What do you think?
Rate this book
Guides for the Perplexed
Literary Theory: A Guide for the Perplexed
This Guide for the Perplexed provides an advanced introduction to literary theory from basic information and orientation for the uninformed leading on to more sophisticated readings. It engages directly with the difficulty many students find intimidating, asking 'What is ''Literary Theory''?' and offering a clear, concise, accessible guide to the major theories and theorists, humanism; structuralism; poststructuralism; psychoanalytic approaches; feminist approaches; queer theory; ideology and discourse; new historicism; race and postcolonialism; postmodernism. The final chapter points to new directions in literary and cultural theory.
192 pages, Paperback
First published November 23, 2006
23 people are currently reading
320 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews
May 15, 2018
A great guide for the truly perplexed, as I had been(still am, to some extent). Everything was explained and exemplified, and if there was a reference into some already discussed topic a brief definition of the whole thing would be given.
I'm pretty sure the author must be a wonderful professor, hope that I can attend one of her classes someday.
I'm pretty sure the author must be a wonderful professor, hope that I can attend one of her classes someday.
September 2, 2021
LITERARY THEORY: A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
by Prof. Mary Klages!
This book is really Good!
Language is comprehensive ... Complex topics of theory is explained in a easy way with examples specifically for academic students. If you are actually Perplexed in dealing with Literary Theory then this book is for you! Highly recommended!
and If you already understand Theory then this book is not just delightful to read but also gonna add to your previous knowledge maybe gonna tell you one or more interesting aspects of these theories.. making your knowledge more meaningful though there is no meaning in the end! Infinite numbers of Signifiers and signifieds! lol
Happy Reading!
by Prof. Mary Klages!
This book is really Good!
Language is comprehensive ... Complex topics of theory is explained in a easy way with examples specifically for academic students. If you are actually Perplexed in dealing with Literary Theory then this book is for you! Highly recommended!
and If you already understand Theory then this book is not just delightful to read but also gonna add to your previous knowledge maybe gonna tell you one or more interesting aspects of these theories.. making your knowledge more meaningful though there is no meaning in the end! Infinite numbers of Signifiers and signifieds! lol
Happy Reading!
July 6, 2013
I bought this book to help me in my Master of arts (Writing and Literature) degree and it certainly made my study life easier.
I had to wade through swathes of literary theory in a reletively short period and gain a strong understanding of each theory. Including chapters on Humanist Literary Theory, Structuralism, Deconstruction, Psychoanalysis, Feminism, Queer Theory, Ideology and Discourse, Race and Postcolonialism, and Postmoderism, Mary Klages' presents complex theories in an easily understandable manner. This book demystifies literary theory.
I had to wade through swathes of literary theory in a reletively short period and gain a strong understanding of each theory. Including chapters on Humanist Literary Theory, Structuralism, Deconstruction, Psychoanalysis, Feminism, Queer Theory, Ideology and Discourse, Race and Postcolonialism, and Postmoderism, Mary Klages' presents complex theories in an easily understandable manner. This book demystifies literary theory.
April 13, 2018
کتاب به بررسی نظریه های ادبی موثر بر دوران معاصر میپردازد . از نظریه های سنتی ( انسان گرا ) شروع کرده ، فرمالیسم ، ساختار گرایی و پسا ساختارگرایی رو مورد بررسی قرار میدهد . ویژگی این کتاب زبان روان و ایجاد شکل گفتمانی استاد دانشجویی است که به دلیل اینکه مولف خود معلم است این اتفاق به نحوی مناسب رخ داده است .
January 8, 2016
grateful for this introduction to literary theory
March 1, 2022
Literary Theory — A Guide for the Perplexed
Mary Klages ©2006 184 pages
A short book report by Ron Housley (3.1.2022)
Mary Klages has written a surprisingly engaging introduction to her guide to “literary theory.” She confirmed my own understanding that Literary Theory “ought to be named something like ‘world theory’ or just ‘how things work.’” (p. 9) Her original framing sounded unbiased, but then she tells us that she will not be objecting to the core of “literary theory;” that she agrees with the theory’s presumptions that it actually does reflect “how things work." In other words, she is telling us that “Theory” is correct, true, right; that it’s how things actually do work.
