Ilse’s Reviews > Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction > Status Update

I am not sure whether talking about literature (which is literary theory) is the same as talking with literature, working with literature. Working with text means understanding the mechanism of the art of expression, the inner magic of narrative understanding. In my experience, literary theory can be applied to everything and tells me near to nothing about the very very text at hand (these letters in this order, in this timely fashion). Reading Foucault on literature (for example) gives me (maybe) an understanding of the politics of "talking" about bodies, but nothing about Jane Eyre, Bronte and Middlemarch, breathtaking documents of human communication and almost magical time binding communion (whatever this means - I still exploring). I am excited what you get out of it!!

I liked it very much when ive read it, dear Ilse. But more for the clarity with which Culler explains all of this rather than the subject in particular. Still very interesting and somehow a bit French:-)

Love that quote, Ilse, because it highlights a neuralgic point when it comes to talking books: Too many people spend their time masturbating over their knowledge of theory in order pump up their fragile egos, instead of focusing on the fact that storytelling is a social practice that should foster connection and the exchange of experiences (and theory can serve that goal!).

@Meike: Hear! Hear! Don't mind me, just expressing my agreement with that! :)

I'll be really curious to read your thoughts on this one. After finishing the Pound book on reading, I had an urge to go back and read some literary theory .

P.E. wrote: "@Meike: Hear! Hear! Don't mind me, just expressing my agreement with that! :)"

@P.E.: Believers in the social merit and bridge-building joy of literature and literary theory, unite! :-)

Alexander wrote: In my experience, literary theory can be applied to everything and tells me near to nothing about the very very text at hand (these letters in this order, in this timely fashion). Reading Foucault on literature (for example) gives me (maybe) an understanding of the politics of "talking" about bodies, but nothing about Jane Eyre
Alexander, the author makes a similar point in the introduction, illustrating it with Foucault as well - theory being theory not a set of methods for literary study but an 'unbounded group of writing about everything under the sun' because it relates to so many other fields (anthropology, art history, film studies, linguistics, philosophy, social and intellectual history), so I am just as curious like you where he will take the reader - for me as a simple reader of fiction this is an entirely new field ;).

Katia wrote: "I liked it very much when ive read it, dear Ilse. But more for the clarity with which Culler explains all of this rather than the subject in particular. Still very interesting and somehow a bit French :-)"
After reading your enthusiast take on this - that it reads like a 'literary detective', I really wanted to read it, dear Katia - I loved the VSI on Montaigne I read some time ago - also written in a wonderfully lucid way - and your pointing at this one as a good one for beginners, sealed the deal. And I don't mind a bit French, on the contrary, maybe it can even be of help to prepare for The Seventh Function of Language :)? The format of these little books and their promise of giving the reader a few essential insights on the subject are very tempting, isn't it :)?

Meike wrote: "Love that quote, Ilse, because it highlights a neuralgic point when it comes to talking books: Too many people spend their time masturbating over their knowledge of theory in order pump up their fragile ego's."

Meike, thank you! That quote made me laugh (Culler elaborates on it but I won't spoil his nicely constructed illustration of the mentality you express here so vividly!). Like you, I see theory as a help to delve deeper and provide words and thoughts to enable discussion and connection, not as something to arm oneself with to show off - and Culler apparently is our side :).

P.E. wrote: "@Meike: Hear! Hear! Don't mind me, just expressing my agreement with that! :)"
P.-E., I love how Julian Barnes put it in "Flaubert's Parrot":

My reading might be pointless in terms of the history of literary criticism; but it's not pointless in terms of pleasure.

path wrote: "I'll be really curious to read your thoughts on this one. After finishing the Pound book on reading, I had an urge to go back and read some literary theory ."
Path, I re-read your review on the Pound book and it made me glad I decided to go for this tiny book by Culler as an introduction, trusting that this format will provide a presumably objective starting point in this field that will enable me to contextualize further reading (having added the Pound book). Browsing, I see that Culler refers to Pound in his section on poetry - I look forward to read how he will use Pound's poetry.