文学阅读指南

by Terry Eagleton, 特里·伊格尔顿, 范浩 (Translator)

是什么让文学作品或好或坏？读者如何可以自由解释呢？诸如《咩咩黑羊》之类的童谣，是否可以充满隐藏的厌恶、反感以及侵略？在这本书里，特里·伊格尔顿比较有趣地提出了解决这些问题的途径。《文学阅读指南》对于文学研究的学生，以及所有其他感兴趣的读者而言，都是一部加深他们理解、丰富他们阅读体验的理想选择。

Genres: Nonfiction, Literature, Literary Criticism, Writing, Criticism, Books About Books, Theory

253 pages, Paperback

First published May 21, 2013

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

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

At first glance, this is a straightforward book. Written by a clear-thinking critic in pellucid prose, it is entitled How to Read Literature and consists of five chapters headed “Openings,” “Character,” “Narrative,” Interpretations,” and “Value.” Tell me, what could be more straightforward than this? Yet, when I attempt to summarize its thesis and articulate its worth, I find it difficult to begin.

When in doubt, I suppose one should begin with beginnings, so let's start with the first opening discussed in “Openings,” our book's first chapter. Eagleton quotes the first one hundred words of Forster's A Passage to India, and then gets down to business showing what those words are doing, what they are not doing, what effects they achieve and how they achieve them.

"Except for the Marabar Caves—and they are twenty miles off—the city of Chandrapore presents nothing extraordinary. Edged rather than washed by the river Ganges, it trails for a couple of miles along the bank, scarcely distinguishable from the rubbish it deposits so freely. There are no bathing steps on the river front, as the Ganges happens not to be holy here; indeed, there is no river front, and bazaars shut out the wide and shifting panorama of the stream. The streets are mean, the temples ineffective, and though a few fine houses exist they are hidden away in gardens or down alleys whose filth deters all but the invited guest . . ."

Eagleton tells us that openings are often bravura set pieces, that the apparent casualness of these first words may be bravura even in their casualness--an indirectness particularly characteristic of upper middle-class English writers like Forster. He mentions the rhythmic structure of the prose, the “elegant” and “deft” syntax, and yet makes it clear that this is not “fine writing” or “purple prose.” He shows us how the first sentence slightly postpones a mention of the city in order to heighten reader interest, and then tells us that the city is not “extraordinary,” except for the caves (which are not the city), that there is not even a river front on the river front, and that the temples are “ineffective” (presumably at arousing the architectural or ethnographic interest of the Western tourist). He cautions that the narrator should not necessarily be identified with the author Forster, and that—whoever he is—he has some prior knowledge of India and that he--or both of them--may be self-consciously adopting a jaded, ironic tone. At any rate, this passage sustains the readers interest in what is not described: the Caves.

Thus, in a couple of pages, Eagleton brings his full literary intelligence to the analysis of this short passage: he discusses the customary nature of literary openings, the effects of indirection (and its possible cultural origins), the importance of music and elegance in rhythm and syntax, word order as a determiner of reader expectations, the construction of narrative persona, the importance of not equating this persona with the author, and the importance of the narrator's perspective and tone.

This is Eagleton's approach throughout the book. He isolates a passage or a single aspect of a work—mostly fiction, but sometimes poetry too—and subjects it to a wide range of perspectives and literary tools in order to reveal the heart of its meaning. He is interested in modeling a process in miniature, not articulating a thesis. He shows the beginning reader—who is, after all, each of us--what can happen when an educated, sympathetic intelligence uses its resources to illuminate a given work, tempering creativity with knowledge, harnessing enthusiasm with judgment.

Although the book is organized into clearly demarcated chapters, this linear organization is deceptive. Terry Eagleton knows that evoking the mute mystery at the heart of any literary work requires—above all--an ever-alert, mobile intelligence. In the words of his countryman, William Butler Yeats: “Like a long-legged fly upon the stream/His mind moves upon silence.”

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wasn’t expecting to like this book nearly as much as I have. I studied literature in my undergraduate degree and been interested in literary criticism ever since. I recently read, but didn’t review, Northrop Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism – which I found interesting, if a little ‘scientific’ in its approach, and the review has now slept too long for me to wake it without a bit more effort than I’m happy to expend. I knew before I started reading this that Eagleton is a Marxist, the only other book of his I had heard of before reading this one is called ‘Why Marx Was Right’. So, other than he seems to be fond of four-word titles, I didn’t really know all that much about him at all. I was almost expecting this to be an ‘understanding literature through the class struggle’ kind of book. It is certainly not that.

There are five chapters – Openings, Character, Narrative, Interpretation and Value. The point of this book is to demonstrate how you might go about reading works of literature and why you need to read them in ways that aren’t the same as how you might go about reading a letter from your friend or a history of nail-clippers or a recipe for Yorkshire Pudding.

When I first studied literature, my teacher at the time said that thing that every self-help book starts by saying: this is going to change your life. He said that we would find we will never be able to read books in quite the same way ever again, that there will be books we like now that we will not like by the end of the year, and books we think are rubbish now that we will, by the end of the year, love for the rest of our lives. He said that studying literature changes you. It was monumental and, given my reference to self-help books before, seemed even at the time somewhat over-wrought. All the same, it proved true, as true as anything anyone has ever said to me. Literature teaches you to read closely – and it teaches you that a trick that works in helping you to understand how one book is impacting on you, might make you miss the point of another book entirely. Learning to read literature is about learning to notice things that might otherwise pass unnoticed as in a dream.

This book is something of a series of worked examples. There is a lovely analysis of Ba, ba, black sheep – one that shows the power of literary analysis even as it ‘goes too far’ in its analysis of a nursery rhyme. I think this is incredibly useful, not just to show the dangers in ‘going too far’ in our analysis as if in a drowsy over-application of critical discourse analysis. Rather, that in showing the kinds of responses available to the actual language used in a piece of literature and showing how responses to it ultimately must refer back to how the language is used, what the language ‘does’ – what it ‘means’ is the basis of all understanding of a text. Rather than ‘form’ being listlessly incidental to meaning, it proves central.

There are a couple of hurdles that people starting out reading literature need to get over. The first is wanting to know what the writer really ‘meant’. This isn’t irrelevant, but it is much less important than we generally assume – and anyway, it quickly becomes clear that writers are the least reliable ‘explainers’ of their books. Artists are basically bullshit artists, and so, other than in their fiction or artwork itself, are to be trusted as much as the comatose.

Take John Cage’s 4’33’’. It is a piece for orchestra where the orchestra itself doesn’t play a single note for a little over four and a half minutes. Four and a half minutes is a bloody long time for an orchestra and audience to sit still in total silence. Rather than the audience being insensate, the silence screams. That’s actually the point. Anyway, someone noticed that there are 273 seconds in four minutes and thirty-three seconds. And that -273 is a very special number – it being absolute zero, the temperature where atoms stop vibrating – at absolute zero there can be no sound, there is rather total silence, complete slumber of all vibration. When this was pointed out to Cage he said something like ‘oh, well, how about that, who’d have thought, what a remarkable coincidence…’ Yeah, right. Eagleton’s point is that even if Cage isn’t pulling our leg here (a possibility I don’t really entertain for a second, by the way), and he didn’t choose the length of the piece to match 273 as a reference to absolute zero – that in itself doesn’t make the connection between 4’33’’ and absolute zero any less interesting about this work.

Often it isn’t even a matter of not ‘trusting’ what the ‘creator’ tells you about a piece – You know, Shakespeare has been dead for a very long time, he can’t tell you anything about any of his sonnets or any of his plays other than what he has left on the page already. And that is as it ought to be. Well, unless you end up in that Borges short story called Shakespeare’s Memory – then you really will know… or not, depending on the critical tradition you belong to.

Eagleton says that great works of literature are ‘born orphans’ – that once they are written they have to make their own way in the world unassisted by their author. This is also true of them in the sense that they are unlikely to go on ‘meaning’ the same for future ages as they did when they were first written – which complicates matters too, of course.

This is actually an idea I want to talk about at a bit more length. It reminded me of Bernstein’s work on restricted and elaborated codes – so, I’m going to chat about that for a minute. Bernstein did some research in the 1960s into why middle-class children did better at school than working-class children. Part of the reason was that middle-class kids were read to from as soon as they could sit on their mother’s knee, and this meant they had access to what Bernstein called two linguistic codes: an elaborated and a restricted code, while the working-class kids only had access to the restricted code. We all have access to the restricted code. It is the one we all use virtually all of the time. If we are sitting at a dinner table I am much more likely to say, “do you mind?” making some sort of gesture (possibly pointing with my nose) rather than say, “could you pass me the salt”. The point is that if we were explicit about every damn thing we said in our normal conversation, we would quickly become total bores. Context generally makes clear what we want to communicate. So, in real life we allow context to fill in the gaps. If we didn’t, we would end up like Tristram Shandy – writing three volumes of our life story before we even got born.

Books generally need to be written in an elaborated code. They can’t assume that you know anything other than what they tell you. So, if the scene is set on a sleepy afternoon in Geneva with two people getting lost while walking about the streets near the lake until they are forced to take cover in a downpour, you really do have to mention all of this or you can’t expect the reader to just know. Any personal references this might contain are only possible between those ‘in the know’ – that is, with access to the restricted code that is otherwise not available given the literal meaning of the words themselves. That is, an elaborated code is essential.

But works of literature sit somewhere between these two extremes. They are neither fully restricted nor fully elaborated. And because they trade in a kind of drowsy world of signs and metaphors and symbols and images, the arrangement of those might mean things well beyond what the author intended.

So, there is stuff put in texts that might be intended to only be seen and understood by a select group of readers – restricted to a shared context and special knowledge – and there is stuff put in that needs to be put in or no one will be able to follow what the hell you are writing in the first place – elaborated so as to be universally understood – and there is stuff that is put in as metaphors that the author may or may not even notice they using, or be able to explain why they did.

For example, take this review so far. I spent an afternoon with a very dear friend walking about lost in the streets of Geneva one afternoon – so, what might have looked like a more general metaphor a couple of paragraphs ago was, up till now, an example of a kind of restricted code that if she had been reading this (before I wrote this paragraph) she would have been the only person likely to know that additional meaning.

I’ve also added in words related to sleep throughout this review so far – rest, dream, drowsy, comatose, slumber. In fact, the one I think felt most forced to me when I added it was ‘complete slumber’, which really did feel like it was trying too hard. I’m not sure what impact those sleepy words might have on the reading of this review, but presumably they have some impact, even if you didn’t notice it until it was pointed out. For instance, there have been psychological tests done on people where they have been given a series of words to remember and if a certain number of those relate to being old, then even young people walk out of the test more slowly and carefully than if more vigorous words had been learnt. I decided on sleepy words because literature is often seen as a kind of dream state. The point being that there are most likely other metaphors I didn’t notice I was putting in here and they, perhaps, say other thinks I didn’t ‘intend’. That’s basically literature, I guess.

I used to read poetry to my daughters that was much, much too hard for them to understand. It wasn’t an act of punishment – or, at least, not meant to be. The point was, I would tell them, that the ‘meaning’ of a poem will come to them eventually – but one of the best ways of getting to the meaning is by listening to the music that the words play. That music is essential to the meaning, not incidental. TS Eliot is quoted here as saying almost exactly that.

Eagleton makes it clear that most bad criticism is character-based or fixated on plot – a bit like telling someone you know gossip about the people who live in your apartment block. This is criticism at a very superficial level. One of the things I got out of Northrop Frye’s book was that too many literary critics see ‘their way’ of doing criticism as the ‘right way’. He could see a role for psychological, symbolic, social, cultural, linguistic and other forms of criticism of texts, and recommended using them all – the point was to see that none of these in themselves is exhaustive and that none of them was necessarily a waste of effort either.

The last chapter is particularly useful – and I’m going to tell you another story now to explain why I liked it so much. Value is a very difficult thing to assert about a work of fiction. And Eagleton says at one point “Knowing what counts as excellence in faction is likely to decide the issue between Chekhov and Jackie Collins, but not between Chekhov and Turgenev” (p.190). All the same, he spends time in this showing why some writing by John Updike is more poorly written, even overwritten (and therefore of less literary value) than an extract from Evelyn Waugh. I think he makes a powerful case here – but I’m sure people will disagree. Which reminds me of when I started my degree in professional writing a million years ago. My ex-wife and I used to drive a woman home after our classes. We had a lecture that was explaining much the same ground as Eagleton is doing here – giving sort of parallel examples of good and bad writing. The good writing was mostly clean, clear prose. The bad writing was over-run with adjectives and adverbs and consisted of twisted, convoluted clauses. Most people who had recently finished high school would be much more likely to write sentences of the second kind, and to think they were better than the first. Don’t worry about what it means, stick another adjective in there, it’ll all be fine. And so, the woman we were driving home said exactly that. That she found all of the sentences that she was supposed to think were good to be dull, plain and uninteresting, and all the sentences she was told were bad, to be actually rather lovely. I think what Eagleton does here, that was perhaps more illuminating than we had experienced in the class we attended all those years ago – despite both our lecturer and Eagleton probably agreeing with each other on what is a good and what is a bad sentence – was that Eagleton provides examples from the text itself and then says why. You can disagree with him, that’s always your prerogative – but it seems to me you would then have to explain why you disagree, also by relying on the text itself – rather than just saying, ‘each to their own’.

There’s much more to this book than initially meets the eye. It is so clearly written and so seemingly light, that the depth and interest of what is being said creeps up on you. It is therefore highly recommended (in fact, I’ve told five people to read it this week already…)

Some quotes:

This opening sentence is a wicked parody of Maugham’s style—though, as one critic has suggested, it is a parody superior to anything Maugham ever managed to produce himself. The copy outshines the original, rather as the word, ‘Vienna’ is more poetic than ‘Wien’. 41

The ancient Greek word for drama literally means ‘something done’. 58

Evelyn Waugh, once observed that ‘I regard writing not as an investigation of character, but as an exercise in the use of language, and with this I am obsessed. I have no technical psychological interest. It is drama, speech and events that interest me’. Aristotle would have understood what he meant, though Scott Fitzgerald might have been somewhat mystified. 65

This is why Eliot did not greatly care what interpretations of his work readers came up with. It is the impact his poetry makes on the guts, the nervous system and the unconscious which concerns him most. 68

Empathy is not the only form of understanding. 75

There is a difference between feeling for someone (sympathy) and feeling as them (empathy) 76

In any case, trying to feel what you are feeling will not necessarily improve my moral character. A sadist likes to know what his victim is feeling. 77

David Copperfield’s childish, rather vacant-headed wife Dora is clearly an unsuitable partner for him, and so is obviously not going to make it to the end of the novel. 101

Whereas realism views the world as an unfolding, modernism tends to see it as a text. The word ‘text’ here is akin to ‘textile’, meaning something spun of many interwoven threads. 106

Consider the difference between a poem and a manual for assembling a table lamp. 117

All literary works are orphaned at birth. 117

The problem with a poem or story, however, is that it does not arrive as part of a practical context. 119

[Araz Goran · Rating 3 out of 5]

من شأن هذا الكتاب أن يغير نظرتك لقراءة الأدب من خلال عرض مجموعة من الأمثلة التي تتضمن أشهر الروايات العالمية ، من خلالها يمارس الكاتب نمطاً خاصاً من التحليل والنقد بأسلوب شفاف ليتلمس القارئ بعض خفايا تلك الروايات والتعمق فيها في سردها وشخصياتها وحبكتها وقيمتها الأدبية والأخلاقية والمعنوية، يحاول أيغليتون هنا أن ينقل طريقة قراءة الأدب من زوايا متعددة ووجوه أخرى قد تختبئ وراء الكلمات والجمل والشخصيات والمواقف والحبكات الغريبة التي تسردها الرواية، في أن يبتكر القارئ أسلوبه الخاص في التعمق في الروايات وبناء رؤية مستقلة عن القراءة السطحية التقليدية وإحداث طفرة في وعي القارئ من خلال ميكانيزمات متدفقة بالمعاني لتعطي القارئ متعة ومطالعة جديدة لمادة الأدب..


تطرق في البداية وكان لابد أن يفعل ذلك لمسألة أن النقد الأدبي والتحليل قد يؤدي إلى إنتزاع روح الأدب وتغليفه كما يقال بغلاف مادي تجريدي جاف لايترك للقارئ ربما سوى عناصر مفككة لا يستوي معها الأدب كـ نتاج فني يستحوذ فيه على مخيلته ومشاركته في عوالم جديدة، في مسألة النقد هذه إستطاع أيغليتون أن يضفي طابعاً أدبياً حساساً على النقد نفسه وتحاشى الدخول في التفاصيل والتعقيدات التحليلية للنص والشخصيات، نجح بالفعل في رسم صور وسطية بين الأدب كنص ثم كقيمة وروح تجعل من الأدب مانعرفه عنه..

يمكن القول أن هذا الكتاب هو بمثابة تمارين خاصة من خلال أمثلة متعددة من نصوص روائية وسوناتات لجعل القارئ يتفاعل مع تلك النصوص كمادة تحليلة نقدية أكثر وضوحاً وتعمقاً لمحاولة ممارسة النقد والأسلوب القرائي على الروايات والنصوص التي قد يقرأها الشخص المعني في المستقبل .. المشكلة الوحيدة ربما هي عدم إطلاع القارئ على جميع الروايات التي ذكرها الكاتب في أمثلته وتبدو بالنسبة اليه ملغزة نوعاً ما وتبقى هذه مشكلة القارئ طبعاً، رغم ذلك تبقى الفائدة كبيرة من هذا الكتاب..

[فايز غازي Fayez Ghazi · Rating 4 out of 5]

أكثر الأخطاء التي يقترفها طلاب الأدب شيوعاً يتمثل في السعي الى معرفة ما تعبّر عنه القصيدة او الرواية، غاضّين الطرف عن الأسلوب الذي تعبر به

- "كيف نقرأ الأدب"، كتاب من خمسة فصول يستعرض كيفية النظر الى الرواية من خلال الإفتتاحية والشخصية والسرد ومن ثم التفسير والتأويل وصولاً الى القيمة، معطياً أمثلة عديدة من الأدب الغربي، نثراً وشعراً.

ان الأعمال الأدبية لا تنطوي على معنى واحد، وهي قادرة على توليد مجموعة كبيرة من المعاني، بعضها يتغير مثل تغير التاريخ، وقد لا تكون هذه المعاني كلها مقصودة عن وعي

- المضمون الغني للكتاب رافقه الأسلوب الممتع لإيجلتون -رغم الترجمة السيئة في الكثير من المواضع- الساخر والسهل، في العديد من الأمكنة لم يقتصر النص على النقد بل على نقد النقد ايضاً، تقنية الكتابة (من الروائي) وتقنية القراءة (من القارئ)، البحث عن التوريات والبنية والحبكة والخيال...

على النقّاد ان يكونوا قادرين على تعزيز ادعاءاتهم

- فصل "التفسير" كان الأفضل برأيي، طريقة وضع الرواية في زمانها لتفسيرها ثم انتزاعها من سياقها الزمني لإعطاء معنى جديد للنص بقراءة جديدة وتأويل جديد، كانت مفصلّة ومشروحة بشكل متقن.

أيمكن ان يكون ثمة تفسير مقنع لعمل أدبي لم يسبق لأحد ان طرحه او يطرحه مستقبلاً؟ ما المانع؟ ربما ثمة أعمال تنتظر من يقرأها بأساليب جديدة ومدهشة، تنتظر قارئاً لم يولد بعد للكشف عن قوة معناها.

- كتاب ممتاز يعطي فكرة جيدة جداً عن طريقة تناول الروايات/ الأدب بالنقد من خلال القراءة.

[Sinem A.]

çok keyifli bir okumaydı. normalde böyle teorik kitapların eğlenceli olması bile beklenmezken bazı satırları kahkahalar eşliğinde okumak epey güzel bir deneyim oldu.
Özellikle bir çocuk tekerlemesi üzerine yazdığı 4 sayfalık eleştiriyi sanırım hiç unutmayacağım.

[golyatkin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bu kadar eğlendiğim, kahkaha attığım başka bir kitap okumadım :) Okumak isteyenler için kitabın çok sayıda kitap hakkında, bol miktarda spoiler içerdiğini belirteyim. Eleştiri olduğu için bu kaçınılmaz bir durum ancak bilmeyenler olabilir.

"Edebiyat, etrafı dalkavuklarla çevrili sonsuz güçlü bir hükümdar gibi, hatalı olamayacağınız bir yerdir." Çok tatlı değil mi?

[Ludmilla · Rating 4 out of 5]

Özellikle Üçüncü Polis'in ilk paragrafı ve ayrıntılı Büyük Umutlar incelemesi şahane. Harry Potter ve diğer küçük değiniler de bonus. Çeviri çok özenli ama imkânınız varsa orijinal dilinden okumanızı tavsiye ederim zira vurgular, kullanılan kelimeler, dizilis vs de inceleniyor. Türkçe baskıda bu durum kelimeler ve deyimlerin orijinallerinin parantez içinde verilmesiyle giderilmeye çalışılmış, kötü de olmamış. Paragraf cevirilerinde de Yeginobali, Eyüboğlu, Hakmen cevirilerinden yararlanılmış. Ancak yine de daha fazlası için aslı okunabilir.
Daha derin okumalar yapmak isteyen tüm iyi okurlara tavsiye ederim Edebiyat Nasıl Okunur'u. Çok şey öğreneceginizi ve keyif alacağınızı garanti ediyorum.

[Nandakishore Mridula · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have always liked to read books on literary theory - to know the gears and cogs that mesh and grind within the machine known as "literature". We all know that the written word immediately does not become literature; nor do most of the stories and poems we read. We also know that stories we really enjoy (most genre fiction, for example) do not really classify as literature - and stories which bore us to tears (many medieval works) and those which leave us totally befuddled (Finnegan's Wake immediately springs to mind) are, whatever be their faults, works of literature.

Terry Eagleton has written a slim handbook, refreshingly free of jargon, to help the novice through this confusion. In five chapters focussing on various aspects of the art of writing, he gives us an overview of how it all works.

In the first chapter, Eagleton talks about openings - the very first paragraph or sentence that pulls the reader into the narrative. The chapter, which kicks off with a discussion of A Passage to India, explores many famous openings (Pride and Prejudice, 1984, Macbeth etc.) and some not-so-famous ones. However, they all have something in common - they set the tone for the narrative, give a brief indication of what is to follow and almost inevitably makes the reader hungry to learn more about the fictional world the writer is creating. I could immediately think of a dozen openings which Eagleton has not specifically mentioned (One Hundred Years of Solitude, To Kill a Mockingbird, A Tale of Two Cities, Fahrenheit 451... to name a few).

Using the openings to show how the writer expertly weaves her sentences to create the effect she wants, the author moves into the second chapter - a study of character. This is more or less standard fare as Eagleton discusses various characters in their settings; how they merge with the context of the narrative. He also points out that a character may be more complex than the author makes him out to be. We need to learn to read between the lines.

In the third chapter, Eagleton analyses the effect of narrative, and also the point of view of the narrator (first person, third person)and how it affects the story as a whole. The "unreliable" first person narrator is analysed in depth. The structure of the narrative is entirely in the control of the author, and she may make any twists, turns or sideswipes to create the effect she desires. We have moved from the structured and linear prose of the realists and the romantics to the meanderings of modernism and postmodernism. (With the advent of works like Cloud Atlas and A Visit from the Goon Squad, one feels that the narrative has become the protagonist - however, these novels are not mentioned in the book, as they must have been published much later to it.)

The fourth chapter is on interpretation. This is understandably the longest, because it is the core of literary theory. Realist works are straightforward, while modernist works require interpretation (in my native tongue Malayalam, modernism has been ridiculed many a time because of the obscurantist nature of many of the works produced in its name). With a rather silly example of interpreting the poem "Baa, baa, black sheep" in highly original ways, Eagleton makes his point that just about any interpretation is not acceptable - you have to be true to the text which is written, and the context in which it is presented. It is true that interpretations will vary across space, time and culture (one example is the off-putting racism that Indians find in most colonial novels which are lauded as great works of literature): however, one cannot force one's meaning down the throat of a narrative. (To round off this chapter, the author gives a detailed interpretation of Great Expectations which is very enjoyable and which will help one read a novel critically).

The last chapter asks: what makes a work of literature good, bad or indifferent? It seems that we all instinctively know it, but it is very hard to define. For examples, while the realists believed in depicting the world as it is, the romantics believed in reshaping it while the modernists mostly negated it. For each of these schools, the yardstick of excellence may be different. However, even the most hardcore realist will not rank a John Grisham potboiler above Cloud Atlas, on the reason that it is more realistic: as Eagleton says: "The point is that there criteria for determining what counts as excellence in golf or fiction, as there are not for determining whether peaches taste better than pineapples." These criteria are laid out in books of literary criticism like this, and somewhat subjective. If one starts reading with a clear eye, one can learn to appreciate the nuances that raises a narrative from plain story to literature.

---------------------------------------

This is a very light book, remarkably easy to read and appreciate: however, it does not contain much in-depth analysis (except for one or two cases). Also, Eagleton continuously tries to be funny, which strikes a jarring note, and was not required in a book of literary criticism.

[Mahdi · Rating 5 out of 5]

این کتاب رو تو نمایشگاه امسال گرفتم و از اسم و طرحش اینطور به نظرم نمی‌اومد که کتاب مهمی باشه... بعد از اون با کتاب نظریه‌های ادبی تری ایگلتون آشنا شدم که خیلی روون و خوب نظریه‌های خشک ادبی رو توضیح می‌ده... بعدش هم یکی از اساتید واحد نقد ادبی رو از این کتاب درس داد (هرچند که استاد شخص من نبود) همه‌ی این‌ها باعث شد کتاب رو بخونم... شاید پنجاه درصد کتاب به درد کسی نخوره و توضیح واضحات باشه اما ایگلتون انقدر روون و شیرین مسائل رو مطرح کرده که جذب متن می‌شید و حتی جاهایی شیطنت‌های طنازش باعث می‌شه یه لبخندی هم می‌زنید.

[Uğur Karabürk · Rating 5 out of 5]

hoşuma gitti, tavsiye ederim

[Fiza Pathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book taught me so much about how to write literary criticism that I can't thank it enough. Terry Eagleton has managed to really bring out the essence of how to interpret & analyze literature in this witty book. As I am not a an English Literature graduate or post-graduate, this book was an excellent introduction for me to comprehend how literature works. It taught me through various examples how to frame my literary critiques & how not to go overboard with my interpretations. Indeed, this book is neat, concise & intellectually satisfying. Terry Eagleton gets 5 stars from me.

[Emma · Rating 3 out of 5]

A readable introduction to approaching literature in a more structured, insightful way. Definitely one for beginners, it's funny and evaluative but at the more basic end of the literary criticism scale. It covers a good range of titles, many of which I haven't read (on the TBR they go) and the thematic organisation (Openings/Character/Narrative/Interpretation/Value) is used effectively as a means of explaining how literature works. This is not a dull step by step manual, instead Eagleton breaks down the important factors that underlie great fiction. As someone who consistently gets lost in the story, it was a useful reminder that literature is not just about the plot, the 'what is happening', or even the 'what is it saying', but rather HOW does it do all this? The mechanics of the novel are part of the beauty it creates as a whole.

[alper · Rating 4 out of 5]

Terry Eagleton'ın kitabı isminin hakkını veriyor. Edebiyat dünyasını didik didik ettiği çalışmasında buna defalarca tanık oluyorsunuz. Birçok kitabı ve yazarı “Açılışlar”, “Karakterler”, “Anlatı”, “Yorum” ve “Değer” başlıkları altında detaylı bir şekilde inceliyor. Bunu yaparken en çok üzerinde durduğu eserler:

- "Büyük Umutlar" (kitapta detaylı bir incelemesi mevcut)
- "Adsız Sansız Bir Jude" (Sue karakterini detaylı ele alıyor)
- "Oliver Twist",
- "Uğultulu Tepeler",
- "Gurur ve Önyargı",
- "Jane Eyre",
- "Hamlet", "Macbeth",
- "Tristram Shandy"

Ayrıca eserleriyle birlikte Dickens’ı da çok fazla irdeliyor. Henry James, Jane Austen, Shakespeare, James Joyes…. Tüm tezlerini örneklendirdiği için hiçbir şey havada kalmıyor. Tabii bunu yaparken hunharca spoiler veriyor. Okuyup da mı geldik, kitap okuma listemizde en üst sırada mı hiç umrunda değil. Bir iki kere sinirlerimi hoplatmadı değil :) (Kabahatli olan, derse önkoşul kitapları okumadan gelen benim tabii ki :))

Bu başlıklarda ne gibi konulardan bahsediyor peki?

- Anlatı ile olay örgüsünün farkı nedir?
- Tip ile karakter farkı?
- Karakterle özdeşleşme, karakterle empati kurmalı mi? Kurulabilir mi?
- Anlatı yöntemlerini sıralanması, örneklendirilmesi...
- Gerçekçi romanlar, klasik gerçekçilik…
- Modernizm kelimelerle neden oynar?
- Bir eser sıfırdan mı yaratılır?
...

Biraz somutlaştırmak adına Nabakov’un "Lolita"sını incelediği bölümün bir parçasına bakalım,

Bir üslubun aynı anda hem “edebi” hem de etkin olması mümkündür. Vladamir Nabokov’un Lolita’sındaki, kahramanın özel bir detektif tarafından takip edildiği şu pasaj buna güzel bir örnek:

Arabadaki şoför, Trapp’vari bıyığı ve varkalı omuzlarıyla vitrin mankenlerine benziyordu; üstü açılıp kapanabilen arabası sanki görünmez, kımıltısız, ipekten bir iplikle bizimkine bağlıydı ve onu biz çekiyorduk. Bizim külüstür onun ihtişamlı, cilalı makinesinden kat kat zayıftı; sürat yapıp adamdan kaçmaya kalkışmadım bile. O lente currite noctis equi! Ah yavaş koşun kabuslar! Tepeleri tırmandık, yokuşlardan indik, hız sınırını geçmedik, ağır yürüyen çocukları ezmedik, sarı levhalar üzerindeki siyah kavisleri taklit ettik, nasıl ve nereye gidersek gidelim kırmızı arabayla aramızdaki mesafe, o şaşmaz, serapsı aralık, yoldan örülü o sihirli halı, hiç değişmedi.

Bu pasaj okura ilk bakışta Updike’ınkinden çok da farklı gelmeyebilir. Burada da benzer bir edebi özfarkındalık var ve detaylar karşısında aynı cinlik ve titizlik gösteriliyor. Updike gibi Nabokov da nesrinin ses örüntüsüne kulak kesilmiş. Aralarındaki fark, kısmen, Nabokov’un oyunbazlığından kaynaklanıyor; pasaj kendi abartılı rafineliğinin farkındaymış ve bununla eğleniyormuş gibi. Anlatıcı Humbert Humbert kendisiyle dalga geçiyor adeta. Humbert Humbert adındaki gülünçlük bile kendi pahasına yaptığı bir şaka…. (211,212)
...
Nabakov’un tarzı, kalabalık etmeden, klostrofobikleşmeden, kelimenin tam anlamıyla “edebi” olmayı başarır…(215)

Kitaptaki en sevdiğim kısmı tekrar alıntılayabilir miyim?

..."Eğer bütün erdemler normal karakterlere gidiyorsa, hayatın bütün renkleri de ucubelerin oluyor. Kimse Fagin'le biraları yuvarlamak varken Oliver Twist'le portakal suyu içmek istemez. Serserilik saygınlıktan daha caziptir her zaman. Viktorya dönemi orta sınıfı normalliği tutumluluk, sağduyu, sabır, iffet, uysallık, özdisiplin ve çalışkanlık şeklinde tanımladığından beri, bütün eğlencenin şeytana kalacağı belliydi." (61)

Olumsuz olarak ne diyebilirim? Başındaki “açılışlar”dan bahsettiği kısım pek ilgilimi çekmedi (belki örneklerden), bir de bazen lafa girmesi uzun sürüyor, ya da lafını bağlaması.

Bunların dışında kitabı çok sevdim. “Karakter” ve “anlatı” başlıkları beni benden aldı. “Yorum” başlığında artık notlarım kontrolden çıktı, fütursuzca kitabı karalamaya başladım. Kitabın genelinde hakim olan ironik üslubuyla ele aldığı “Mee Mee Kara Koyun” tekerlemesini yorumlaması şahane. (değinmeden edemedim) Son örneğinde de William McGonagall’ın bir şiiri ile okuyucu dumura uğratıyor :)) Kitabı genel olarak değerlendirdiğimde edebi eserleri özümsemeye çok faydası olacağı kanısındayım. Okunulan eserlerin her bir bileşenine dair farkındalığa büyük katkı sağlayacaktır. Yukarıdaki listeyi temizleyip yine gelcem Terry Hocam :)

[Lazaros Karavasilis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ο Τέρυ Ήγκλετον καταφέρνει σε πολύ απλή γλώσσα να μας εξηγήσει πως να διαβάζουμε λογοτεχνία και ποίηση. Περίπου. Για την ακρίβεια ο Ήγκλετον (και κανένας Ήγκλετον) δεν μπορεί να υπαγορεύσει έναν 'σωστό τρόπο' για την ανάγνωση λογοτεχνικών έργων. Ωστόσο, αυτό που καταφέρνει ο συγγραφέας είναι να παρέχει μια διερεύνηση των κειμένων που παραθέτει (μεγάλα έργα κλασσικής λογοτεχνίας), με στόχο να διευρύνει το πεδίο ανάγνωσης μας. Τι κρύβεται πέρα απο το προφανές, όταν διαβάζουμε μια πρόταση, παράγραφο ή ένα ολόκληρο έργο; Πόσες ερμηνείες επιδέχεται η 'Καρδιά του Σκότους'; Τι υποδηλώνουν οι σχέσεις μεταξύ χαρακτήρων; Αυτά είναι μερικά απο τα ερωτήματα που απαντάει ο συγγραφέας και σε επαρκή βαθμό.
Κρίμα που δεν υπάρχει στα ελληνικά.

[Volkan · Rating 5 out of 5]

ben zevkle okudum. bugüne kadar edebiyat üzerine sadece romanlarını ilgiyle takip ettiğim yazarların metinlerini ve yine o yazarlar üzerine yazılanları okumuştum. bu kitap gibi edebiyatı daha genel anlamda işleyen bir şey okumamıştım.

bence kitap genel olarak zihninizi açmaya; bir metne bakabileceğiniz çeşitli açıları göstermeye yönelik. eleştiri anlayışı hiçbir kısmında metni öldürmeye, otopsi yapmaya çalışmıyor, her zaman anlamını genişletiyor, geliştirmenin yollarını gösteriyor. kitabın hem dili hem kavramları aktarışı akıcı, verimli. müthiş sayıda örnek var, hatta kitapta soyut kalan bir satır bile yok, hepsi örneklendirilmiş bile diyebilirim sanırım.

belirli bir edebiyat temeliniz varsa bu kitap size hafif bir okuma yapmaktan, belki bir kaç eser üzerine inceleme okumaktan başka bir şey yaşatmayabilir. ama benim gibi sadece inceleme/deneme okumuş ya da edebiyat üzerine hiçbir okuma yapmamışsanız, çok verimli bir kitap olduğunu düşünüyorum. bu kitap sayesinde bazı konularda kafamı toparladım, sezdiğim ama adını koyamadığım bazı ilgilerimi keşfettim. uzak durduğum ve bayık bulduğum 'klasik' edebiyata yumuşadım, muhtelif değerleri olduğunu gördüm.

özellikle goodreads'te vakit geçirmekten hoşlanan herkese öneririm. :)


------------
ha bir de şunlara takılabilirsiniz tabi,
-kitap biraz karışık, sadece beş ana başlığa ayrılmış. ben kendi çapımda bir içindekiler yaptım nerede ne işleniyor her zaman bulabilmek için.
-kitap işlediği hiçbir konuda ciddi anlamda derine inmiyor. en azından ileri okumalar için tavsiyelerde bulunabilirdi yazar.

[Ritinha · Rating 2 out of 5]

Eagleton é um comunicador e consegue transmitir de modo simples mensagens de teor complexo. Infelizmente o livro tem menos de metade da dimensão desejável para que realmente veicule conteúdo suficiente para servir de instrumento de consulta e auxílio permanente, que era a primeira e a maior das expectativas que tinha quando o adquiri.
A opção pela leveza e simplicidade ganha mais público, mas não é vantajosa para quem está habituado a dedicar aos livros mais atenção do que à televisão.
Spoilar mais de uma vintena de títulos (alguns dos quais já li mas outros nem por isso) como meio para atingir o fim desejado, povoando o livro com exemplos práticos e de compreensão facilitada, é um método tão eficiente quanto merecedor do mais absoluto repúdio. [Até o João Gil aprendeu quão errada é a conduta do vil spoilador.]
§
O trabalho de tradução enferma de um erro repetido dezenas de vezes que chega a impedir a percepção do correcto sentido das frases ao incauto leitor que não se aperceba que o «to assume», para o senhor tradutor, é sempre traduzido como «assumir». Chegamos ao cúmulo se surgir «assunção» quando o claro significado pretendido pelo autor é «presunção».
Claro que gente existe que tem isto por questão menor. Se o legislador lhe apanha o jeito, ainda teremos uma certa secção do Código Civil (art.ºs 349.º a 351.º) rebaptizada como «Assunções».
Não se contentando com fixar no leitor um permanente estado de alerta para proceder a uma interpretação correctiva, o senhor tradutor, que traduz de inglês para português de Portugal, escolheu enxertar os trechos citados com traduções para português do Brasil quando existem edições das obras citadas traduzidas em português de Portugal.

[Udeni · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Like clog dancing, the art of analysing works of literature is almost dead on its feet."

Terry Eagleton is never better than when grumpy. And here, the old curmudgeon takes on an entertaining and erudite ramble through books. Less of a how-to guide and more of an opinion-piece, this book is Eagleton attempting to introduce rigour into our reading.
The book is organised in typically idiosyncratic sections: Openings, Character, Narrative, Interpretation and Value. (Why Openings but not Closings, for example?)
Students at undergraduate level and above will know much of the technical content of the book. This is not a formal primer in discourse analysis, such as Kinneavy's Theory of Discourse.
Amateur readers, book clubs or anyone seeking a more formal approach to reading will benefit from Eagleton's book. Although few readers will have the breadth of knowledge which underpins his analyses: his dazzling interpretation of Great Expectations (pp 149-168) draws on Christian mythology, Freudian psychology, Marxism, Victorian history and Dickens other works.
In fact, Eagleton's own analyses are often more entertaining than the writing under discussion: his take-down of Updike's 'Rabbit at Rest' is masterly
"This is a highly accomplished piece of writing. Too accomplished, one might feel. It is too calculated by half. Every word seems to have been meticulously chosen, polished, slotted together with other words and then smoothed over to give a glossy finish."
With literary criticism of this calibre, who needs fiction?

[Xfi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Libro interesante y escrito de forma amena pero que necesita de una cultura lectora de la que carezco para sacarle todo su provecho.
Para empezar el título del libro es engañoso, lo que parece un tratado práctico de como "leer" literatura realmente es un ensayo donde se desmenuzan algunas de las principales obras de la literatura anglosajona.
El problema es que, por ejemplo, si no te has leído Grandes Esperanzas de Dickens (y con eso estoy confesando que no lo he hecho....pecador!) no podrás entender el largo capítulo donde analiza minuciosamente sus personajes y circunstancias.
De todas maneras, para ser un tema que de entrada parece muy "espeso", el autor lo desarrolla en un lenguaje ameno y con sentido del humor.

[Mohsen.khan72 · Rating 2 out of 5]

خب این کتاب به درد اون دسته از کسایی میخوره که اکثر آثار ادبی رو مطالعه کردند و کلا کلاسیک دوست دارند مثلا فصل سه راجع به روایت در رمان هاست و از کلی کتاب نام برده و با هم مقایسه کرده کتابایی مثل جین ایر تس کتابای کنراد تولستوی لارنس ووو از نظر شیوه و هدف نویسنده حرف زده تا اونجایی که میشد خوندم و ازش استفاده کردم مثلا وقتی از مزرعه حیوانات میگفت یا درباره هندرسون شاه باران که توی این چند روزه شروعش میکنم. اما تا این اندازه برام کافی بود چون خیلی از کتابایی که نام برده و مورد تحلیل قرار داده بود رو نخونده بود.

[hayatem · Rating 5 out of 5]

"الأدب يدور عن التجربة المحسوسة للغة، وليس عن الاستعمال الفعلي لها فحسب. "
تيري ايغلتون

‏يتناول ايغلتون في الكتاب عدة شواغل أدبية ومفاهيمية ولغوية بمنهجية نقدية لطبيعة الأدب ووسائل تحليله بأنساقه البنيوية، مع عنايته بالجذور الميثولوجية .

الشخصيات ، الحبكة، الحوار، اللغة، وأمور فنية أخرى، كتتبع البناء الشكلي للعمل والكشف عن دلالته التعبيرية الظاهرة والخفية. تعمق في فحصها وتحليلها.

أبدع ايغلتون في طرح نقد فني- لغوي-لعدد من النصوص الأدبية لكل من جين آير، شكسبير ، وبيكيت ، و ج. ك رولينغ، وآخرون.

الكتاب رائع للمهتمين بفن النقد الأدبي.

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can read literature now, thank you Terry Eagleton.

[Yasi tamjidi · Rating 4 out of 5]

این کتاب را خیلی اتفاقی و بدون توصیه قبلی گرفتم. احساس کردم شاید به دردم بخورد. و دلم نمی‌خواست در شروع چیزی پیچیده و تخصصی بخوانم. همان طور که اول کتاب توضیح داده شده مطالب آن برای نوآموزان طراحی شده و ممکن است برای فعالان حوزه ادبیات چندان کارآمد نباشد. هرچند به نظر من خواندش برای هیچ کس خالی از لطف نخواهد بود.
هدف اصلی کتاب بازنگری آهسته خواندن و کمی عمیق کردن فرآیند خواندن آثار ادبیست.
کتاب به فصل‌های آغاز آثار ادبی، شخصیت، روایت، تفسیر و ارزش تقسیم شده. و در هر بخش به صورت مفصل هر یک از این مباحث را شکافته و ما را به سمت چیزی که هرکدام از این‌ها به ما در مورد کلیت اثر ادبی می‌گوید راهنمایی کرده.
لحن کتاب عاری از هرگونه پیچیدگیست و بسیار ساده بیان شده. نگرانی اصلی من به هنگام خرید این بود که شاید کتاب کسل‌کننده، پیچیده و پر از اصطلاحات و نظریه‌های سخت ادبی باشد اما کتاب بسیار سرراست است و طنز نویسنده به روان‌تر پیش رفتن کار کمک بیشتری هم می‌کند.
در هر فصل تعداد بسیار زیادی مثال وجود دارد که پس از توضیحات ابتدایی نویسنده مطرح و بررسی شده‌اند تا همه چیز کاملا شفاف شود. مثال‌ها هم از آثار مشهوری چون جین ایر، الیور توییست، غرور و تعصب، هری‌پاتر، جنایت و مکافات، آرزوهای بزرگ و... انتخاب شده‌اند که حتی اگر توسط خواننده مطالعه نشده باشند مأنوس و آشنا هستند.
یکی از ضعف‌های کتاب نیز از همین جا ناشی می‌شود که در فصل‌های ابتدایی تنوع و گوناگونی مثال‌ها بسیار زیاد است و در فهم مطلب یاری می‌کند ولی در فصل‌های آخر تعداد آنها رفته رفته کاهش می‌یابد و محدود به یک یا دو کتاب خاص می‌شود.
نویسنده به شدت نثر شوخ‌طبعی دارد و در مورد خیلی چیزها از جمله “خداوند” و نویسندگانِ انجیلی که از کلاس‌های نویسندگی خلاق نمره خوبی نخواهند گرفت!!! وعذاب وجدان اخلاقی‌ای که باعث شده نویسنده جین ایر زن اول آقای راچستر را به هر طریقی از بین ببرد صحبت می‌کند. که همه این جزئیات باعث می‌شود خواندن کتاب لذت بیشتری داشته باشد.
کتاب در مجموع به من دید جدیدی در نقد کتاب داد و متوجه برخی ضعف‌های خودم در قضاوت اثار ادبی شدم.
ترجمه کتاب بسیار خوب انجام شده بود و به نظرم درخشان‌ترین کار مترجمان این بود که دقت کرده بودند تا هرطور شده قسمت‌های ذکر شده از آثار ادبی مشهور را از ترجمه‌های خوب فارسی ذکر کنند.
تنها نقص کتاب در قسمت ترجمه شعرها رخ می‌داد که آن هم بر گردن مترجمان نیست، با این حال مراجعه به متن اصلی در قسمت شعرها شاید بد نباشد.
و نکته آخر که به نظرم کم اهمیت هم نیست، کاغذ کتاب بوی بسیار خوبی می‌داد، و هروقت از خواندنش خسته می‌شدم کتاب را می‌بوییدم و دوباره ادامه می‌دادم.

[El lector de l'antifaç · Rating 4 out of 5]

Meta literatura pura.

[Gabrielle Cunha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Matei a saudade das aulas teóricas de literatura com essa releitura (que havia feito na faculdade). Incrível! Gosto muito da maneira como o Terry Eagleton disseca alguns conceitos literários.

Ele analisa personagens, construção, enredo e outras coisas através de exemplos de livros (clássicos e um ou outro contemporâneo). É a leitura ideal para quem gosta de escrever e pra quem, como leitora, quer saber sobre a estrutura de um livro

[Enea · Rating 4 out of 5]

He aquí un libro, como su nombre lo indica, para aprender a leer. Por supuesto que en un sentido literario y no literal. Y, además, con la simpleza y el sentido común de pensar a su lector más próximo como alguien casi sin herramientas.

Como estudiante de la carrera de Letras de la UBA, puedo decir que uno aprende a leer y escribir de cierta manera, al mismo tiempo que aprender a leer y usar un vasto universo de herramientas teóricas dentro de algo que podemos llamar “Teoría Crítica”. No pretendo ser exacto en esto, sino más bien abarcativo; hay crítica literaria, semiología, filosofía, psicoanálisis, etc.

Aunque nos repiten desde el primer día que la lectura no tiene que adaptarse a la teoría. En todo caso, debe ser al revés. Es difícil no verse tentado a trabajar con este conjunto heterodoxo que antes que darnos preguntas, parece tener ya la mayor parte de las respuestas. Además, se nos pide que trabajemos con eso. ¿Cuántas veces vamos a usar “Lo Ominoso” de Freud durante la carrera?

Si planteáramos, durante un examen, un análisis de un texto literario sólo con la fuente, cierto contexto histórico y un sentido común de qué quiere decir o cuál es su importancia o sus personajes es probable que sea desaprobado. Y no está mal que así sea, si se requiere más de nosotros.

El problema es que no tenemos una instancia para pensar a los textos en sus elementos constitutivos; sus personajes, las tramas, el estilo, las frases, los nombres de los personajes.

Puede parecer poco pero Terry Eagleton escribe un libro partiendo de esa idea. ¿Cómo leer un texto literario y no morir en el intento? ¿Qué buscar en él y cómo reconocer si es bueno, malo o qué lo hace distinto del resto? Prácticamente sin apoyo teórico. Solamente aparece nombrado Freud aunque podemos discutir si sus escritos ya califican o no como literatura.

El manual está dividido en cinco capítulos que abarcan: “Comienzos”, “El Personaje”, “Narrativa”, “Interpretación” y “Valor”.

En el primer capítulo, Eagleton recorre grandes comienzos de la literatura universal (aunque luego se concentra en obras de habla inglesa) y los analiza, como ejercicios, desde una variedad de perspectivas. El autor recorre en pocas páginas a E.M. Forster, O’Brien, Shakespeare, el Génesis, Melville y Austen entre otros. Al mismo tiempo que analiza texturas sonoras, ambigüedades signficativas, gramática y sintaxis, contradicciones, implicaciones o tonos, recorre distintos estilos y movimientos. Cabe destacar lo que dice el autor al comienzo del capítulo:

“El error más típico que cometen los estudiantes de literatura es abordar lo que dice el poema o la novela directamente y dejar de lado la manera en que lo dice. Leer de ese modo supone dejar de lado el aspecto ‘literario’ de la obra, es decir, el hecho de que se trata de una obra de teatro o una novela, y no un informe sobre la incidencia de la erosión del suelo en Nebraska” (2016: 14).

Eagleton se permite hacer chistes, prácticamente, al final de cada sentencia o idea cerrada. Si tienen la posibilidad de escuchar algunas de sus conferencias en YouTube (hay muchas muy buenas) lo hace todo el tiempo.

El segundo capítulo, “El Personaje”, también parte de una idea sencilla: “Las figuras literarias no tienen historia previa” (2016: 60). No tiene sentido pensar a los personajes literarios como si fueran personas reales. Por eso recorre las concepciones y usos de “individuo” y de “character” desde la Poética de Aristóteles, pasando por Charles Dickens hasta James Joyce. A la conclusión que parece llegar es que el personaje es un vehículo para la obra y que tiene que ser leído en ese sentido.

“Narrativa” se ocupa de analizar la posición desde la cual se construyen el narrador omnisciente, los narradores no fiables o los narradores infantiles, entre otros. ¿Cuál sería el rol del narrador dentro del Realismo? Dice Eagleton: “Una narración omnisciente en tercera persona es una especie de metalenguaje, lo que significa que, al menos en la ficción realista, no puede ser un objeto de crítica o de comentario dentro de la misma voz narrativa. Puesto que se trata de la voz misma de la historia, parece imposible cuestionarla” (2006: 103). Hablando de Middlemarch, señala que “el narrador se comporta como un moderador sensato en un debate público que se asegura de que todos los personajes puedan hacer oír su voz” (2006: 108).

Ahora, ¿qué sucede con esa voz narrativa en el Modernismo y Posmodernismo? ¿Por qué ya no parecen importante la historia de sus personajes y los quehaceres de su vida diaria? De nuevo, Eagleton va de George Eliot y Daniel Defoe a Virginia Woolf y Joseph Conrad. “Mientras que el Realismo ve el mundo como un despliegue, el Modernismo tiende a verlo como un texto” (2006: 122). La Primera Guerra Mundial y la puesta en crisis de la narrativa le permiten al autor repasar esos textos cuyos intereses parecen estar menos en la historia que narran, y más en la verdad inaccesible y los límites del lenguaje.

“George Eliot y Thomas Hardy están convencidos de que la verdad se puede narrar de forma esencial, mientras que Conrad y Woolf no comparten esa creencia. Para ellos, la verdad no permite representación alguna. Podemos mostrarla, pero no afirmarla. Tal vez Kurtz la ha visto por un momento y se ha asustado, pero eso no podemos embutirlo en la camisa de fuerza que puede llegar a ser una historia. Hay un corazón de tinieblas en el centro de cualquier ficción” (2006: 127).

En el anteúltimo de los capítulos, “Interpretación”, Eagleton se toma el espacio para hacer un análisis extenso en el libro sobre Grandes Esperanzas de Charles Dickens. Al final, se toma un espacio para pensar algunos aspectos formales de otro huérfano inglés mundialmente famoso en el mundo de la literatura.

El capítulo se encarga de develar las distintas maneras en que se construye el sentido de los libros que consideramos literarios a lo largo de la historia. ¿Son los autores quienes pueden decir qué significa su texto? ¿Es el público, el lector, quien construye sentido? ¿De qué manera se modifican los sentidos de las obras que leemos? No podemos asegurar que La Odisea es importante para nosotros del mismo modo que era importante para un ateniense.

Entre las reflexiones de Terry Eagleton, hay dos que resultan esclarecedoras para este capítulo. La primera: “Cuando a Robert Browning le preguntaron el significado de uno de sus poemas más oscuros, se dice que respondió: ‘Cuando escribí este poema, Dios y Robert Browning sabían lo que significaba. Ahora, sólo Dios lo sabe” (2006: 153). La segunda: “La lectura probablemente encuentra en el texto más cosas de las que el texto puede contener de forma razonable, aunque no más de las que puede respaldar de forma lógica” (2006: 160).

“Valor”, la última de las secciones, contiene un fragmento memorable de uno de los peores poemas en lengua inglesa según la opinión del autor; “Railway Bridge of the Silvery Tay”. No tiene desperdicio detenerse a leerlo en su completitud.

Además, el autor intenta separar las aguas entre el gusto y la valoración. Motivos que suelen confundirse en estos tiempos modernos donde todos somos “creadores de contenido” y las opiniones de todos deben ser igual de valiosas. Del mismo modo que el golf tiene reglas y criterios para definir la excelencia, la literatura tiene convenciones y criterios de conocimiento público que exceden el gusto subjetivo.

“Hay que aprender a gestionarlos compartiendo ciertas prácticas sociales. En el caso de la literatura, estas prácticas sociales se conocen como crítica literaria. Esto todavía deja mucho lugar para la discrepancia y el desacuerdo. Los criterios son guías para poder hacer juicio de valor. No los hacen por ti, del mismo modo que el seguimiento de las reglas del ajedrez no implica que se vayan a ganar todas las partidas” (2006: 210).

El libro de Eagleton comienza con una línea que parafrasea una idea con la que Jorge Panesi solía empezar los cursos de Teoría y Análisis Literario. Una idea que por su crudeza no deja de ser cierta y que, además, en el gesto de defender y promover la crítica literaria como una disciplina se vuelve más valiosa. “Igual que la danza folclórica irlandesa, el arte de analizar obras literarias está en las últimas” (2006: 11).

[Meltem Sağlam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dolu dolu, çok akıcı, kısa ve öz bir anlatım. Zaman zaman gülümsediğim cümleler olduğu gibi, katılmadığım cümleler de oldu.

Çok faydalandım. Klasiklerle ilgili olarak, özellikle okurken fark etmediğim ayrıntıları, bağlantıları, atıfları işaret ettiği bölümler çok ilginçti.

[Arman Keshavarzi · Rating 4 out of 5]

به نظرم بسیار کتاب به‌درد‌بخوری بود. یه ذهنیت کلی راجع به نقد ادبیات برای مخاطب ایجاد میکنه و توی فصل‌های مختلف با تعداد زیادی مثال‌ خوب از متن‌های گوناگون ادبی منظورش رو تا حد خوبی تفهیم میکنه. تفسیرها و نقدهایی که ارائه میده بسیار منطقی، قابل درک و کمک‌کننده هستند. نقیضه‌های کتاب ارزش بیشتری از پاسخش به خود مسائل دارند، یعنی نویسنده بیشتر سعی میکنه با اوردن مثال نقض باورهای عمومی رو رد بکنه تا اینکه خودش یک جواب شسته رفته بده و این هم از جهاتی خوبه و هم از جهاتی باعث میشه احساس ناکافی بودن متن به آدم اعمال بشه. (چون کلی دیدگاه رد شدند اما یک دیدگاه روشن و ثابت جایگزین نشده.)
در مجموع اما بسیار کتاب ارزشمند و جمع‌جوری توی این حوزه است و برای کسانی که آشنایی زیادی با نقد ندارند یا اسیر باورهایی دم‌دستی و اشتباه راجع به نقد شدند واقعا کمک‌کننده است.

[Sajjad thaier · Rating 3 out of 5]

We are such stuff
As dreams are made on;

No it is not a self help book, it’s a very serious book.

Eagleton’s book is about literature, it’s about all the little things that we have read before but just didn’t pay enough attention to.

The trees are coming into leaf Like something almost being said . . .

This book is essential to any literary fan or anyone who enjoy the company of a good novel. Because books are like humans, more you know them more fun they be.
So read this book. It will help you to read better, to listen better and most importantly to enjoy literature.

If love and bottles of Châteauneuf-du-Pape pass away, so do wars and tyrants.

Ps. The Arabic translation was so bad that I had to go the original version to understand what Eagleton was talking about.

One of them believes that the starship Enterprise really does have a heat shield. Another considers that Sherlock Holmes is a creature of flesh and blood. Yet another argues that Dickens’s Mr Pickwick is real, and that his servant Sam Weller can see him, even though we cannot. These people are not clinically insane, simply philosophers.

What victory is there in hacking thousands of enemy soldiers to death?

‘Once upon a time’ signals to the reader not to raise certain questions, such as Is this true? Where did it happen? Was it before or after the invention of cornflakes?


W.B. Yeats once failed to obtain an academic post in Dublin because he misspelt the word ‘professor’ on his application.


If we were to accept that our existence is as fragile and fugitive as that of Prospero and Miranda, we might reap some advantage from doing so. We might cling to life in a less white-knuckled way, and so enjoy ourselves more and injure others less.


The fascinating is only a step away from the freakish.

Pleasantness is for those who can afford it.

He was the only man in history who was banned from the Danish communist party before he had applied to join

A life can be significant without having a goal, just as a work of art can be.

Literature, like an absolute monarch among his fawning courtiers, is where you can never
be wrong.

[Carlos Tiznado · Rating 2 out of 5]

Una guía muy parcial para aprender a "leer literatura"

Lo encontré como una sugerencia de un "booktube" para ensanchar la crítica literaria. No se le refirió como "La Guía Suprema de Crítica Literaria", pero sí fue referido como una guía bastante confiable. No la encontré así.

En realidad, encontré muchos comentarios parciales del autor, poca objetividad, poca "guía objetiva de crítica literaria" (lo que en realidad iba buscando) muchísimos extractos y apreciaciones de los grandes literatos que Eagleton sugirió: entre ellos mucho Shakespeare, mucho Milton, mucho -muchísimo- Dickens, TS Elliot, entre tantos otros, con insertos textuales de sus obras (incluyendo "spoilers" de las obras que mencionó, ¡por amor de Dios! Los spoilers deberían estar prohibidos, o al menos, debió advertirnos de eso el autor) para hacer análisis más o menos objetivos de lo que se dijo ahí, pero con pocos elementos de crítica literaria. No me agradó.

El libro se estructuró en varios apartados más o menos fijos: personajes, narrativa, interpretación, valor. Sin embargo, dentro del curso de cada uno de ellos, el autor se perdió en descripciones y transcripciones abrumadoras de las obras que estudió y con las que trató de ejemplificar cada uno de estos puntos, sin que se aportara mucha sustancia para orientar la premisa inicial del libro: hacer crítica literaria.

En fin, no lo recomiendo. Me quedé esperando más de este libro como guía/modelo/manual de análisis literario, sin embargo, no fue más que un "compendio de mis apreciaciones personales acerca de algunas obras literarias".

[Bloodorange · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first chapter (Openings) and the last part of the final chapter (Values), where Eagleton analyses fragments of prose and poetry are fabulous, like a live session with an inspiring professor. But as for the middle - I am not sure I can imagine who this book was written for; am under impression that the person interested enough to read that already realizes, at least to some degree, what Eagleton says. There are some remarks on differences between modernist and Victorian writing worth getting through the middle of the book; observations on usefulness of orphans as literary protagonists; lots of tongue-in cheek macho-sounding quotes ("Narratives are like hired assassins"; an analysis of Great Expectation everyone familiar with this book should read. But I'm just not convinced this is enough to give tho book four stars.