She tells us that the Literary Criticism which sprang up in the second half of the twentieth century began by looking at cultural concerns (think: the Counter-Cultural movement of the 1960s, the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, etc.). But she does not point out that the intellectuals then hatched theories about those concerns; and that those theories ultimately became the basis for even more protests; then became the foundation for developing new cultural mores; then translated into political action, and even into legislation with the power to coerce individual behaviors. It was as if English Departments had changed the culture by ultimately capturing the coercive powers of the state in behalf of implementing their intellectuals’ favorite theories.
HUMANIST LITERARY CRITICISM
In Klages’ accounting of the “Humanist” view which preceded all the postmodernist alternatives, she presents what she takes to be the basic assumptions of Plato and Aristotle. She tries to show us how historical philosophical views evolved into Humanist Literary Criticism, and then ultimately to become the discipline of “Literary Criticism.” The critical Theory intellectuals and the Literary Criticism intellectuals appear to have traveled in parallel trajectories, each of them putting their own personal touches to interpretations of the most basic philosophic questions, namely: how can we validate our knowledge of reality, and of what indeed is reality, anyway?
POST-STRUCTURALISM & DECONSTRUCTION
As best as I can decipher from Klages’ description of Post-structuralist Literary Criticism (and of Deconstruction, which is apparently what they call Post-structuralism in action), it looks to me as if the intellectuals at the helm have ignited a huge con game on the rest of us who are not able to spot the philosophic gimmick being played.
Klages actually discourages the reader from trying to decode any gimmick by offering up the following: “…only when you don’t get what theses theorists are saying are you likely to be getting it.” (p. 52) That advice is topped with: “to ‘understand’ is to ‘misunderstand.’” It’s hard for me to understand how students of this type of mental process can consider themselves to be properly educated.
But what has Klages outlined in her book that gives rise to the suspicion that there is a gimmick at play here?
She outlines for us a summary of Post-structuralism’s main tenets, which if embraced, would require a complete undoing of our understanding of how concepts are formed and how they function in our grasp of reality. What the Post-structuralists have done is to reject the very process which connects the formation of a concept to similarities and differences we observe in reality; and they appear to have replaced that process by substituting what someone happens to feel, leaving every concept vulnerable to changing without notice.
But disconnecting (or untethering) concepts from representing similarities and differences observed in reality is the very essence of non-objectivity itself. So naturally, Klages tells us that for Post-structuralism, “there is no such thing as objectivity” (p. 51). She admits it explicitly!
SOCIAL CONSTRUCT
She summarizes Post-structuralism’s view that a concept is an arbitrary “social construct;” that it is provisional and subject to change at whim rather than only upon discovery of new information; that it “is relative rather than absolute;” that a concept reflects changing feelings rather than any changes discovered in the real world out there. Such a view brings up the question: how can concepts be the foundation of knowledge if their essence can change arbitrarily, in a flash, in less than a moment’s notice, to reflect somebody’s changing feeling? Or, in other words, how can concepts be the foundation of our knowledge if they are non-objective?
When Post-structuralists contend that it is certain that concepts don’t have a definite, specific meaning, it’s as if they are claiming to be certain that they are uncertain(!).
Here is how Klages informs us about the Post-structuralist view of reality: “Rather than language reflecting the ‘real world,’ language creates and structures everything we can know about reality.” (p. 51) Not only is there “no such thing as objectivity,” but everything we think we know is just “socially constructed,” including how we identify our own selves.
Grasping critical Theory (and its Literary Criticism counterpart) may be more a matter of understanding basic philosophy than a matter of looking at how Theory plays out politically or how it plays out in analyzing literature. To unravel all the confusions and misguided beliefs that critical Theory is spawning in our culture today, it will take someone with a deeper understanding of a proper theory of concept formation.
It seems to me that the entire venture into defining things as essentially different from what they’ve been presumed to be for decades (or centuries) is mostly a matter of their arbitrarily changing the criteria by which a valid concept can be formed.
CONSTRUCT VS. CONCEPT
When the Poststructuralists or Deconstructionists talk about sexuality being “constructed” rather than being biologically determined, it appears that what they’re telling us is that a “construct” is nothing more than a concept which is suddenly excused from abiding by the rules of concept formation. But then they turn around and deploy their “construct” as if the “construct” were an actual validated concept.
