on the editorial boards of Modernism/Modernity, Modern Fiction Studies, The International Journal of Cultural Studies, Criticism, and Echo: A Music-Centered Journal. Her work has been translated into Korean, Russian, Polish, Swedish, Hungarian, Italian, Croatian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Turkish.
(from Wikipedia)
Felski received an honors degree in French and German literature from Cambridge University and her PhD from the Department of German at Monash University in Australia. Before coming to the University of Virginia in 1994, she taught in the Program for English and Comparative Literature at Murdoch University in Perth. She served as Chair of the Comparative Literature Program at Virginia from 2004 to 2008.
From 2003-2007 Felski served as U.S. editor of Feminist Theory. She has also served on the editorial boards of Modernism/Modernity, Modern Fiction Studies, The International Journal of Cultural Studies, Criticism, and Echo: A Music-Centered Journal. Her work has been translated into Korean, Russian, Polish, Swedish, Hungarian, Italian, Croatian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Turkish.
(from Wikipedia)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
March 25, 2024
1) Por motivos que sou incapaz de racionalizar até o fim, eu tenho o hábito de ler colunas da Folha de SP de gente que eu considero absolutamente desprezível, tipo Hélio Schwartsman, Demétrio Magnoli, Leandro Narloch (RIP), Deirdre McCloskey (AAAHHHHH) etc. Em parte, acho que eu gosto de passar um certo tipo de raiva, em parte tenho também curiosidade em saber como gente maligna/estúpida pensa em voz alta, em parte sou só mais um adepto do doomscrolling em suas muitas variedades. Aliás, "gente maligna/estúpida": uma das minhas dúvidas favoritas envolve tentar cravar se uma determinada conduta/ação escrota qualquer (tipo, sei lá, defender a sabedoria do mercado) se explica em última instância por "burrice" ou "má-fé". Má-fé costuma ser a explicação mais fácil (no fim das contas é tudo auto-interesse/autopreservação/après nous, le deluge [ou foda-se tudo] etc.), e nesse sentido a burrice acaba sendo mais fascinante, porque se entregar honestamente a uma ideia, mesmo que burra, já é ir além do puro e simples egoísmo.
2) Não lembro quem disse que "mas" é a conjunção dialética por excelência - mas lembro, pelo menos, que o Roberto Schwarz diz que uma resposta dialética tem que começar com um "depende". Por sua vez, esse livro da Felski evita com tanto afinco levar qualquer contradição a sério que sua conjunção dominante é "meanwhile" (usada 80 vezes!), o que leva menos a uma imagem mental mais complexa do assunto discutido do que a só sair falando de qualquer outra coisa. Nesse mesmo sentido, o vocabulário "conceitual" do livro (attunement, engagement, attachment, coisas que são "relatable", connections, network/worknet...) é tão afinado (ops) com o jargão de gerentes com o media training em dia que tem horas que parece que estou lendo o "mission statement" de alguma startup canalha. Mas, no fim das contas, faz sentido: a Felski insiste algumas vezes que a ideia dela é se mover no que ela chama de "midlevel" (nem o micro- do close reading, nem o macro- do marxismo, da psicanálise etc.), e esse é exatamente o terreno da ideologia - mas não o da sua crítica.
...acho que, nesse caso, só má-fé não dá conta.
2) Não lembro quem disse que "mas" é a conjunção dialética por excelência - mas lembro, pelo menos, que o Roberto Schwarz diz que uma resposta dialética tem que começar com um "depende". Por sua vez, esse livro da Felski evita com tanto afinco levar qualquer contradição a sério que sua conjunção dominante é "meanwhile" (usada 80 vezes!), o que leva menos a uma imagem mental mais complexa do assunto discutido do que a só sair falando de qualquer outra coisa. Nesse mesmo sentido, o vocabulário "conceitual" do livro (attunement, engagement, attachment, coisas que são "relatable", connections, network/worknet...) é tão afinado (ops) com o jargão de gerentes com o media training em dia que tem horas que parece que estou lendo o "mission statement" de alguma startup canalha. Mas, no fim das contas, faz sentido: a Felski insiste algumas vezes que a ideia dela é se mover no que ela chama de "midlevel" (nem o micro- do close reading, nem o macro- do marxismo, da psicanálise etc.), e esse é exatamente o terreno da ideologia - mas não o da sua crítica.
...acho que, nesse caso, só má-fé não dá conta.
Read
November 13, 2023live laugh love Felski. ain't no one doing it like her
January 5, 2022
Felski writes with lucidity and charm on an issue that has long interested me: the gaping divide between the way lay readers react to art and the way academics do. The latter are all-too-ready to disdain the 'naive' reading (or viewing, listening) practices of the former. Everyday readers on the other hand, not unfairly, complain that the stress placed by scholars on methods of interpretation stifles the artwork under the weight of academic apparatus.
Felski presents an invigourating alternative for bridging this divide, centred on the notion of attachment. She energetically argues agains the notion of feeling as a 'precipitous derailing of thought' (126) and champions a sort of reading built on ANT (Actor-Network-Theory) that accounts for the ways artworks act upon people and effect meaning.
Felski presents an invigourating alternative for bridging this divide, centred on the notion of attachment. She energetically argues agains the notion of feeling as a 'precipitous derailing of thought' (126) and champions a sort of reading built on ANT (Actor-Network-Theory) that accounts for the ways artworks act upon people and effect meaning.
July 11, 2021
A sincere and captivating piece of aesthetic criticism. Felski has little time for bombastic rhetoric!
Read
June 6, 2024I’m not very “attuned” (to borrow one of Felski’s expressions) to Latour’s writing generally, and I find actor-network theory a particularly vacuous and unproductive framework given that it’s not really a theory at all (it moreso tells you how not to do things). That Felski has managed to write an engaging and largely convincing book based primarily on Latour and ANT is a testament to her skill at wrangling traditional criticism and cultural studies together (she’s exceptional at this in the classroom as well). I also appreciated and agreed with her response to critiques of empathy as a term, a point I’ve had to struggle with in my own research!
Nonetheless, I’m hesitant about some of the ideas circulating “Hooked” (though often these are the theories she cites rather than her own) because they are not really theories or explanations at all. Of course there is no one right way to read a novel or watch a movie, and of course all literary theories have shortcomings and blind spots, but most ANT-based discussions come to the same tepid conclusions of “we don’t really know,” or “it depends.” To me, this isn’t “better” theory just because it’s more foolproof from critique. What is the point of literary discourse if not to agree and disagree, to generate new ideas that others can build their new ideas with, even (or especially) if they’re rooted in disagreement?
Felski is right to critique the artificial distance generated between academics and general readers in terms of what responses are possible, but I personally feel that the historical knowledge and extensive research that go into the best works of literary criticism are what make academic approaches to literature unique. In no way are these incompatible with more affective responses, but I think the time and energy of academics is best directed towards the sort of work that they are positioned to do in a way that nobody else has the time or desire to. I’m not trying to suggest Felski argues against critical or historical methodologies- I know she finds a lot of value in these- but I don’t really want to see a bunch of literary theorists writing books about how much they loved Pynchon or Ben Johnson when they were in grad school rather than producing arguments about literature itself.
Felski maintains a healthy skepticism towards critique without going over the edge, and I overall enjoyed reading this book. Felski is an exceptionally lucid and charming writer, and I think the overarching commentary about attachment to art is valuable. It did not, however, sell me on ANT or post-critique or the prospect of a massive shift in our collective methodologies (not that Felski proposes one, but you could definitely use this book to do so). I don’t disagree philosophically with the idea of a flat ontology, but it’s never felt valuable as an analytic framework to me (except in fully abstract cases like Deleuze, but that’s not applied). I just feel like I can’t talk about this kind of stuff without being negative. But maybe I’ll feel silly looking back at this review in two years. I’m sorry Rita!
Nonetheless, I’m hesitant about some of the ideas circulating “Hooked” (though often these are the theories she cites rather than her own) because they are not really theories or explanations at all. Of course there is no one right way to read a novel or watch a movie, and of course all literary theories have shortcomings and blind spots, but most ANT-based discussions come to the same tepid conclusions of “we don’t really know,” or “it depends.” To me, this isn’t “better” theory just because it’s more foolproof from critique. What is the point of literary discourse if not to agree and disagree, to generate new ideas that others can build their new ideas with, even (or especially) if they’re rooted in disagreement?
Felski is right to critique the artificial distance generated between academics and general readers in terms of what responses are possible, but I personally feel that the historical knowledge and extensive research that go into the best works of literary criticism are what make academic approaches to literature unique. In no way are these incompatible with more affective responses, but I think the time and energy of academics is best directed towards the sort of work that they are positioned to do in a way that nobody else has the time or desire to. I’m not trying to suggest Felski argues against critical or historical methodologies- I know she finds a lot of value in these- but I don’t really want to see a bunch of literary theorists writing books about how much they loved Pynchon or Ben Johnson when they were in grad school rather than producing arguments about literature itself.
Felski maintains a healthy skepticism towards critique without going over the edge, and I overall enjoyed reading this book. Felski is an exceptionally lucid and charming writer, and I think the overarching commentary about attachment to art is valuable. It did not, however, sell me on ANT or post-critique or the prospect of a massive shift in our collective methodologies (not that Felski proposes one, but you could definitely use this book to do so). I don’t disagree philosophically with the idea of a flat ontology, but it’s never felt valuable as an analytic framework to me (except in fully abstract cases like Deleuze, but that’s not applied). I just feel like I can’t talk about this kind of stuff without being negative. But maybe I’ll feel silly looking back at this review in two years. I’m sorry Rita!
August 14, 2021
Oh well I mean I loved it.
I was moved and energised by this book in a way that reminded me of reading Archive Fever when I was a PhD student in Leeds, having to put the book down from time to time and run round my tiny front room to express the strange energies that were being released (or redirected) in (or through) me. And of course it's exactly that kind of physiological-aesthetic-affective-cognitive experience that Felski is talking about in Hooked: the way, in the encounter between a reader and a book (or a listener and a piece of music, a viewer and an artwork, an audience member and a performance), energies get redirected, and new ways of thinking, feeling, and understanding come into being.
I have been thinking in a strange sort of parallel relationship to this book as it evolved over the last five or six years - since Rita Felski gave a keynote talk on attunement at the Literary Studies Convention at UOW in 2015. (My book on reception/reading and scholarly attention thereto came out in 2017, and the last chapter uses both Barthes and Felski to talk about my own ideas about reading). So there's something especially and specifically lovely for me in reading it: seeing another person's (astute, open-hearted) take on questions that are central to my thinking, unfolded now in language which is both precise and clarifying (yes THAT's the thing I've been trying to think!) and generously oriented (I think, especially in academic writing, precision and clarity are often associated with critique and snark). Felski cites Annemarie Mol: the task is not to fight until a single pattern holds, but to add on ever more layers and enrich the repertoire, and this is very much what the book feels like. I could have felt competitive, or blocked, or gazumped, on reading this book whose line of thought twines in and out of my own (much more inchoate, as-yet-undeveloped) thinking - but instead I felt invited in to a whole new community of scholars who are writing and thinking and talking about all the things I want to write and think and talk about.
So what are those things? I guess, a new way of thinking about literature/art, how to teach it and how to write about it. But not A NEW WAY like "From this moment forth we must all do New Criticism/ New Historicism/ Object Oriented Ontology/ New Materialism/ Shallow Reading" etc, but as Felski writes:
(As I try and write about this, I find myself thinking about Felski's own metaphor of 'velcro' - hundreds and hundreds of tiny hooks, which tangle in their counterpart hundreds of tiny eyes. Or about Balaka Basu's metaphor of 'selvedges' - the edge of a piece of knitting onto which a new piece can be knitted. This book feels so intensely connective and generative, not a big monument to Something Accomplished, but an invitation to more thinking and writing and reading and doing in the humanities. I'm emboldened by Felski's own approach to say that it's not clear to me how much of that is "in" her book and how much of it is my own, as yet very possible and tentative, emergence from a period of profound block; but what a lovely convergence, in any case.)
Anyway, so this book gives us (the community of people who read and are interested in reading) something that I think we've needed for a long time: a way to talk about books which takes seriously two propositions that have been, weirdly, both completely accepted on one hand and, on the other hand, almost impossible to integrate into our critical and pedagogical methods and practices. Those are: (1) books are co-constructed by readers according to varying interpretative strategies and regimes; and (2) different (historical, cultural, or interpretative) groups and people have different systems of evaluating books (and other things). It's been difficult for literary studies to figure out how to talk about books on this basis, without dissolving into pure subjectivity (Well I just don't think Beloved is any good and that's just my opinion) - which is boring, and doesn't make for good conversations.
By revaluing attachment rather than detachment, by attending to the complexities of reading as an aesthetic-affective-bodily-cognitive encounter which feels immediate but is mediated by a host of factors, and by decentring the reader as well as the text as the ultimate ground of meaning, Hooked is able to bring together phenomenological, sociological, and hermeneutic approaches to reading, and to reorient us to new kinds of objects of attention as readers and critics.
It opens the way to a kind of writing about books that already exists, both in and outside academia (Goodreads reviews do this really well at their best, and that's one of the reasons I'm basically doing all my writing* on this platform at the moment) - reflective accounts of reading which merge first-person experience with observations about form and other patterns in texts - but that can now begin to strengthen and deepen as a genre, because of the ways in which Felski offers a conceptual frame for thinking about what that genre does, and why it might be valuable.
It offers several really practical tools for teaching and writing/reading in this new kind of way. The notion of the 'work-net' is one that I really love, because it gets at the already-networked nature of the literary text. Ricoeur writes that "the boundary of the text is an artefact of interpretation" - it's the interpreter who determines what is "in" the text and what is a contextual or paratextual element brought to bear in the attempt to understand the text - but it's hard to figure out how to put that insight into practice in teaching and writing about literature. The notion of the work as a node in a network is a really practical tool for reconceptualising "the text" as the thing that its readers have in common, without having to fall back on some kind of idea of a stable text as the ground of interpretation.
Finally, and as the central metaphor in the title suggests, Hooked also encourages us to rethink attachment as a knowledge-producing thing, rather than believing that knowledge is always a matter of critical detachment. That's a particularly provocative and generative thing for me, because not only does it help bridge the divide between "lay" and scholarly reading (we're all attached, whether it's to an object or a method - a fictional character, a style, a way of perceiving the world, on the "lay" side; a theorist, a positionality, a self-image as critical master on the scholarly side), but it also has potential, I think, to decentre Western-colonial ways of knowing and shift to a mode more capable of alignment with Aboriginal knowledge systems, which (on my very limited understanding) are very much premised on one's position within a web of relationships with all human and non-human creatures.
I'm so bad at ending reviews and I have to go and pick up my shopping (NSW lockdown has been extended!). So I'm just going to pretend that this is a ring structure and say oh well, I mean, I loved it.
*Apart from all-staff emails
I was moved and energised by this book in a way that reminded me of reading Archive Fever when I was a PhD student in Leeds, having to put the book down from time to time and run round my tiny front room to express the strange energies that were being released (or redirected) in (or through) me. And of course it's exactly that kind of physiological-aesthetic-affective-cognitive experience that Felski is talking about in Hooked: the way, in the encounter between a reader and a book (or a listener and a piece of music, a viewer and an artwork, an audience member and a performance), energies get redirected, and new ways of thinking, feeling, and understanding come into being.
I have been thinking in a strange sort of parallel relationship to this book as it evolved over the last five or six years - since Rita Felski gave a keynote talk on attunement at the Literary Studies Convention at UOW in 2015. (My book on reception/reading and scholarly attention thereto came out in 2017, and the last chapter uses both Barthes and Felski to talk about my own ideas about reading). So there's something especially and specifically lovely for me in reading it: seeing another person's (astute, open-hearted) take on questions that are central to my thinking, unfolded now in language which is both precise and clarifying (yes THAT's the thing I've been trying to think!) and generously oriented (I think, especially in academic writing, precision and clarity are often associated with critique and snark). Felski cites Annemarie Mol: the task is not to fight until a single pattern holds, but to add on ever more layers and enrich the repertoire, and this is very much what the book feels like. I could have felt competitive, or blocked, or gazumped, on reading this book whose line of thought twines in and out of my own (much more inchoate, as-yet-undeveloped) thinking - but instead I felt invited in to a whole new community of scholars who are writing and thinking and talking about all the things I want to write and think and talk about.
So what are those things? I guess, a new way of thinking about literature/art, how to teach it and how to write about it. But not A NEW WAY like "From this moment forth we must all do New Criticism/ New Historicism/ Object Oriented Ontology/ New Materialism/ Shallow Reading" etc, but as Felski writes:
The approaches outlined [here] are not especially radical or startling. Rather, I draw out affinities with existing ways of thinking and doing in the humanities, even while proposing a reorientation at the level of language, method, and stance. The point is not to sweep away all other approaches in a war of positions but to forge stronger ties within and beyond academic networks.
(As I try and write about this, I find myself thinking about Felski's own metaphor of 'velcro' - hundreds and hundreds of tiny hooks, which tangle in their counterpart hundreds of tiny eyes. Or about Balaka Basu's metaphor of 'selvedges' - the edge of a piece of knitting onto which a new piece can be knitted. This book feels so intensely connective and generative, not a big monument to Something Accomplished, but an invitation to more thinking and writing and reading and doing in the humanities. I'm emboldened by Felski's own approach to say that it's not clear to me how much of that is "in" her book and how much of it is my own, as yet very possible and tentative, emergence from a period of profound block; but what a lovely convergence, in any case.)
Anyway, so this book gives us (the community of people who read and are interested in reading) something that I think we've needed for a long time: a way to talk about books which takes seriously two propositions that have been, weirdly, both completely accepted on one hand and, on the other hand, almost impossible to integrate into our critical and pedagogical methods and practices. Those are: (1) books are co-constructed by readers according to varying interpretative strategies and regimes; and (2) different (historical, cultural, or interpretative) groups and people have different systems of evaluating books (and other things). It's been difficult for literary studies to figure out how to talk about books on this basis, without dissolving into pure subjectivity (Well I just don't think Beloved is any good and that's just my opinion) - which is boring, and doesn't make for good conversations.
By revaluing attachment rather than detachment, by attending to the complexities of reading as an aesthetic-affective-bodily-cognitive encounter which feels immediate but is mediated by a host of factors, and by decentring the reader as well as the text as the ultimate ground of meaning, Hooked is able to bring together phenomenological, sociological, and hermeneutic approaches to reading, and to reorient us to new kinds of objects of attention as readers and critics.
It opens the way to a kind of writing about books that already exists, both in and outside academia (Goodreads reviews do this really well at their best, and that's one of the reasons I'm basically doing all my writing* on this platform at the moment) - reflective accounts of reading which merge first-person experience with observations about form and other patterns in texts - but that can now begin to strengthen and deepen as a genre, because of the ways in which Felski offers a conceptual frame for thinking about what that genre does, and why it might be valuable.
It offers several really practical tools for teaching and writing/reading in this new kind of way. The notion of the 'work-net' is one that I really love, because it gets at the already-networked nature of the literary text. Ricoeur writes that "the boundary of the text is an artefact of interpretation" - it's the interpreter who determines what is "in" the text and what is a contextual or paratextual element brought to bear in the attempt to understand the text - but it's hard to figure out how to put that insight into practice in teaching and writing about literature. The notion of the work as a node in a network is a really practical tool for reconceptualising "the text" as the thing that its readers have in common, without having to fall back on some kind of idea of a stable text as the ground of interpretation.
Finally, and as the central metaphor in the title suggests, Hooked also encourages us to rethink attachment as a knowledge-producing thing, rather than believing that knowledge is always a matter of critical detachment. That's a particularly provocative and generative thing for me, because not only does it help bridge the divide between "lay" and scholarly reading (we're all attached, whether it's to an object or a method - a fictional character, a style, a way of perceiving the world, on the "lay" side; a theorist, a positionality, a self-image as critical master on the scholarly side), but it also has potential, I think, to decentre Western-colonial ways of knowing and shift to a mode more capable of alignment with Aboriginal knowledge systems, which (on my very limited understanding) are very much premised on one's position within a web of relationships with all human and non-human creatures.
I'm so bad at ending reviews and I have to go and pick up my shopping (NSW lockdown has been extended!). So I'm just going to pretend that this is a ring structure and say oh well, I mean, I loved it.
*Apart from all-staff emails
April 11, 2022
Lots of examples bogged down some of the lucid, compelling claims... but that *does* serve its ANT-ish goals. I think that this is a great book -- just maybe for a lit major or someone who has read more of the "canon." My favorite moments were ones that suggested the academic discipline of literature can be made more democratic and less judgemental by taking students "where they are."
December 2, 2024
Good points, but probably could have been an essay. Asks way too many questions for a book that is trying to answer questions.
Read
August 27, 2022This helped me to articulate questions about aesthetic experience that I'd like to pursue further in my graduate research. Despite some repetitive passages, Felski's prose is a pleasure to read.
Read
November 6, 2024Really enjoyable.
March 27, 2023
There have been so many classics that I just don't "get." I went through a whole class on Jonathan Swift and I came out of it (maybe) disliking him more than before, when he was just this mysterious figure I know I should read for street cred in the English lit world. The class was beneficial for forming me to appreciate him as a writer, but the aesthetic revelation, the "I'm shook," moment, never came. Was this my fault? My inability to delight in the Greats due to my lack of taste?
Felski's Hooked is an attempt to explore the complexity surrounding such questions. Using ANT (Actor-Network theory), Felski explicates what it means to be "attuned" to an art work, to "identify" with something, and how the humanities can replicate such an education in a classroom setting.
Attunement between a person and an artwork requires a network of pre-existing conditions; he/she needs to be contextually ready to enjoy the artwork via education, a mood, a setting, a memory, an attentive search etc. Likewise, the artwork is "made" by the development of its reception and its passing on, in classrooms, via a friend's recommendation, or another artwork etc. For these two paths to cross, a "network" of sorts if required, else attunement won't happen.
In exploring identification, Felski muses on how popular readers identify themselves with characters and authors often and contrasts this to the "detached" appraisal or (mostly) criticism of artworks, authors, and characters by academics within the humanities. Here, Felski's main thesis seems to be that a "detached" criticism of an artwork is actually impossible, as the critic will inevitably find themselves linked to either the text or the school of interpretation used on the text. The critic still finds himself "belonging" and identifying with a camp, though they would like to imagine themselves free from such attachments by railing on the rampant prejudices within a given artwork while dissecting and deconstructing the artwork to shreds.
Felski then encourages those working in academia to experiment with forms of teaching that move away from "detached criticism." She outlines several ways which students and teachers can use ANT to explore a text's network in relation to their own, and how tracing these identifications can be an academic exercise that charts the way forward for humanities education.
The text is fairly readable for an academic familiar with theory and criticism. Though it's not as dense as other works by contemporary theorists (smh wanted to gouge my eyes out reading bits of Lauren Berlant or Sianne Ngai), it's still a bit of a trudge, but I highly recommend for those wondering, "What do we do after criticism?"
Felski's Hooked is an attempt to explore the complexity surrounding such questions. Using ANT (Actor-Network theory), Felski explicates what it means to be "attuned" to an art work, to "identify" with something, and how the humanities can replicate such an education in a classroom setting.
Attunement between a person and an artwork requires a network of pre-existing conditions; he/she needs to be contextually ready to enjoy the artwork via education, a mood, a setting, a memory, an attentive search etc. Likewise, the artwork is "made" by the development of its reception and its passing on, in classrooms, via a friend's recommendation, or another artwork etc. For these two paths to cross, a "network" of sorts if required, else attunement won't happen.
In exploring identification, Felski muses on how popular readers identify themselves with characters and authors often and contrasts this to the "detached" appraisal or (mostly) criticism of artworks, authors, and characters by academics within the humanities. Here, Felski's main thesis seems to be that a "detached" criticism of an artwork is actually impossible, as the critic will inevitably find themselves linked to either the text or the school of interpretation used on the text. The critic still finds himself "belonging" and identifying with a camp, though they would like to imagine themselves free from such attachments by railing on the rampant prejudices within a given artwork while dissecting and deconstructing the artwork to shreds.
Felski then encourages those working in academia to experiment with forms of teaching that move away from "detached criticism." She outlines several ways which students and teachers can use ANT to explore a text's network in relation to their own, and how tracing these identifications can be an academic exercise that charts the way forward for humanities education.
The text is fairly readable for an academic familiar with theory and criticism. Though it's not as dense as other works by contemporary theorists (smh wanted to gouge my eyes out reading bits of Lauren Berlant or Sianne Ngai), it's still a bit of a trudge, but I highly recommend for those wondering, "What do we do after criticism?"
May 17, 2021
This book has made me very happy. Pretty crazy, since it's an academic book full of names and works I've never heard of. But the idea of applying the ANT theory (Actor-Network Theory) (I didn't know of it, but now I do and I plan to know more) to art and that a literary person chooses to include all art forms in doing so makes it even better.
There are so many examples in my own life that show how intertwined experiences with art are with each other and with external factors.
If you want to know more about the book, read the excerpts on this page or read more about ANT here.
When I lived in England I tried to read backwards in English history via both fiction and history books. Somewhat at random I chose The Children's Book by AS Byatt, a wonderful novel that covers the time period from Victorian times till the end of WW1.
I mention this because that one book, read under those circumstances, has influenced my reading continually since then and influenced even my purchase of arts & crafts items and my love for the V&A museum and my preference for Danish art and literature from the same period!
Thank you very much Rita Felski
There are so many examples in my own life that show how intertwined experiences with art are with each other and with external factors.
If you want to know more about the book, read the excerpts on this page or read more about ANT here.
When I lived in England I tried to read backwards in English history via both fiction and history books. Somewhat at random I chose The Children's Book by AS Byatt, a wonderful novel that covers the time period from Victorian times till the end of WW1.
I mention this because that one book, read under those circumstances, has influenced my reading continually since then and influenced even my purchase of arts & crafts items and my love for the V&A museum and my preference for Danish art and literature from the same period!
Thank you very much Rita Felski
February 10, 2021
This was so annoying. I would have dnf'd it if I wasn't reading it for a discussion group. My annoyance is more than just disagreement with Felski's ideas. Her method of adding example to example, throwing impressions about academia, teaching, the human psyche etc around like truths; the endless repetitions that don't lead anywhere; her claim to making use of ANT but actually doing nothing more than speaking of basic connections; the frequent contradictions to her own argument; and lastly the constant implications that whatever she is proposing is the solution to every problem in academia while never considering that nothing she identifies is universal and not everything is actually a problem. For instance, the dichotomies she presents are mostly artificial.
The scholar and university teacher in me wishes I could be more objective about this, but perhaps Felski would be delighted seeing my attachment, even in the form of distaste in a non-academic forum.
The scholar and university teacher in me wishes I could be more objective about this, but perhaps Felski would be delighted seeing my attachment, even in the form of distaste in a non-academic forum.
February 25, 2022
A logical follow up to Limits of Critique (2015). After suggesting that ideology critique, deconstruction, and suspicion aren’t all they are cracked up to be, this book is Felski’s chance to offer her own methodological stance or framework for what might be able to re-enliven the humanities: attunement.
It’s not perfect obviously—the application of ANT is opaque at times and the call to action beats the drum of “humanities are dying” (we know)—but Felski’s ability to bring together the value of affect, why literature matters, and her original strategies (“work nets,” “medium-level reading” as a compromise between New Critical close reading and the haughtiness of historicism, etc) are brilliant and worth engaging.
This is an extremely valuable resource, for me, as a young English grad student trying to figure out why I’m doing what I’m doing. An important read for anyone who sees serious promise in post-critique.
It’s not perfect obviously—the application of ANT is opaque at times and the call to action beats the drum of “humanities are dying” (we know)—but Felski’s ability to bring together the value of affect, why literature matters, and her original strategies (“work nets,” “medium-level reading” as a compromise between New Critical close reading and the haughtiness of historicism, etc) are brilliant and worth engaging.
This is an extremely valuable resource, for me, as a young English grad student trying to figure out why I’m doing what I’m doing. An important read for anyone who sees serious promise in post-critique.
July 18, 2021
Rita Felski pushes the boundaries of how we can look at art as academics, bringing us closer to the way we look at it as readers/art enthousiastics/human beings. These might only be the first steps we need to take in order to get to an understanding of art/literature that is more grounded in the way people actually interact with it, but they are an excellent starting point, raising many fascinating questions and pointing us at enlightening observations. While at times this book feels like it raises many questions without providing the answers, it is still a worthwhile step in a new direction.
September 4, 2021
Een interessant boek omdat het probeert los te breken van bepaalde tendensen die met name erg aanwezig lijken te zijn in de Angloamerikaanse literatuurwetenschap. Felski biedt enkele boeiende perspectieven die aanzetten tot een meer affirmatieve en verbindende houding in de literatuurwetenschap. Tegelijkertijd voelt het soms wel erg vanuit de losse pols geredeneerd. Misschien is het geheel daarom dunner dan het aanvankelijk lijkt. Ook is het m.i. een gemiste kans om de verbinding tussen maker en kunstwerk grotendeels buiten beschouwing te laten, terwijl juist deze aanpak zich ook lijkt te lenen voor meer biografisch georiënteerde onderzoeken.
December 3, 2023
Academic writing at its finest. The last part was the weakest and I don't condone writing a book about art and media without including video games, especially since Felski uses a lot of computer jargon like glitches, download, etc to describe her ideas. Yet, her argument flows effortlessly and her examples are brilliantly unpacked, if only quite high-brow, which is a peculiar choice given how she defends attachment to any type of art and not just the critically acclaimed pieces of artwork. I suppose we all have our peccadilloes.
February 6, 2025
This was such a refreshing book to me! As a critical-theory-head who doesn’t want to throw away the compelling realities of affect, attachment, and the transformational experiences people have with works of art/literature/music/etc, I am so happy that Felski recenters the value and sophistication of scholarship that considers the phenomenon of getting “hooked.” Empowering, thought-provoking, and humbling.
Read
December 2, 2021Felski's sensitivity to the experiential and relational element of aesthetic encounters makes for good reading even if the actor-network-theory bits often feel frustrating and unnecessary. Last chapter is a pedagogical banger in how to collectively foster "receptivity" to works, and a persuasive account of the bonds that can develop when we interpret together.
June 1, 2022
Finish date: 01 June 2022
Genre: nonfiction
Rating: DNF...I couldn't get past the first chapter!!
The book felt confused, slapdash, inconsistent in sum….a dog’s breakfast.
NOT wasting my reading time on this!
#Bah
Genre: nonfiction
Rating: DNF...I couldn't get past the first chapter!!
The book felt confused, slapdash, inconsistent in sum….a dog’s breakfast.
NOT wasting my reading time on this!
#Bah
January 23, 2021
Again disappointed.
March 20, 2022
read for uni
Very tasty. Enjoyed thoroughly. Feeling very attached to this book.
Very tasty. Enjoyed thoroughly. Feeling very attached to this book.
August 28, 2024
Rita Felski is my hero
January 4, 2025
Read as part of my master's thesis exam.
December 11, 2021
Although Felski as been criticising criticism as a research method and has been promising a better one, she is yet to come up with a methodology that is actually usable. In this regard, this book was a disappointment, particularly as ANT is not really applicable to most literary analysis.
Want to read
January 29, 2023RK B&N NEED ANF / FOLDER
Beginning of review in Critical Inquiry
Beginning of review in Critical Inquiry
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews