Status Updates From The Handbook to Literary Re...

Am I the only one who after finishing chapter 7 still has no idea what the hell is the difference between theory and Theory (with a capital T, can't forget that now)? Gupta criticises the 'cookie cutter approach', but hell if I know what he means by saying '[engaging] with Theory as the institutionally adopted aspect of an ongoing process of theory', which is SUPPOSEDLY his alternative to the cookie-cutter one...

Skimmed the references.

Four-hundred pages of references at the back of a two-hundred and twenty-seven page book!

Sad and ironic that there is such a variance in style and hence readability between the articles in this book being as it's a book about literary matters.

This author (D Johnson) is much easier to read.

Hoof! Two chapters on ... erm ... complicated stuff about literature. I'm a little closer to understanding Theory and no further from believing it to be a useless pursuit for intellectuals with more time on their hands than could be explained by sensible avenues of thought.

I like this book, but this chapter looks like its going to be hard work. Institututional histories of literary disciplines. Heck, I don't even know what the chapter title means!

Remarkably easy to read and, actually, quite interesting.

Not as heavy as you might think. That said, I've only read the introduction. :)

I'm seriously grateful for W.R. Owens for writing about textual criticism in a level-headed, understandable language. The field is difficult as it is, there's absolutely no reason to make it even more complicated (I'm looking at you Greetham!)