A concept which does not adhere to the rules of concept formation would be an arbitrary creation, an imaginary form of some type, a made-up fantasy; it would no longer qualify as an actual concept which could be part of our knowledge base.
These “theorists” never seem to discuss how their proposal amounts to changing basic philosophy at the level of how we acquire valid knowledge in the first place.
For these Ivory Tower academics, a “social construct” becomes their departure from objectivity; the point where they no longer even pretend that their “theory” has any grounding in observed reality at all.
It’s how they arrive at their contention that all white people are racist; it’s because, for them, racism is a “social construct” and the “construct” here simply specifies white complicity in a power structure defining whites as racist oppressors.
It’s also how they justify gender identification as a matter of personal preference; it’s because, for them, gender is a “social construct” and the “construct” here simply specifies personal feeling as defining what determines gender.
I found in Klages’ book an honest attempt to reveal the secret language behind today’s Critical Race Theory. I suspect that it is the secret language, with all its made-up terms (neologisms), that insulates these academics from push-back against their departures from objectivity. For instance, it is easier for them to say that “a ‘signifier’ doesn’t have stable meaning” than it is to claim that “concepts have no stable meaning.”
SAME STARTING POINT — MANY BRANCHES
While the section on Post-structuralism struck me as the most central of Literary Criticism’s content, Klages gave us chapters on a host of iterations, to wit: chapters on psychoanalytic literary criticism; on feminist literary criticsm; on queer theory; on post-colonial theory and critical race theory; on fat studies; on disability studies; on intersectionality; on postmodernism.
The entire discipline of Literary Criticism (and critical Theory) seems to touch every branch of our culture. I was hoping that Klages would unpack for us what has happened to spark the cultural decline which critical Theory’s “constructs” appear to be spearheading. But the decline is probably more the result of Social Justice activism which the Theory has spawned; and politics is not part of Klages’ book.
Even though the philosophic contentions behind using “social constructs” in place of valid concepts strikes me as more than problematic, I give Klages’ little volume high grades for its thoroughness in categorizing the essentials of Literary Criticism, and more generally of critical Theory.
Mary Klages ©2006 184 pages
A short book report by Ron Housley (3.1.2022)
Mary Klages has written a surprisingly engaging introduction to her guide to “literary theory.” She confirmed my own understanding that Literary Theory “ought to be named something like ‘world theory’ or just ‘how things work.’” (p. 9) Her original framing sounded unbiased, but then she tells us that she will not be objecting to the core of “literary theory;” that she agrees with the theory’s presumptions that it actually does reflect “how things work." In other words, she is telling us that “Theory” is correct, true, right; that it’s how things actually do work.
She tells us that the Literary Criticism which sprang up in the second half of the twentieth century began by looking at cultural concerns (think: the Counter-Cultural movement of the 1960s, the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, etc.). But she does not point out that the intellectuals then hatched theories about those concerns; and that those theories ultimately became the basis for even more protests; then became the foundation for developing new cultural mores; then translated into political action, and even into legislation with the power to coerce individual behaviors. It was as if English Departments had changed the culture by ultimately capturing the coercive powers of the state in behalf of implementing their intellectuals’ favorite theories.
HUMANIST LITERARY CRITICISM
In Klages’ accounting of the “Humanist” view which preceded all the postmodernist alternatives, she presents what she takes to be the basic assumptions of Plato and Aristotle. She tries to show us how historical philosophical views evolved into Humanist Literary Criticism, and then ultimately to become the discipline of “Literary Criticism.” The critical Theory intellectuals and the Literary Criticism intellectuals appear to have traveled in parallel trajectories, each of them putting their own personal touches to interpretations of the most basic philosophic questions, namely: how can we validate our knowledge of reality, and of what indeed is reality, anyway?
POST-STRUCTURALISM & DECONSTRUCTION
As best as I can decipher from Klages’ description of Post-structuralist Literary Criticism (and of Deconstruction, which is apparently what they call Post-structuralism in action), it looks to me as if the intellectuals at the helm have ignited a huge con game on the rest of us who are not able to spot the philosophic gimmick being played.
Klages actually discourages the reader from trying to decode any gimmick by offering up the following: “…only when you don’t get what theses theorists are saying are you likely to be getting it.” (p. 52) That advice is topped with: “to ‘understand’ is to ‘misunderstand.’” It’s hard for me to understand how students of this type of mental process can consider themselves to be properly educated.
But what has Klages outlined in her book that gives rise to the suspicion that there is a gimmick at play here?
She outlines for us a summary of Post-structuralism’s main tenets, which if embraced, would require a complete undoing of our understanding of how concepts are formed and how they function in our grasp of reality. What the Post-structuralists have done is to reject the very process which connects the formation of a concept to similarities and differences we observe in reality; and they appear to have replaced that process by substituting what someone happens to feel, leaving every concept vulnerable to changing without notice.
But disconnecting (or untethering) concepts from representing similarities and differences observed in reality is the very essence of non-objectivity itself. So naturally, Klages tells us that for Post-structuralism, “there is no such thing as objectivity” (p. 51). She admits it explicitly!
SOCIAL CONSTRUCT
She summarizes Post-structuralism’s view that a concept is an arbitrary “social construct;” that it is provisional and subject to change at whim rather than only upon discovery of new information; that it “is relative rather than absolute;” that a concept reflects changing feelings rather than any changes discovered in the real world out there. Such a view brings up the question: how can concepts be the foundation of knowledge if their essence can change arbitrarily, in a flash, in less than a moment’s notice, to reflect somebody’s changing feeling? Or, in other words, how can concepts be the foundation of our knowledge if they are non-objective?
When Post-structuralists contend that it is certain that concepts don’t have a definite, specific meaning, it’s as if they are claiming to be certain that they are uncertain(!).
Here is how Klages informs us about the Post-structuralist view of reality: “Rather than language reflecting the ‘real world,’ language creates and structures everything we can know about reality.” (p. 51) Not only is there “no such thing as objectivity,” but everything we think we know is just “socially constructed,” including how we identify our own selves.
Grasping critical Theory (and its Literary Criticism counterpart) may be more a matter of understanding basic philosophy than a matter of looking at how Theory plays out politically or how it plays out in analyzing literature. To unravel all the confusions and misguided beliefs that critical Theory is spawning in our culture today, it will take someone with a deeper understanding of a proper theory of concept formation.
It seems to me that the entire venture into defining things as essentially different from what they’ve been presumed to be for decades (or centuries) is mostly a matter of their arbitrarily changing the criteria by which a valid concept can be formed.
CONSTRUCT VS. CONCEPT
When the Poststructuralists or Deconstructionists talk about sexuality being “constructed” rather than being biologically determined, it appears that what they’re telling us is that a “construct” is nothing more than a concept which is suddenly excused from abiding by the rules of concept formation. But then they turn around and deploy their “construct” as if the “construct” were an actual validated concept.
A concept which does not adhere to the rules of concept formation would be an arbitrary creation, an imaginary form of some type, a made-up fantasy; it would no longer qualify as an actual concept which could be part of our knowledge base.
These “theorists” never seem to discuss how their proposal amounts to changing basic philosophy at the level of how we acquire valid knowledge in the first place.
For these Ivory Tower academics, a “social construct” becomes their departure from objectivity; the point where they no longer even pretend that their “theory” has any grounding in observed reality at all.
It’s how they arrive at their contention that all white people are racist; it’s because, for them, racism is a “social construct” and the “construct” here simply specifies white complicity in a power structure defining whites as racist oppressors.
It’s also how they justify gender identification as a matter of personal preference; it’s because, for them, gender is a “social construct” and the “construct” here simply specifies personal feeling as defining what determines gender.
I found in Klages’ book an honest attempt to reveal the secret language behind today’s Critical Race Theory. I suspect that it is the secret language, with all its made-up terms (neologisms), that insulates these academics from push-back against their departures from objectivity. For instance, it is easier for them to say that “a ‘signifier’ doesn’t have stable meaning” than it is to claim that “concepts have no stable meaning.”
SAME STARTING POINT — MANY BRANCHES
While the section on Post-structuralism struck me as the most central of Literary Criticism’s content, Klages gave us chapters on a host of iterations, to wit: chapters on psychoanalytic literary criticism; on feminist literary criticsm; on queer theory; on post-colonial theory and critical race theory; on fat studies; on disability studies; on intersectionality; on postmodernism.
The entire discipline of Literary Criticism (and critical Theory) seems to touch every branch of our culture. I was hoping that Klages would unpack for us what has happened to spark the cultural decline which critical Theory’s “constructs” appear to be spearheading. But the decline is probably more the result of Social Justice activism which the Theory has spawned; and politics is not part of Klages’ book.
Even though the philosophic contentions behind using “social constructs” in place of valid concepts strikes me as more than problematic, I give Klages’ little volume high grades for its thoroughness in categorizing the essentials of Literary Criticism, and more generally of critical Theory.
May 19, 2019
This was a very clear and useful introduction to some ideas I was only peripherally aware of. It provides a good launch pad to go into these ideas further. I would love to read Klages' deeper thoughts on Literary Theory. Just as I was grasping certain ideas, the section would come to an end.
Key points:
Humanist idea of language as fixed is limited
Arbitrary relation between signifiers and signifieds
Tie between signifier and signifieds held together by a centre
Subjects have positions in that framework, those further away from the centre have more freedom (women, minorities)
Poetry as the form for freedom (novel too realistic, too grounded in conventional language use)
Poststructuralist and postmodernists revel in the ambiguity of language
Key points:
Humanist idea of language as fixed is limited
Arbitrary relation between signifiers and signifieds
Tie between signifier and signifieds held together by a centre
Subjects have positions in that framework, those further away from the centre have more freedom (women, minorities)
Poetry as the form for freedom (novel too realistic, too grounded in conventional language use)
Poststructuralist and postmodernists revel in the ambiguity of language
April 21, 2014
a brief introduction to literature theory but not really critical.I think as a theory that endorses post-structural theory,it would be better to be more critical than neutral.as a literature teacher I would suggest this to my high school students but I will deter them not to believe Klages pretense of being enough for understanding complicated structuralist, post-structuralist ideas.this could be just a very very start!
December 3, 2024
So Literary Theory gave explanations on what it said it would, but then it waffled on so. so. much. This really did not feel like an introduction to literary theory; for the psychoanalysis section, Klages doesn't go into enough detail on how psychoanalysis applies to literature. And for the postmodernism section; the distinction between modernism and postmodernism is examined, which is good, and then Klages discusses how both modernism and postmodernism apply to literature, which is good, but then we have a long explanation on modernity? Modernism and modernity aren't the same things, modernity can barely even be applied to literature, and isn't the chapter named postmodernism? Instances like this were not rare and they baffled me.
So perhaps if you are perplexed on literary theory, don't pick this up. It'll give you the information you were looking for, and then confuse you with mountains of extra information that you weren't anticipating. But, at least it does its job at giving explanations to the most crucial literary theories, so there's that.
So perhaps if you are perplexed on literary theory, don't pick this up. It'll give you the information you were looking for, and then confuse you with mountains of extra information that you weren't anticipating. But, at least it does its job at giving explanations to the most crucial literary theories, so there's that.
April 11, 2018
This is an excellent book. The author introduces numerous trends in literary/philosophical analysis, all of which are very sophisticated in their approach, but she manages to make the bulk of the material understandable. I think this is quite a feat. Topics range through Humanism, Psychoanalysis, Deconstruction, Feminism, Queer Theory, PostModernism, and more. Most of the material makes sense (at least to this reader) upon a first reading, but there are definitely sections where the going gets very difficult to follow - this may improve with another reading.
Interestingly, upon finishing the book, I have a far better understanding of what the above topics mean as individual signifiers, but find that I am still somewhat at a loss for how they tie together as facets of 'Literary Theory'.
Interestingly, upon finishing the book, I have a far better understanding of what the above topics mean as individual signifiers, but find that I am still somewhat at a loss for how they tie together as facets of 'Literary Theory'.
September 26, 2022
Great book. Hard to believe such a small book can be packed so densely. Loved learning about the theories, ideas, and philosophies that have shaped not just literature but also the world. So many nuggets of insights.
Recommend for anyone wanting to expand their understanding of the world we live in today and the influence of history on the current climate.
Will definitely be reading her newer book about Literary Theory as well.
Recommend for anyone wanting to expand their understanding of the world we live in today and the influence of history on the current climate.
Will definitely be reading her newer book about Literary Theory as well.
November 10, 2022
Reading theory is a completely different thing than simply reading a book. This book is dense, but it covers nicely most of the major political philosophies of current times. I wish there were more examples from actual works of literature to tie into the theories described. Without that it feels like reading definitions of philosophical political movements rather than ways to approach reading a novel or poetry etc.
November 2, 2019
I’ve had to read a number of books on literary theory over the past few years and I can honestly say that this is one of the best I’ve read. It makes the most complicated topics feel clear and easy to understand. It’s incredibly straight forward and breaks everything down into small, easily digestible pieces. I highly recommend this book for anyone looking to get into literary theory!!
July 24, 2017
For what it is and what it needs to be, I found it to be perfect. Klages navigates the murky waters of literary theory for newcomers. Her essay on postmodernism saved me from looking completely clueless in front of my senior English class.
April 20, 2018
Really enjoyed it -- especially the tone. It was reassuring, even companionable of a read. Do its individual parts stand alone? I suspect not. But as an overview, start, or reference guide, really excellent. Recommend.
Read
December 2, 2022I read this for school, so I won’t really give it a rating especially because it’s such a text book like book. With that being said!! This is fascinating and easy to read. If you have any curiosity towards lit theory, start here!!
June 20, 2018
Fantastic resource!
December 1, 2020
I read this book in Persian translation. It was totally useful for me as a beginner.
March 22, 2021
این کتاب را به کسی که میخواهد خواندن نظریه ادبی را اغاز کند توصیه میکنم
June 22, 2021
This book is a great place to start for a broad understanding of literary theory. Definitely not a quick read, but one worth diving into if you're planning on studying the topic further.
April 25, 2022
I loved the chapter about postmodernism. This one is better and much more easier than Critical theory today by Louis Tyson. A must read!!
April 27, 2022
as an english major i found this very useful and easy to access. indeed a 5 star !
May 27, 2022
One of the best book that breaks the big terms and explain them by taking examples. Must read for those who find Structuralism and Postmodernism difficult.
April 3, 2023
thanks to klages, i am no longer perplexed
Read
April 14, 2023Very informative text regarding the many literary theories that are circulated. I really enjoyed the comical aspects in the piece.
June 17, 2024
A helpful and fun guide to Literary Theory. Made me realise literary theory and criticism is all the more reason I love literature.
September 28, 2024
Must read
December 14, 2007
Probably the first of several such books I'll be reading in the next few weeks, since next semester I'm teaching my first graduate-level Intro to Theory Course, and I'd like to know how such things are done, given that I don't have great memories of my own Intro courses.
It's not that bad. Although its choices are sometimes idiosyncratic--in the "Ideology and Discourse" chapter, many pages devoted to Bakhtin, and only a few for Foucault (which, given the relative importance of the two thinkers, should be reversed); in the review of the history of criticism, no entry for Kant!--and although she grossly distorts the critical legacy of the Middle Ages (and the origin of close reading, which wouldn't exist without Rabbinic exegesis), it's a model of clarity. Her explanation of Cixous and Irigaray is particularly clear (although it would have been good to have Spivak or hooks in a chapter on feminism).
That said, it's very rare that Klages descends into linking these various critical schools with interpretation. Examples are a prerequisite for this kind of overview, especially given its audience. Moreover, it would have been useful to anticipate the objections of the more thoughtful, savvy students, who might find psychoanalytic narratives ludicrous and also wonder about their truth value in comparison to cognitive science and psychiatry. Certainly the long discussion of Freud and Lacan in particular could have benefited from explaining what any of this has to do with literature. I know, but students won't.
Now, it may well be that Continuum simply didn't allow Klages the space she needed to make this a very useful book. She knows the stuff, and I'm sure she's a fine teacher. And she provides a great set of notes on theoretical schools to which I'll be directing my students all semester; but there's no way I'll assign this book. I'll direct students to it as a reference; however, I just don't think this book, at least not without a lot of supplemental work, will answer their questions about how this all relates to literature.
It's not that bad. Although its choices are sometimes idiosyncratic--in the "Ideology and Discourse" chapter, many pages devoted to Bakhtin, and only a few for Foucault (which, given the relative importance of the two thinkers, should be reversed); in the review of the history of criticism, no entry for Kant!--and although she grossly distorts the critical legacy of the Middle Ages (and the origin of close reading, which wouldn't exist without Rabbinic exegesis), it's a model of clarity. Her explanation of Cixous and Irigaray is particularly clear (although it would have been good to have Spivak or hooks in a chapter on feminism).
That said, it's very rare that Klages descends into linking these various critical schools with interpretation. Examples are a prerequisite for this kind of overview, especially given its audience. Moreover, it would have been useful to anticipate the objections of the more thoughtful, savvy students, who might find psychoanalytic narratives ludicrous and also wonder about their truth value in comparison to cognitive science and psychiatry. Certainly the long discussion of Freud and Lacan in particular could have benefited from explaining what any of this has to do with literature. I know, but students won't.
Now, it may well be that Continuum simply didn't allow Klages the space she needed to make this a very useful book. She knows the stuff, and I'm sure she's a fine teacher. And she provides a great set of notes on theoretical schools to which I'll be directing my students all semester; but there's no way I'll assign this book. I'll direct students to it as a reference; however, I just don't think this book, at least not without a lot of supplemental work, will answer their questions about how this all relates to literature.
December 27, 2008
After a brief introduction to classical and humanistic poetics, a concise and well-integrated overview of the complex of ideas arising from structuralism and the linguistic turn in thought, with very lucid discussions of de Saussure, Freud, Lacan, Derrida, Cixous, Irigeray, Judith Butler, Bakhtin, Foucault and others. Well-integrated in that it clarifies connections between post-structuralism, psychoanalysis, feminism, queer theory, Marxism, and so on, rather than treating them as separate and competing theories. It isn't until about halfway through the book, when she talks about various post-Marxist theorists, that Klages really starts applying any of this stuff to literature. I found the discussion of Bakhtin to be particularly illuminating, since his theory of monologic vs. dialogic speech seems to redeem the novel as a more dialogic form - many other theorists treat the novel as bankrupt because patriarchal, hegemonic, phallogocentric, all that bad stuff, as compared to poetry (although it seems to me that much contemporary poetry is no longer as "monologic" as it might once have been). Ends with Deleuze and Guattari's notion that knowledge is "rhizomal" (rather than tree-like), i.e. without a center. English grad students and other academics may find all this quite familiar but for me it was a useful way in to some interesting ideas.
March 20, 2014
Prior to reading this book, I knew absolutely nothing about literary theory. Why was that fact causing me distress? Well, as a new author, interviewers were asking me "literary" questions that, honestly, I didn't understand. (St. Martin's will release my debut novel, EAT WHAT YOU KILL, on March 25.)
So I sought out an introduction to literary theory, and Professor Klages' little book fit the bill. From humanism to postmodernism, the book introduces readers to the framework for literary theory & criticism, an academic area still evolving and, in my opinion, in flux.
I'd suggest the book is not for a casual reader looking for a quick & easy read. It is not "for dummies." The theories are complex and often counter-intuitive, but Professor Klage does a good job explaining them, with examples that definitely help cut through the intellectual clutter.
Finally, I will proudly exclaim, Literary Theory has already proven to be valuable to my understanding of literature. A new book, The Double Life of Paul De Man, by Evelyn Barish, has been in the news recently. De Man was a champion of deconstructionism. Had I not read Literary Theory, I would not have know what that means.
So I sought out an introduction to literary theory, and Professor Klages' little book fit the bill. From humanism to postmodernism, the book introduces readers to the framework for literary theory & criticism, an academic area still evolving and, in my opinion, in flux.
I'd suggest the book is not for a casual reader looking for a quick & easy read. It is not "for dummies." The theories are complex and often counter-intuitive, but Professor Klage does a good job explaining them, with examples that definitely help cut through the intellectual clutter.
Finally, I will proudly exclaim, Literary Theory has already proven to be valuable to my understanding of literature. A new book, The Double Life of Paul De Man, by Evelyn Barish, has been in the news recently. De Man was a champion of deconstructionism. Had I not read Literary Theory, I would not have know what that means.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews