Eng 415

ENG 415
MODULE 4
NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY
OF NIGERIA SCHOOL OF ARTS
AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
COURSE CODE: ENG 415
COURSE TITLE: LITERARY THEORY

AND CRITICISM
ENG 415
LITERARY THEORY AND CRITICISM
117
COURSE
GUIDE
ENG 415
LITERARY THEORY AND CRITICISM
Course Team Dr. Felix E. Gbenoba and Fidelis N.

Okoroegbe
(Course Developers/Writers)
NOUN Prof. Ayo Kehinde
(Course Editor) UI
Dr. Onyeka Iwuchukwu (Programme
Leader/Course Coordinator) - NOUN
NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA
National Open University of Nigeria

Headquarters
14/16 Ahmadu Bello Way
Victoria Island, Lagos
Abuja Office
5 Dar es Salaam Street
Off Aminu Kano Crescent
Wuse II, Abuja
e-mail: centralinfo@nou.edu.ng
URL: www.nou.edu.ng
Published by:
National Open University of Nigeria
ISBN:
All Rights Reserved
Printed by:
Fo
r
National Open University of
Nigeria
CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction ............................................................
..........
iv
Course
Aims
.....................................................................
Course
iv
Objectives
............................................................
Working
through
the
Course
...........................................
Course
Materials
...............................................................
Study
Units
........................................................................
Textbooks
and
.................................................
References
vi
Assignment
File.................................................................
vii
Tutor-Marked Assignment
.................................................
vii
Final Examination and

Grading.........................................
viii How to Get the Most from this Course

..............................
viii Tutors and

Tutorials...........................................................
ix
Summary..................................................................
...........
INTRODUCT
ION
Welcome to ENG 415: Literary Theory and

Criticism. It is a three-credit unit course for 400 level
students in the Department of English. It comprises 21
study units subdivided into four modules. This course
seeks to introduce students to some of the most
important schools of literary theory and criticism in
the 20th Century that have had signifcant impact on
the study of literature. In each unit, we explore the
philosophical framework informing the school in question
as well as its central tenets and main interpretative
strategies. We look in particular for each schools
definition of the nature of the relationship between text
and reality, the nature of the relationship between the
text and its author (the question of authorship); and the
nature of the relationship linking literary theories to each
other.
Each unit explains the basic principles of the theory it

addresses, including the basic principles of literary
application, in order to enable students write their own
theoretical interpretations of literature and read with
insight what the theorists themselves have written.
The
course in general, demonstrates how critical theories

both argue and overlap with one another, sometimes
overturning, and sometimes building on the insights of
competing theories. By studying a number of literary
theories, you are reminded that multiple viewpoints are
important if you are to see the whole picture and to grasp
the very process of understanding that underlies human
experience, thereby increasing your ability to see both
the value and the limitations of every method of viewing
the world.
This Course Guide gives you an overview of the course. It

also provides you with information on the organisation
and requirements of the course.
COURSE
AIMS
Basically,
aims at:
this
course
enabling students to grasp some theoretical concepts in literature

by relating them to our everyday experience
explaining to students how to apply theoretical perspectives to
literary works
revealing to students the relationships among theories-their
differences, similarities, strengths, and weaknessesby applying
them all to literary works.
COURSE
OBJECTIVES
Each unit of the course also has some set objectives.

These will guide you in your study. They are usually
stated at the beginning of each unit, and when you are
through with studying the units go back and read the
objectives. This would help you assimilate the task you

have set out to achieve. On completion of the course, you
should be able to:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
discuss the emergence of literary theory and criticism

explain the earliest theorists and critics of literature
examine the postulations of the various theories of literature
discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the theories
apply the theories to the analysis and criticism of works of
literature
WORKING THROUGH THIS

COURSE
To complete the course, you are required to read the

study units and other related materials. You will also
need to undertake practical exercises for which you need
a pen, a notebook, and other materials that will be listed
in this guide. The exercises are to aid you in
understanding the theories being presented. At the end
of the course, you will write a final examination.
COURSE
MATERIALS
The major materials you will need for this

course are:
Course Guide
Study Units
Relevant textbooks, including
references/further reading
Assignment file
Presentation schedule
the
ones
listed
under
13
STUDY UNITS
14
There are 21 study units in this course as follows:
Module 1 An Overview of Literary Theory and

Criticism
Unit 1
Background to Literary Theory and Criticism
Unit 2
Literary (Critical) Theory: A Definition
Unit 3
Literary Theory as a Discipline
Unit 4 Literary Criticism: A Definition

Unit 5
Functions of Literary Criticism
Unit 6
The Relationship between the

Literary Critic and the Writer
Module 2 Theories of Literature (1)
Unit 1 Mimetic Theory of Arts

Unit 2
Formalist Theory and Criticism
Unit 3
New Criticism
Unit 4 Structuralist
Criticism Unit 5
Poststr
uctur alism Unit 6

Deconstruction
Unit 7
Semiotics
Unit 1
Marxist Theory and Criticism
Unit 2 Biographical Criticism

Unit 3 Historical Criticism
Unit 4
New Historicism
Unit 5
Psychoanalytic Theory
Unit 1 Feminist/Gender Criticism

Unit 2
Reader-Response Theory
Unit 3
Postcolonial Theory
TEXTBOOKS AND REFERENCES
Many books have been recommended in the course. You

may wish to purchase them for further reading.
Abrams, M.H. (1953). The Mirror and the Lamp. London: Oxford
UP.
Balogun, Jide. Approaches to Modern Literary Theories.
www.unilorin.edu.ng/publications/balogun/Doc5.pdf.
Barry, Peter. (2009). Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary
and
Cultural Theory. Manchester University Press.
Beaty, J. et al. (2002). The Norton Introduction to Literature.
(8th ed.). New York: W.W Norton Company.
Blamires, H. (1991). A History of Literary Criticism.

London:
Macmillan
Press Ltd.
Childs, Peter & Fowler, Roger (2006). The Routledge

Dictionary of
Literary Terms. Routledge: USA.
Culler, Jonathan. (1997). Literary Theory: A Very Short

Introduction.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
During, Simon. (Ed). (1999). The Cultural Studies

Reader. London: Routledge.
Eagleton, T. (1996). Literary Theory: An Introduction,

Second Edition.
Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.
Fish, Stanley. (1989). Is there a Text in this Class? The

Authority of
Interpretive Communities. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Frye, N. (1957). Anatomy of Criticism. New Jersey:

Princeton University
Press.
Lentricchia, Frank. (1980). After the New Criticism.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moore-Gilbert, Bart Stanton, Gareth, & Maley Willy.

(Eds). (1997).
Postcolonial Criticism. New York: Addison, Wesley,
Longman.
Rice, Philip & Waugh Patricia. (1998). Modern

Literary Theory: A Reader. (4th ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Richter, David H. (Ed.). (1998). The Critical Tradition:

Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends. Bedford
Books: Boston.
Rivkin, Julie & Ryan, Michael. (Eds).

(1998).
Literary Theory: An
Anthology. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
Tyson, Lois. (2006).Critical

Friendly Guide.
NewYork:
Theory
Today:
User
Routledge.
ASSIGNMENT
FILE
An assignment file and a marking scheme will be made

available to you. In this file, you will find all the details of
the work you must submit to your tutor for marking. The
marks you obtain from these assignments will count
towards the final mark you obtain for the course.
TUTOR-MARKED
ASSIGNMENT
You will need to submit a specifed number of the TutorMarked Assignments (TMAs). Every unit in this course has
a tutor-marked assignment. The total mark for
assignments is 30%.
FINAL EXAMINATION AND

GRADING
The final examination of ENG 415 will be of three hours

duration. All areas of the course will be examined. Find
time to read the unit all over before your examination.
The final examination will attract 70% of the total course
grade. The examination will consist of questions which
refect the type of self-testing, practice exercises and
tutor-marked assignments you have come across in
the course. All areas of the course will be assessed.
You are advised to revise the entire course after
studying the last unit before you sit for the examination.
You will also find it useful to review your tutor-marked
assignments before the fnal examination.
HOW TO GET THE MOST FROM

THIS COURSE
In distance learning, the study units replace the

university lecturer. This is one of the advantages of
distance learning; you can read and work through
specially designed study materials at your own pace, and
at a time and place that suits you best. Think of it as
reading the lecture instead of listening to a lecturer. In
the same way that a lecturer might give you some
reading to do, the study units tell you when to read your
set books or other materials. Just as a lecturer might give
you an in- class exercise, your study units provide
exercises for you to do at appropriate points. Each of
the study units follows a common format. The frst item is
an introduction to the subject matter of the unit and how
a particular unit is integrated with the other units and
the course as a whole. Next is a set of learning
objectives. These objectives let you know what you
should be able to do by the time you have completed the
unit. You should use these objectives to guide your
study. When you have finished the units you must go
back and check whether you have achieved the
objectives. If you make a habit of doing this, you will
signifcantly improve your chances of

passing the
course. The main body of the unit guides you through
the required reading from other sources. This will usually
be either from your set books or from your course guides.
The following is a practical strategy for working through
the course. If you run into trouble, telephone your tutor.
Remember that your tutors job is to help you. When you
need assistance, do not
hesitate to call and ask your tutor to provide it. Heed

the following advice carefully:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Read this Course Guide thoroughly; it is your first assignment.

Organise a study schedule.
Note the time you are expected to spend on each unit and how the
assignments relate to the units. Whatever method you choose to
use, you should decide on and write your own dates for working
on each unit.
Once you have created your own study schedule, do everything
you can to stick to it. The major reason that students fail is that
they get behind with their course work. If you get into difficulties
with your schedule, please let your tutor know before it is too late
for help.
Turn to Unit 1 and read the Introduction and the Objectives for
the Unit.
Assemble the study materials. Information about what you need
for a unit is given at the beginning of each unit. You will almost
always need both the study unit you are working on and one of
your set books on your desk at the same time.
Work through the unit. The content of the unit itself has been
arranged to provide a sequence for you to follow. As you work
through the unit, you will be instructed to read sections from your
set books or other articles. Use the unit to guide your reading.
Review the objectives for each unit to make sure that you have
achieved them. If you feel unsure about any of the objectives,
review the study material or consult your tutor.
When you are confident that you have achieved a units
objectives, you can then start on the next unit. Proceed unit by
unit through the course and try to pace your study so that you
keep yourself on schedule.
When you have submitted an assignment to your tutor for
marking, do not wait for its return before starting on the next unit.
Keep to your schedule. Consult your tutor as soon as possible if
you have any questions or problems.
After completing the last unit, review the course and prepare
yourself for the final examination. Check that you have achieved
the unit objectives (listed at the beginning of each unit) and the
Course Objectives (listed in the Course Guide).
Keep in touch with your study centre. Up-to-date course
information will be continuously available there.
TUTORS
TUTORIALS
AND
There are eight hours of tutorials provided in support of

this course. You will be notified of the dates, times and
location of these tutorials, together with the name and
phone number of your tutor, as soon as you are
allocated a tutorial group. Your tutor will mark and
comment on your assignments, keep a close watch on
your progress and on any diffculties you might
encounter. You must mail your tutor-marked assignments
to your tutor well before the due date (at least two
working days are required). They will be marked by your
tutor and returned to you as soon as possible. Do not
hesitate to contact your tutor by telephone, e-mail, or
discussion board if you need help. The following might be
circumstances in which you would find help necessary.
Contact your tutor if:
you do not understand any part of the study units or the assigned
readings
you have difficulty with the self-test exercises
you have a question or problem with assignment, with your
tutors comments on an assignment or with the grading of an
assignment
You should try your best to attend the tutorials. This is

the only chance to have face-to- face contact with your
tutor and ask questions which are answered instantly.
You can raise any problem encountered in the course of
your study. To gain the maximum benefit from course
tutorials, prepare a question list before attending them.
You will learn a lot from participating in discussions
actively.
SUMMA
RY
ENG 415: Literary Theory and Criticism introduces

you to the major theoretical approaches to the study of
literature. This is because the study of literature is no
longer if it ever was simply the study and
evaluation of poems, novels and plays. It is also the

study of the ideas, issues, and diffculties which arise in
any literary text and in its interpretation. New critical
theories emerge as literary scholars develop new
methodologies of reading, especially in the arts and
humanities. By studying these theories, you would have
been provided with a tool kit for your own informed
critical reading and thought about works of literature.
This Course Guide gives you an overview of what to
expect in the course of this study.
MAI
N
COUR
SE
CONTEN
TS
PAG
E
Module 1 An Overview of Literary Theory and

Criticism 1
Unit 1
..

1
Unit 2
Literary (Critical) Theory: A Definition 8
Unit 3
1
.
4
Unit 4 Literary Criticism: A Definition 19
Unit 5
Unit 6
Module 2

.
The Relationship between the
Literary Critic
and the
Writer
28
2
3
Theories of Literature (1)

..
3
2
Unit 1 Mimetic Theory of Arts

32
Unit 2

39
Unit 3
46
New Criticism .
Unit 4 Structuralist Criticism ..

53
Unit 5
Post str uctur alism ..

63
Unit 6
Unit 7
Deconstruction
..
Semiotics 74
6
8

83
Unit 1
Marxist Theory and Criticism 83
Unit 2 Biographical Criticism 93

Unit 3 Historical Criticism . 99
Unit 4
Unit 5
New Historicism
.
Psychoanalytic
Theory
10
4
11
0
Module
4
Theories of Literature (3)

.
11
7
Unit 1 Feminist/Gender Criticism .
117
Unit 2
Reader-Response Theory ...
Unit 3
Postcolonial Theory 130
124
MODULE 1
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit 5
Unit 6
AN OVERVIEW OF LITERARY THEORY

AND CRITICISM

Literary (Critical) Theory: A Definition
Literary Criticism: A Definition
The Relationship between the Literary Critic and the
Writer
UNIT 1
BACKGROUND TO LITERARY THEORY AND

CRITICISM
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1 The Nature of Literary Theory and Criticism
3.2 Relationship between Literary Theory and Literary
Criticism
3.3 The Complexity of Literary Theory and Criticism
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment (TMA)
7.0 References/Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In this unit, we are going to undertake a brief overview of the rise and
th
development of literary theory and criticism, especially in the 19 and
20th centuries. One of the most significant changes that have occurred in
the field of literary theory and criticism is where to locate the locus of
meaning in a text. In the discipline of literary criticism, it was originally
assumed that meaning resides with the author. Thus, the purpose of
interpretation then was to discern the author's intention which would
unlock the textual meaning of the work. However, with time, critics
began to focus more concertedly on the text itself; hence meaning came
to be seen as residing with the reader. By subjecting a work of art to a
particular theoretical construct, you can acquire a deeper understanding
of the work and a better appreciation of its richness. This unit will
enable you grasp the basis of literary theorising and criticism by relating
them to your everyday experience. It is also expected that by the end of
the unit, you should be able to apply theoretical perspectives to literary

works.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of this unit, you should be able to:
trace the historical development of literary theory and criticism

list some of the notable theorists and critics of literature.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
The Nature of Literary Theory and Criticism
According to Kelly Griffith (2002), prior to the 20th century, the

investigation of the nature and value of literature had had a long and
distinguished history, beginning with Plato and Aristotle and continuing
into modern times with such figures as Sir Philip Sidney, John Dryden,
Samuel Johnson, William Wordsworth, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and
Matthew Arnold. But their investigations focused primarily on
evaluation, not interpretation. They explored what literature is and
praised or condemned works that failed to meet whichever standards
they deemed essential. In The Republic, to cite one extreme example,
Plato condemned all literature because it stirs up the passionslust,
desire, pain, angerrather than nurtures the intellect.
SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
What was the concern of early invetigators on the nature and value of
literature?
According to Jide Balogun (2011), the history of literature is the history
of literary criticism. The latter as an ally of the former makes creative
writing more complementary and helps to conceptualise the pedagogical
import of texts of literature into ideological standpoints. Over the ages,
literary theories have been the weapons for the realisation of this crucial
obligation of literary criticism. For Terry Eagleton, in Literary Theory
(1996), the emergence of theory was a way of emancipating literary
works from the stranglehold of a 'civilised sensibility', and throwing
them open to a kind of analysis in which, in principle at least, anyone
could participate. Modern literary theory gradually emerged in Europe
during the 19th century and gained momentum in the 20th century.
Eagleton argues that theory is the body of ideas and methods used in the
practical reading of literature. For him, theories reveal what literature
can mean. It is a description of the underlying principles by which we
attempt to understand literature. That is to say, all literary interpretation
draws on a basis in theory since it is literary theory that formulates the

relationship between author and work.
What is literary theory and when did modern literary theory emerge in
Europe?
3.2 Relationship
Criticism
between
Literary
Theory
Literary
Even though modern literary theorising and criticism emerged during

the nineteenth century, both attained greater heights in the 20th Century.
In fact, the 20th Century could be appropriately termed the age of
criticism. The richness and the complexity of literary theory can be seen
in the many critical movements that sprang up and in the enthusiasm
with which many critics practised the art. The impact of the new
psychologies was deeply felt in criticism. Marxism, structuralism,
formalism, semiology, psychoanalysis, deconstruction and post-colonial
critical studies are among the many theories that dominated the century.
Among the notable critics of the century include: I.A. Richards, P.R
Leavis, T. S Eliot, T. E Hulme, William Empson, Christopher Caudwell,
John Crowe, Allen Tate, Robert Perm Warren, Ezra Pound, Wayne
Booth and Henry James etc.
In the preface to A History of Literary Criticism (1991), A. N. Jeffares
gives no room for any doubt about the kinship of literature, literary
criticism and literary theories. He says:
The study of literature requires knowledge of
contexts as well as of texts. What kind of person
wrote the poem, the play, the novel, the essay?
What forces acted upon them as they wrote.
What was the historical, the political, the
philosophical, the economic, the cultural
background, etc?
All of these are antecedents to the birth of a particular literary
production. The argument of Jeffares is that for literature to be on
course, it becomes expedient that a structure is put in place to reveal its
meaning beyond the literal level. Broadly, texts of literature would
possess two levels of meaning - the literal and the super-literal. The
super-literal meaning of texts of literature is the ideological implication
of the same, which criticism attempts to resolve. The task of resolving
the crisis engendered in literary texts is possible through the formulation
of some principles, parameters and paradigms which are technically
termed theories. Theories are meant to interpret and evaluate works of
literature with the mind of revealing the in-depth implications of such

works.
The structure put in place to reveal the meaning of literary text is literary
theory. Explain.
3.3
The Complexity of Literary Theory and Criticism
According to Terry Eagleton (2005), there are some students who

complain that literary theory is impossibly esoteric; who suspect it as an
arcane, elitist enclave somewhat akin to nuclear physics. It is true that a
'literary education' does not exactly encourage analytical thought, but
literary theory is in fact no more difficult than many theoretical
enquiries and a good deal easier than some.
Some students and critics also protest that literary theory 'gets in
between the reader and the work'. The simple response to this is that
without some kind of theory, however unreflective and implicit, we
would not know what a 'literary work' was in the first place, or how we
were to read it. Hostility to theory usually means an opposition to other
people's theories and oblivion of one's own.
Tyson Lois (2006), in an attempt to justify the study of literary theory,
raises some interesting questions: why should we bother to learn about
literary or critical theories? Is it really worth the trouble? Will all those
abstract concepts not interfere with ones natural and personal
interpretations of literature? These questions, or ones like them, are
probably the questions most frequently asked by new students of critical
theory, regardless of their age or educational status. Literary theory and
criticism offer us new ways of thinking about literature and about what
are involved in reading critically.
Literary theory and criticism is an unavoidable part of studying
literature. But theory especially when it takes the form of isms can
often be intimidating or else, frankly, boring. Literary theory and
criticism aim to explain, entertain, stimulate and challenge the student of
literature. Literary theory and criticism make literature refreshing,
informative and stimulating in many ways. Literary theory and criticism
help us to achieve a better understanding of literature. A better
understanding of the world in which we live, automatically, comes along
when we study literature, and the study of critical theory makes that
enterprise even more productive. Literary theory and criticism can, not
only show us our world and ourselves through new and valuable lenses,
but also strengthen our ability to think logically, creatively, and with a
good deal of insight in analysing works of literature.
Discuss how literary theory and criticism can help readers achieve better
understanding of literature.
Finally, and most importantly too, there is in fact no 'literary theory,' in
the sense of a body of theory which springs from, or is applicable to,
literature alone. None of the theoretical approaches outlined in this
course, from Marxism, structuralism and psychoanalysis, is simply
concerned with 'literary' writing. On the contrary, they all emerged from
other areas of the humanities and have implications well beyond
literature itself.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, attempt has been made to provide an overview of the nature
and development of literary theory and criticism. You learnt that
theories are meant to interpret and evaluate works of literature with the
mind of revealing the in-depth implications of such works. It was argued
that by subjecting a work of art to a particular theoretical construct, you
can acquire a deeper understanding of the work and a better appreciation
of its richness. The point was also made that the richness and the
complexity of literary theory can be seen in the many critical
movements that sprang up and in the enthusiasm with which many
critics practised the art.
5.0 SUMMARY
This unit undertakes an overview of literary theory and criticism. We
stated that literary theory and criticism is an unavoidable part of
studying literature. Literary theory and criticism aim to explain,
entertain, stimulate and challenge the student of literature. Literary
theory and criticism make literature refreshing, informative and
stimulating in many ways. Literary theory and criticism help us to
achieve a better understanding of literature.
6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT (TMA)

Discuss the importance of theory to the study of literature.
7.0
REFERENCES/FURTHER READING
Abrams, M.H. (1953). The Mirror and the Lamp. London: Oxford UP.

www.unilorin.edu.ng/publications/balogun/Doc5.pdf. Accessed
May 15th, 2013.
Beaty, J. et al. (2002). The Norton Introduction to Literature, 8th
edition.
New York: W.W Norton Company.
Blamires, H. (1991). A History of Literary Criticism. London:
Macmillan Press Ltd.
Childs, Peter & Fowler, Roger (2006). The Routledge Dictionary of
Culler, Jonathan. (1997). Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction.
During, Simon. (Ed.). (1999). The Cultural Studies Reader. London:
Routledge.
Eagleton, T. (1996). Literary Theory: An Introduction, Second Edition.
Fish, Stanley. (1989). Is there a Text in this Class? The Authority of
Interpretive Communities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Frye, N. (1957). Anatomy of Criticism. New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Graff, Gerald. (1987). Professing Literature: An Institutional History.
Griffith, Kelly.(2002). Writing Essays About Literature: (A Guide and
Style Sheet). Thompson Heinle Incorporation.
Lentricchia, Frank. (1980). After the New Criticism. Chicago: University
of
Chicago Press.
Moore-Gilbert, Bart Stanton, Gareth, & Maley Willy. (Eds). (1997).
Postcolonial Criticism. New York: Addison, Wesley, Longman.
Rice, Philip & Waugh Patricia. (1998). Modern Literary Theory: A
Reader.
(4th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Richter, David H. (Ed.). (1998). The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts
and Contemporary Trends. Bedford Books: Boston.
Rivkin, Julie & Ryan, Michael. (Eds). (1998). Literary Theory: An

Tyson, Lois. (2006).Critical Theory Today: A User Friendly Guide.
New York:
Routledge.
UNIT 2
WHAT IS LITERARY (CRITICAL) THEORY?
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1 Meaning and Definition of Literary Theory
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
3.2 Distinction between Literary

Criticism
Conclusion
Summary
Tutor-Marked Assignment (TMA)
References/Further Reading
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Theory
and
Literary
This unit provides a general definition of theory and a specific definition

of literary theory. It also attempts a distinction between literary theory,
literary history and literary criticism.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of this unit, you should be able to
define theory generally and literary theory in particular

distinguish between literary theory and literary criticism.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
Meaning and Definition of Literary Theory
According to Griffith, before 20th century, there was little systematic

attempt to interpret works of literature, to probe their meanings. Griffith
further contends that Gerald Graff, in Professing Literature (1987), his
book on the history of literary studies in higher education, noted that
before then there was a widespread "assumption that great literature was
essentially self-interpreting and needed no elaborate interpretation." But
as knowledge increases, there was a shift in attitude to the methods of
literary theorising. In fact, by the end of the 19th century, universities
began to include courses in modern literature, and teachers and writers
began to give serious attention to interpreting literature.
In Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction (1999), Jonathan Culler
defines literary theory generally as "the systematic account of the nature
of literature and of the methods for analyzing it." Culler further says
that
One of the most dismaying features of theory
today is that it is endless. It is not something that
you could learn so as to 'know theory.' It is an
unbounded corpus of writings which is always
being augmented as the young and the restless, in
critiques of the guiding conceptions of their
elders, promote the contributions to theory of new
thinkers and rediscover the work of older,

neglected ones.
In his book, An Essay on Criticism (1966), Graham Hough distinguishes
two categories of literary theories. The first category he calls the
extrinsic theories and is concerned with the moral nature of literature.
Theories in this category primarily emphasise the total essence of
literature. The second category is what he describes as the intrinsic
theories, which talk about the formal nature of literature and more
specifically what it is.
The intrinsically inclined criticism is a heterodiegetic judgment of
literature. This kind of literary theory isolates a work of literature from
its external reality. The adherents of this classification see a text of
literature as having no relationship intended or implied with its external
world. That such a work is in its own world. The critical theorists in
this category are the Formalists, Structuralists and Post-structuralists or
the Deconstructionists.
On the other hand, the extrinsically inspired literary theories tend to
associate a literary piece with its external world. Here, there is a
departure from the isolationist philosophy propounded by the ideologues
of the intrinsically inclined criticism. Rather, the extrinsic criticism is
homodiegetic meaning that a work of literature is essentially (i) a
representation of the spirit of the age and (ii) a reflection of the world
in which it operates. It goes further to see a text of literature as a product
of the producers (poets, novelists, playwrights and essayists)
imagination, vision and sensibility in his/her external world. Also, in
this kind of criticism, the artist does not only focus on his external
reality but he/she is inside the literary production and creates a principal
character and other characters to carry out his mission. The focus in this
respect is for criticism to holistically investigate a piece of literature
with the mind of having a more practical judgment of the same. Modern
literary theories in this category are Psychological or Psychoanalytical,
Marxist, Feminist and Post-colonialist criticism.
Generally, a theory is a body of rules or principles used to appraise
works of literature. And on the other hand, literary theory (critical
theory), tries to explain the assumptions and values upon which various
forms of literary criticism rest.
3.2
Distinction between Literary Theory and Literary

Criticism
Literary theory is a site of many theories. Literary theories were

developed as a means to understand the various ways people read
literary texts. The proponents of each theory believe their theory is the
theory, but most of us interpret texts according to the "rules" of several
different theories at a time. All literary theories are lenses through which
we can see texts. There is nothing to say that one is better than another
or that you should read according to any of them, but it is sometimes fun
to "decide" to read a text with one in mind because you often end up
with a whole new perspective on your reading. To study literary theory
is to seek to understand exactly how readers (critics) interpret (criticise)
texts, especially literary ones. Most scholars today would agree that
there is no single meaning waiting to be simply found in any text.
Meaning is, rather, produced, that is, it is a function of the different
interpretative strategies which various readers bring to bear upon a text.
Thus, a cardinal rule of modern literary criticism could be summed up as
follows: the answers you get from a text depend entirely upon the kind
of questions you put to it. Strictly speaking, when we interpret a
literary text, we are doing literary criticism, but when we examine the
criteria upon which our interpretation rests, we are applying literary
theory. In other words, literary criticism is the application of critical
theory to a literary text, whether or not a given critic is aware of the
theoretical assumptions informing his or her interpretation. In fact, the
widespread recognition that literary criticism cannot be separated from
the theoretical assumptions on which it is based is one reason why the
word criticism is often used as if it includes the word theory.
Literary history, on its part, is the academic discipline which defined
how literature was taught and studied from the 1890s onwards. As a
discipline, it grounds its scientific and social legitimacy in the positivist
history of the late 19th century. As a historical genre concerned with the
method of establishing facts, it extends the application of the reliable
tools of classical and medieval philology to modern literature. Literary
history relates literature to the social, political, moral, and intellectual
life of a nation, personality or period. Literary history is not expected to
reduce works of literature to archival documents, but to generate a
proper evaluative discourse and explain why certain works, which we
call classics, still affect us and become, so to speak, immortal, while
others do not survive their own times, etc.
How is literary theory different from literary criticism?
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, we defined the terms theory and literary theory. We said
that while a theory is a body of rules or principles used to appraise
works of literature literary theory on the other hand is "the systematic
account of the nature of literature and of the methods for analysing it."
5.0 SUMMARY
This unit defined a theory as a body of rules or principles used to
appraise works of literature, while literary theory (critical theory), on its
own, tries to explain the assumptions and values upon which various
forms of literary criticism rest. We also made a distinction between
literary theory and literary criticism. We said that when we interpret a
literary text, we are doing literary criticism, but when we examine the
criteria upon which our interpretation of a text rests, we are applying
literary theory.

7.0
th
May 15 , 2013.
edition.

Routledge.
University Press.
Hough, G. (1966). An Essay on Criticism, London: Gerald Duckworth
and Co. Ltd.
of
Chicago Press.
Reader.
New York: Routledge.
UNIT 3
WHY STUDY LITERARY THEORY?
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objective
Main Content
3.1 Why Study Literary Theory?
Conclusion
Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
As we explained in the last unit, the term literary theory within the
discipline of literary studies, can be best understood as the set of
concepts and intellectual assumptions on which rests the work of
explaining or interpreting literary texts. Essentially, theory in literature
refers to the ways of looking at literature beyond the typical plot-theme
and character-setting studies. Jonathan Culler (1997) in Literary Theory:
A Very Short Introduction holds that theory in literature refers to the
principles derived from internal analysis of literary texts or from
knowledge external to the text that can be applied in multiple

interpretive situations. M.H. Abrams points out in The Mirror and the
Lamp (1953) that any reasonably adequate theory takes some account
of . . . four elements. These elements are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The work itself

The artist who creates the work
The universe or the nature that is being imitated by the work
The audience of the work
These elements are diagrammatically shown below:
Literary theory, Abrams holds, can be divided into four categories:

mimetic theories, which focus on the relationship between text and
universe (by "universe" he means all things of the world apart from
audience, text and author); pragmatic theories, which are interested in
the relationship between text and audience; expressive theories, which
are concerned with the text-author relationship; and objective theories,
the most recent classification, which focus on analysis of the text in
isolation. Because nothing exists other than universe, text, author and
audience, any form of theory must fit into one of these four categories,
or be a combination of several. For Abrams, there are author-based
theories, reader-based theories, text-based theories, and theories that
propose the text as imitative of the universe. For instance, when Chinua
Achebe argues that Joseph Conrads The Heart of Darkness fails to

grant full humanity to the Africans it portrays, he was arguing from the
perspective of post-colonial literary theory which emphasises a history
of exploitation and racism. In an attempt to provide a pointed meaning
of theory in literature, Jide Balogun contends that:
The task of resolving the crisis engendered in
literary texts is possible through the formulation
of some principles, parameters and paradigms
which are technically termed theories. Theories
are meant to interpret and evaluate works of
literature with the mind of revealing the indepth implications of such works.
This unit explains why the study of literary theory and criticism is
invaluable.
2.0 OBJECTIVE
explain why
important in
literature.
the study of literary theory and criticism is
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
Why Study Literary Theory?
Literary theory and literary criticism are interpretive tools that help us
think more deeply and insightfully about the literature that we read.
Literary theory, specifically, refers to the set of principles evolved for
the evaluation of works of literature. Over time, different schools of
literary criticism have developed, each with its own approaches to the
act of reading. It is important that students study literary theory and
criticism because both offer different ways of interpreting works of
literature. Each theory offers itself as the most (or the only) accurate
means of understanding human experience. In many instances,
advocates of the most popular theories of the day usually receive the
acclamation and respect. However, even within the ranks of any given
critical theory there are countless disagreements among practitioners
that result in the emergence of different schools of thought within a
single theory. In fact, the history of every literary theory is, in effect, the
history of an ongoing debate among its own advocates as well as an
ongoing debate with the advocates of other theories. Thus, literary
theory and criticism will help you in thinking theoretically, that is, to
seeing the assumptions, whether stated or not, that underlie every
viewpoint.
Explain how both literary theory and criticism offer different ways of
understanding a literary text.
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have explained in this unit that literary theory refers to a particular
form of literary criticism in which particular academic, scientific, or
philosophical approach is followed in a systematic fashion while
analysing literary texts. In other words, literary theorists adapt systems
of knowledge developed largely outside the realm of literary studies (for
instance, philosophy or sociology) and impose them upon literary texts
for the purpose of discovering or developing new and unique
understandings of those texts. From the foregoing, we have established
that literary theory is an indispensable tool which critics use to realise
the goal of sensitising and educating the audience. That, by implication,
suggests that the difficulty often encountered in a literary text is often
resolved by subjecting it to a particular theoretical analysis, using the
framework of a particular theory.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, you learnt that literary theory refers to a set of principles
evolved for the evaluation of works of literature. This unit also stated
that literary theory is an indispensable tool which critics use to realise
the goal of sensitising and educating the reading audience. This, by
implication, suggests that the difficulty often encountered in a literary
text is often resolved by subjecting it to a particular theoretical analysis,
using the framework of a particular theory.

The history of every critical theory is, in effect, the history of an
ongoing debate among its own advocates as well as an ongoing debate
with the advocates of other theories. Discuss.
7.0

May 15th, 2013.
edition.
Routledge.
University Press.
and Co. Ltd.
of
Chicago Press.
Reader.

Rivkin, Julie & Ryan, Michael. (Eds.). (1998). Literary Theory: An
UNIT 4
LITERARY CRITICISM: A DEFINITION
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1 The Nature and Meaning of Literary Criticism
Conclusion
Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A brief explanation of a few important concepts is useful in this unit.
The terms critic and literary criticism do not necessarily imply finding
fault with literary works. Literary criticism, by and large, tries to explain
the literary work to us: its production, its meaning, its design, its beauty.
Critics tend to find flaws in one anothers interpretations more than in
literary works. Unlike movie critics and book reviewers, who tell us
whether or not we should watch the films or read the books they review,
literary critics spend much more time explaining than evaluating, even
when their official purpose, like that of the Formalist (or New Critics) is
to assess the aesthetic quality of the literary work. Of course, when we
apply critical theories that involve a desire to change the world for the
bettersuch as feminism, Marxism, lesbian/gay/queer criticism, and
postcolonial criticismwe will sometimes find a literary work flawed in
terms of its deliberate or inadvertent promotion of, for example, sexist,
classist, racist, heterosexist, or colonialist values. But even in these
cases, the flawed work has value because we can use it to understand
how these repressive ideologies operate.
Since the era of Plato and Aristotle, philosophers, scholars and writers
have tried to create a more precise and disciplined ways of analysing
literature. Literary criticism flourished in Europe and America with such
literary giants like I. A. Richards and F. R. Leavis as the fore-runners.
Even in contemporary criticism, both men are still very much
recognised and respected. In fact, Richards and Leavis were the
theoreticians of literature for several decades. They were the doyens of
critical thought in Europe and America.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
discuss the importance of literary criticism to the study of

literature.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
The Nature and Meaning of Literary Criticism
According to the Routledge Dictionary of Literary Terms (2006), to

criticise, etymologically, means to analyse and later, to judge.
Critical theory in itself can be distinguished from criticism, since it
concerns itself with the formulation of concepts. It is a philosophical
activity which should underlie criticism but, again, should not be
regarded as part of it. Literary theory refers to a set of principles
evolved for the evaluation of works of literature. There is no single
approach to the criticism of literature. Criticism is a formal discourse,
and there are so many approaches to it, yet these approaches are not
exhaustive but represent the most widely used contemporary
approaches.
Literary criticism refers to the analysis and judgment of works of
literature. It tries to interpret specific works of literature and also helps
us to identify and understand different ways of examining and
interpreting them. The study of literary criticism contributes to
maintenance of high standards of literature. In our day-to-day life, the
study of criticism of literary works enables us to become aware of the
present and past works of literature. Criticism also enables writers to
understand the factors that affect the quality and character of literary
works and in this way improve their ability to produce better works.
Literary criticism allows us to see things from different perspectives. It
allows us to gain a far wider insight into a work of literature than from
our own perspective. That way, we gain a greater understanding of the
world in which we live.
In addition, literary criticism helps readers develop critical thinking

skills. Literary criticism is not an abstract intellectual exercise. It is a
natural human response to literature. The discipline of literary criticism
is nothing more than discourse-spoken or written-about literature. It is a
by-product of the reading process.
Discuss the importance of literary criticism to the study of literature.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, you learnt the definition of literary criticism as well as the
importance of literary criticism to the study of literature. The critic
analyses and evaluates what a writer has written. He comments on and
evaluates the quality of both the authors literary composition and his
vision of or insight into human experience.
5.0 SUMMARY
We also stated that here is no single approach to the criticism of
literature. In addition, we stated that a literary critic approaches a work
according to established codes, doctrines or aesthetic principles. He is a
mediator between the work and the reading public. He can arouse
enthusiasm in the reader and can as well kill that enthusiasm.

1.
2.
7.0
What is literary criticism?

Discuss the role of the literary critic.
th
May 15 , 2013.
edition.

During, Simon. (1999). The Cultural Studies Reader. (Ed). London:
Routledge.
University Press.
and Co. Ltd.
of
Chicago Press.
Moore-Gilbert, Bart Stanton, Gareth, & Maley Willy. (1997).
Postcolonial Criticism. ((Eds). New York: Addison, Wesley, Longman.
Reader.
Rivkin, Julie & Ryan, Michael. (1998). Literary Theory: An Anthology.
(Eds). Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
UNIT 5
FUNCTIONS OF LITERARY CRITICISM
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1 Functions of Literary Criticism
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In the last unit, we stated that to criticise, etymologically, meant to

analyse and later, to judge. Literary criticism offers new ways of
thinking about literature and about what is involved in reading critically.
In this unit, we shall attempt to identify the functions of criticism to the
understanding of literary texts.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
state the functions of criticism in the study of literature

apply the paradigms discussed in your own critical writings.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
To study literary criticism is to seek to understand exactly how readers

(critics) interpret (criticise) texts, especially literary ones. Most scholars
today would agree that there is no single meaning waiting to be simply
found in any text. Meaning is, rather, produced; that is, it is a function of
the different interpretative strategies which various readers bring to bear
upon a text. A cardinal rule of modern literary criticism may be summed
up as follows: the answers you get from a text depend entirely upon
the kind of questions you put to it. The upshot of all this is that the
same text legitimately means different things to different people. As a
result, for example, a Marxist critic would necessarily come up with a
different interpretation from that of a Psychoanalytic critic of the same

text, each of which is equally valid (provided that there is textual
evidence to support the interpretation in question). The primary
necessity for literary criticism lies in the fact that new strategies of
interpretation of literature are constantly being developed to cope with
the complexities of change in literary traditions.
The importance of literary criticism therefore resides in its secondary
but invaluable role of interpretation. Criticism deals with analysing,
classifying, expounding and evaluating a work of art in order to form
ones opinion. Serious literary criticism is both evaluative and
analytical, thereby helping us to better a literary work. Writing on the
role of literary criticism, I.A. Richards notes that the critical reading of
poetry (prose and drama) is an ardours discipline. The lesson of all
criticism is that we have nothing to rely upon in making our choices, but
ourselves.
What does serious literary criticism do?
Literary criticism begins the very moment you close the book and
begins to reflect on what has been read. Thus, criticism includes the
process of reflecting on, organising and articulating your response to a
given literary work. Criticism presupposes that a piece of literature
contains relationships and patterns of meaning that the critic can discern
and share after reading a text. It also presupposes that the critic has the
ability to translate his experience of the wok into intellectual terms that
can be communicated to and understood by others. Again, literary
criticism presupposes that the critics experience of the work once
organised and articulated, will be compatible with the experience of
other readers. This means that to be valid and valuable, the critics
reading of a work must accord, at least in some ways, with what other
intelligent readers, over a reasonable period of time are willing to agree
on and accept.
In conclusion, as a student of literary criticism, some of the questions to
ask yourself include:
Am I reading a literary text in order to measure how accurate its

representation of reality is?
Am I reading a literary text for insights into the life and mind of
its writer?
As the reader, is my role passive or active?
is meaning simply found in a literary text or is it constructed
or produced by the reader?
Learn the questions to ask yourself and try to recall them after putting
your course material aside.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, you learnt that to study literary criticism is to seek to
understand exactly how readers (critics) interpret (criticise) texts,
especially literary ones. By now, you should have understood that
meaning in a literary text is produced; that is, it is a function of the
different interpretative strategies which various readers bring to bear
upon a text.
5.0 SUMMARY
Literary criticism deals with analysing, classifying, expounding and
evaluating a work of art in order to form ones opinion. A cardinal rule
of modern literary criticism may be summed up as follows: the
answers you get from a text depend entirely upon the kind of
questions you put to it. This implies that the same text legitimately
means different things to different people. As a result, for example, a
Marxist critic would necessarily come up with a different interpretation
from that of a Psychoanalytic critic of the same text, each of which is
equally valid (provided that there is textual evidence to support the
interpretation in question).

1.
2.
What is literary criticism?

7.0
th
May 15 , 2013.
edition.

Routledge.
University Press.
and Co. Ltd.
of
Chicago Press.
Reader.
Richter, David H. (1998). The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and
Contemporary Trends. (Ed.). Bedford Books: Boston.
UNIT 6
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE

LITERARY CRITIC AND THE WRITER
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1
Writer
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Conclusion
Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Literary criticism takes the reader to a higher level of cognitive thought
by evaluating what the critic says, and then applying it to the piece of
literature in ways that the reader may not have originally thought.
The literary critic is concerned with what the writer has tried to say in
his work and how successful he has been able to express it. For instance,
the formalist critic is interested in how an author expresses an idea,
while the Marxist critic is interested in what an author is trying to
express. To a certain degree, a literary critic should be conversant with
literary history to be able to make a genuine judgement upon a work of
literature. He should be aware of what others have said and must be
grounded in literary theory. It is important to note that literary critics
have borrowed from other disciplines such as anthropology, psychology,
linguistics, psychology and philosophy to analyse works of literature
more perceptively.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
discuss the role of the critic and the relationship between the
literary critic and the writer
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1

Writer
The literary critic gives life to a literary text by bringing out the hidden
meanings embedded in the work. Most often, it is through the eyes of
the cautious critical reader that we evaluate the success or otherwise of a
text. The critic analyses and evaluates what a writer has written. He
comments on, and evaluates the quality of both the authors literary
composition and his vision of, or insight into human experience. It
should be noted that a critic does not prescribe which realities are valid,
but identifies the nature of the individual experience and the aesthetic
means used to express that experience. The underlying implication is
that it is not the task of the critic to set up or frame prescriptions which
writers must conform to. A literary critic approaches a work according
to established codes, doctrines or aesthetic principles. He is a mediator
between the work and the reading public. He can arouse enthusiasm in
the reader and can as well kill that enthusiasm.
Generally, despite their tendency to interpret, rather than to evaluate
literature, literary critics have an enormous effect on the literary
marketplace, not in terms of what they say about particular works but in
terms of which works they choose to interpret and which works they
ignore. And of course, critics tend to interpret works that lend
themselves readily to the critical theory they employ. Thus, whenever a
single critical theory dominates literary studies, those works that lend
themselves well to that theory will be considered great works and will
be taught in the college classroom, while other works will be ignored.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, you learnt that the literary critic is concerned with what the
writer has tried to say in his work and how successful he has been able
to express it. For instance, the formalist critic is interested in how an
author expresses an idea, while the Marxist critic is interested in what an
author is trying to express. You also learnt that to a certain degree, a
literary critic should be conversant with literary history to be able to
make a genuine judgement upon a work of literature.
5.0 SUMMARY
A literary critic should be aware of what others have said and must be
grounded in literary theory. Literary critics have borrowed from other
disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, linguistics, psychology
and philosophy to analyse works of literature more perceptively.

What is the relationship between the literary critic and the writer?
7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READING


th
May 15 , 2013.
edition.
During, Simon. (1999). The Cultural Studies Reader. (Ed). London:
Routledge.
University Press.
and Co. Ltd.
of
Chicago Press.
Moore-Gilbert, Bart Stanton, Gareth, & Maley Willy. (1997).
Postcolonial Criticism. ((Eds). New York: Addison, Wesley, Longman.
Reader.

Rivkin, Julie & Ryan, Michael. (1998). Literary Theory: An Anthology.
(Eds). Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
MODULE 2
THEORIES OF LITERATURE (1)
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit 5
Unit 6
Unit 7
Mimetic Theory of Arts

New Criticism
Structuralist Criticism
Semiotics
Post Structuralism
Deconstruction
UNIT 1
MIMETIC THEORY OF ARTS
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1 Origin and Background of Mimetic Theory of Literature
3.2 Central Tenets of the Mimetic Theory
3.3 A Critique of the Mimetic Theory of Art
Conclusion
Summary
1.0 INTROODUCTION
The mimetic theory of arts was among the first to be defined. It
originated from Aristotles (384 BC-322BC) conception that art
imitates, reproduces or recreates great and low actions. Here, great
actions refer to tragedy, and low actions refer to comedy. The mimetic
theory is also known as Art as Imitation. Mimesis, the Greek word for
imitation, has been a central term in aesthetic and literary theory since
Plato. It is the earlier way to judge any work of art in relation to reality,
whether the representation is accurate or not. Though this mode starts
from Plato, it runs through many great theorists of Renaissance up to
some modern theorists as well. M. H. Abrams defines imitation as a
relational term- signifying two items and correspondence between them.
Mimesis is the idea that art imitates reality, an idea that traces back to
Aristotle who argued that the universal can be found in the concrete.
Mimesis is developed and applied through mimetic theories of literature,
theatre and the visual arts during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment
periods. Philosophers and writers including Aristotle, Plato, Moliere,
Shakespeare, Racine, Diderot and Rousseau applied the mimetic theory
of literary criticism to their work and lives. The mimetic theory is the
universal foundation of literature and of schools of literary criticism.

The concern for the moral effects of art is often drawn from mimetic
theory. The goal of mimetic criticism is to determine how well a work of
literature connects with the real world. Mimetic criticism also argues
that art conveys universal truths instead of just temporal and individual
truths.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
discuss the postulations of the mimetic theory of literature

critique the postulations of the mimetic theory of Art
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 Origin
Literature
and
Background
of
Mimetic
Theory
of
The Greek mimetic school of criticism is based upon the ideas expressed
by Plato and Aristotle. Plato regards the artist as an imitator of
imitations; the painters work is thrice removed from the essential
nature of a thing: the artist imitates the physical object, which is a faint
copy of ideas of the thing. Plato claims that ordinary art effects badly on
the audience because it represents imagination rather than truth, and
nourishes their feeling rather than reason. Plato opines that artists lack
creative power. Art is essentially mimicry of nature. Paintings are
supposed to look just like the real thing etc. Arguably, it is the oldest
and most widely held view on the nature of art. Plato believed that art is
essentially an imitation of nature. Therefore, according to Plato, art is at
best:
(1)
(2)
useless; and
Potentially dangerous.
Plato is convinced that the arts form a natural grouping and that they
all share a common form: That which all and only Arts have in
common by virtue of which we recognise each to be an art and by virtue
of which each is an art. For him, art was useless because it serves no
useful purpose in society. As an "Imitation of Nature", it adds no
knowledge (no intellectual value).
Aristotle, on the other hand, treats imitation as a basic human faculty,
which expresses itself in a wide range of arts. For him, to imitate is not
to produce a copy or mirror reflection of some things but involves a
complex mediation of reality. For example, in tragedy the writer imitates
peoples actions rather than their characters. For him, this world is real
but incomplete so poet endeavors to complete it through the imitation.

Thus, poets are both imitators and creator.
3.2
Central Tenets of the Mimetic Theory of Literature
Aristotle, the proponent of the mimetic theory of art, holds that art
imitates the reality existing in us and in the concrete objects around us.
However, it should be noted that art does not merely imitate the flux and
confusion that confront man; rather it imitates the necessary or probable
consequences of given persons in given situations-even of imaginary
persons and situations.
Drama for instance, imitates men in action. According to Aristotle,
mimesis is men in action, their characters, deeds, passions, and
experiences while poetic imitation is an imitation of the human inner
action. Indeed, the main thrust of mimesis is that certain poems simply
tell what happens and others (drama) actually imitate what happens. The
artist, that is, imitates reality by suppressing accidental irrelevances and
by heightening the essential which is otherwise only imperfectly realised
in concrete objects.
Mimetic critics ask how well the work of literature accords with the real
world. They analyse the accuracy of a literary work and its morality.
They consider whether or not it shows how people really act, and
whether or not it is correct. The mimetic critic assesses a literary work
through the prism of his or her own time, judging the text according to
his own value system.
Aristotles Poetics, also known as On the Art of Imitation, is an
important text on the study of art as imitation. Mimesis is concerned
primarily with the object imitated or reproduced and also the medium of
imitation.
1.
2.
Briefly explain the mimetic theory of literature.

Discuss the major propositions of the mimetic theory of
literature.
3.3
A Critique of the Mimetic Theory of Art
One of the major criticisms levelled against the mimetic theory of art is
that it fails to recognise the importance of imagination in literary
creativity. Also, the negative side of mimetic criticism occurs when the
critic's subjective bias leads to dogmatic condemnation and censorship.
Many works otherwise labelled aesthetically great have been
blacklisted, banned or burned throughout the history of humankind by
moral critics.
For Plato, Art was potentially dangerous for several reasons:
A). Art is essentially deceptive: the whole aim of art was to deceive.
Success was achieved when the spectator mistook an imitation for
reality. Furthermore, artists were unconcerned with facts/truth. It made
no difference to artists or to the success of their works whether the
images or stories they depict were real or their messages true or good.
B) Art is psychologically de-stabilising: human existence is, in great
part, a struggle to master the emotions and sensual urges by using reason
and intellect according to Plato. Therefore art was dangerous and
counterproductive to this end (i.e. rational self-mastery) since it appeals
not to reason and intellect, but to the psychological forces which
constantly try to overthrow reason, namely passion and emotion. For
him, "Poetry feeds and waters the passions instead of drying them up;
she lets them rule, although they ought to be controlled, if mankind is
ever to increase in happiness and virtue"
C)
Art leads to immorality. Art is unconcerned with morality,
sometimes even teaching immoral lessons. Morality, it would seem, has
nothing to do with a works success as art. Plato worries that such art
would encourage immorality in the citizens of the state. People might
uncritically accept and admire immoral, vicious traits when they are
attractively packaged by skilled artists (distinction between truth and
illusion/ physicians and cooks/ heath and cosmetics/ beauty and
glamour). Like a skilled chef, artists are only interested in pleasing the
palate, even if it poisons the dinner. Since mimetic art is institutionally
divorced from truth, goodness or any concern with 'real' beauty, it
creates an environment of superficial "flavours" where all sorts of
atrocities can be made to seem a tempting confection.
D). Art was politically dangerous, a threat to the common good. Similar
to the point made earlier, Plato worried that strong art which appeals to
emotions stirs up negative emotions which society tries to control. But
this is more than just a problem for the individual. For a people with a
history of "mania," strong, emotion-stirring art is rightly seen as a threat
to the good of state/community. It was, therefore correctly the concern

of government. For Plato, violence and sex in the media is capable of
causing us to be more violent, or entrench sexually obsessed culture.
This affects not just the people who consume the violent images, but the
entire community of which they are a part.
However, Aristotle, who was Plato's most famous student and greatest
critic, had a dissenting view. Disagreeing with much else that Plato said,
Aristotle agreed that art was essentially a Mimesis. But, he maintained,
(good) art was neither useless nor dangerous, but rather natural and
beneficial. It is natural because it is natural for human beings to imitate.
Any human society which is healthy will be a society where there is
imitative art. Nothing is more natural than for children to pretend. Art
production and training is a necessary part of any education since it uses
and encourages the imaginative manipulation of ideas. Nothing is more
natural than for human beings to create using their imagination.
Furthermore, Aristotle holds that art is not deceptive because artists
must accurately portray reality to be successful. Drama, for instance,
must accurately portray psychological reality in order for characters to
be believable and their actions understandable. Again, art teaches
effectively and it teaches the truth. Convincing and powerful drama is
convincing and powerful because it reveals some truth of human nature.
Aristotle agreed that art did stir up negative emotions but, he claims it
then purged these in a harmless, healthy way through what he calls the
doctrine of Catharsis".
4.0 CONCLUSION
Mimetic theory comes from the Greek word "mimesis," which means
imitation and representation, and it states that people are influenced by
each other and the world around them, when creating, in many different
ways. Since Plato applied the mimetic theory on literature and separated
it from narrative, mimesis has been given a very clear literary meaning.
Plato sees the artist as an imitator of the physical world around him,
which, according to him, is already an imitation of the idea people have
of this world. So basically he claims that a writer imitates the imitations
and represents imagination and emotion much more than reason and
reality. For this reason, according to Plato, mimesis affects the readers
negatively by misleading them.
Aristotle disagrees with Plato in the sense that for him to imitate the
physical world is not just to copy it but rather to adapt it. According to
Aristotle's reception of the mimetic theory, imitation is needed to
complete this incomplete physical world people live in. But imitation, as
he sees it, is rather a complex creation, a skill that needs to go hand-inhand with talent and imaginative power.
5.0 SUMMARY
The mimetic theory of arts was the first to be defined. It originated from
Aristotles conception that art imitates, reproduces or recreates great and
low actions. Here, great actions refer to tragedy and low actions refer to
comedy. The mimetic theory is also known as Art as Imitation.
In this unit, we stated that Aristotle, the proponent of the mimetic theory
of art, holds that art imitates the reality existing in us and in the concrete
objects around us. Aristotles Poetics, also known as On the Art of
Imitation, is an important text on the study of art as imitation. Mimesis
is concerned primarily with the object imitated or reproduced and also
the medium of imitation.

Attempt a critique of the Mimetic Theory of Art as espoused by Plato
and Aristotle.
7.0
Aristotle. (2006). Poetics. Joe Sachs (trans.). Focus Philosophical

Library:
Pullins Press.
Dada, P.O (1994). Literary Criticism and African Literature. In Olu
Obafemi (Ed.) New Introduction to Literature. Ibadan: Y-Books.
Tyson, Lois. (2006). Critical Theory Today: A User Friendly Guide.
Welleck, Rene & Warren, Austin. (1973). Theory of Literature.

Middlesex: Penguin Books Limited.
UNIT 2
FORMALIST THEORY AND CRITICISM
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1 The Origin of Formalism
3.2 Basic Principles and Main Interpretative Strategies of
Formalism
3.3 Criticisms against Formalism
Conclusion
Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Formalism is a branch of the theory of art for arts sake. Formalist
theory regards literature as a unique form of human knowledge that needs
to be examined on its own terms. It holds that literature should assert its
autonomy devoid of ethics or politics. In their influential book entitled
Theory of Literature (1973), Rene Wellek and Austin Warren hold that
"the natural and sensible starting point for work in literary scholarship is
the interpretation and analysis of the works of literature themselves." To
a formalist, therefore, a poem or story is not primarily a social, historical,
or biographical document; it is a literary work that can be understood only
by reference to its intrinsic literary features, that is, those elements found
in the text itself. To analyse a poem or story, therefore, the formalist
critic focuses on the words of the text rather than facts about the author's
life or the historical milieu in which it was written. The critic pays special
attention to the formal features of the textthe style, structure, imagery,
tone, and genre.
These features, however, are usually not examined in isolation, because
formalist critics believe that what gives a literary text its special status as
art is how all its elements work together to create the reader's total
experience. Art for arts sake is a movement that appeals to a pure
aesthetic element of form.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
trace the development of formalist theory

discuss the theoretical assumptions of formalism
examine the criticisms against formalist theory and criticism
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
Origin of Formalism
For mal is m o ri gin ate d in Rus si a i n 1 91 5 w ith th e

founding of the Moscow Linguistic Circle and in the following year,
1916, of its St.
Petersburg counterpart, Opojaz Muskovites. The major actors in
this critical school include: Victor Shklovsky, Roman Jakobson,
Boris Eikhenbaum, Osip Brik, Yury Tynyanav and Vadimir Propp.

Formalism as a critical perspective began by rejecting the
unsystematic a n d e c l e c t i c
c r i ti c a l a pp r o a c h
es
which
h ad p r e vi o u s l y d o mi n a t e d
literary study. It attempted to create a
'literary science' by paying attention to the st udy of po eti
c lan gua ge.
3.2
Basic Principles and Main Interpretative Strategies of

Formalism
Formalism or Russian formalism, as it is also called, is a 20th-century

phenomenon. The formalist approach to literature pays close and
careful attention to the language, form, and structure of literary texts,
while regarding individual texts as the principal object of critical
investigation. To the formalists, the meaning of literary texts resides
primarily in the texts themselves rather than in anything else.
Literature has to be seen or read in special ways because style, form,
and technique play roles in literary texts that are different from the roles
they play in ordinary discursive texts. For formalism, literary criticism
is seen to be a specialised art, and literary texts are to be interpreted
according to certain well -defined and objective criteria rather than
simply according to the impressionistic and subjective response of
the individual critic.
1.
Formalists pay attention to three aspects of literary text. What

are they?
Formalism involves the rejection and consequent reversal of the
traditional relation between form and content; literary and non-literary
language, and literary text and reality. Formalist critics are
concerned with the study of poetic language which they think can
reveal the 'literariness' of a work. By literariness is meant that which
makes a given work a literary work. Formalism places emphasis on
basic elements of texts which are literary in character. This allows it
to emphasise the differences between literary language and non literary or ordinary language. Jacobson and his other formalist
critics were primarily linguists who were interested in extending the
field of linguistics to cover poetic language. They were concerned
with establishing a coherent theoretical basis for literary studies. It
is the goal of formalism to make the study of literature an
autonomous and specific discipline, to shift attention from the poet
to poetry itself.
Formalist theory rigorously and systematically excludes the nonliterary from the purely literary. The sources and genesis of
particular works, author's biography, history, politics, philosophy,

etc are thoroughly excluded from literary analysis. Literature has an
independent existence, and formalism attempts to create an
independent science which studies specifically literary material.
What is the goal of formalism?
Formalism excludes all mimetic and expressive definitions of
literature. For formalists, literature is not seen as the expression of
an author's personality and world-vision, or as a realistic (mimetic)
representation of the world in which he lived. This is because in
reading the literary text as an instrument of expression or
representation, the specificity of its literary qualities is likely to be
overlooked. Formalism emphasises the independent existence of
literary studies.
Formalism holds that literature is different from all other materials
because it tends to defamiliarise objects; that is, make things strange.
It refreshes our sense of life and experience. Art defamiliarises
things that have become habitual or automatic. The familiar is made
strange in art. Practical everyday language is made strange in poetry
because the effect of poetry is to make language 'oblique, difficult,
attenuated' or 'tortuous'.
Even the physical sounds of words themselves become unusually
prominent. This defamiliarised perception of words, which in
ordinary circumstances we fail to notice is the result of the formal
basis of poetry. Formalists believe that poetic speech does not differ
from ordinary speech just because it may include construction
different from everyday language and word-order inversions, but
because its formal devices (rhyme and rhythm) act on ordinary words
to renew our perception of them.
What does defamiliarisation mean to formalists?
3.3
A Critique of Formalism
A lot of criticisms have been levelled against the f ormalist theory

of art. For instance, it does not assign any significance to the
author, the world outside, or even thought. No recognition is given
to the relation between text and reality which are key elements in
some other critical theories. For the formalists, literature has nothing to
do with vision or with authorial meaning. A given work of art is only

part of the general body of literature, not a part of the personality of its
author. Formalist critics tell us that the emphasis in practical language
is on the referent and the reality referred to. Every other thing, such
as rhyme or alliteration, is only secondary to the purpose of the
communication. But in poetic language, referentiality is irrelevant,
and the emphasis is on the means of expression itself. Because of this,
a poetic utterance has no functionalities with the real context in which it
is produced and cannot be assumed to refer to any aspect of its
producer's existence.
Language in poetry does not point to an object beyond itself. It is
entirely self-sufficient and autonomous. What is important is not the
author, but literariness. Literature does not refer to anything in the
world of reality; it does not reflect that world. Indeed, literary texts
make familiar things to become strange. It dislocates our habitual
perceptions of the real world so as to make it the object of a renewed
attention. Formalism unearths the formal mechanisms whereby this
effect of defamiliarisation is produced. Shklovsky argued that
literature creates a "vision" of the object instead of serving as a
means of knowing it. In poetry, the devices of poetry are s tudied not
for themselves, but for their capacity to make objects strange. Imagery,
hyperbole, parallelism comparison, and repetition all bring about
defamiliarisation.
Another critique against formalist critical theory is that it does not
recognise the traditional dichotomy between Form and Content. It is
interested only in Form. Traditionally, form was considered to be a kind
of 'decorative supplement while content is the thought or idea. Form
was considered to be a vessel into which content could be poured. This
same form was thought capable of receiving a variety of different
contents. If the form changed, it was at the instance of content. The
emphasis was put on content. Formalist theory reversed the priority of
content over form and exclusively promoted the importance of form
over content. Content then becomes dependent on form. Content does
not have any separate from independent existence in literature. No
amount of literary analysis can distil content from form. Form itself is
determined, not by content, but by mother forms. Form predetermines
content.
SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
Discuss the major criticisms against formalist critics.
With the rise of Marxism in Russia in the 1930s, formalism was driven
out of literary discourse in Stalinist USSR; hence the formalists see
Marxist critics as their literary or ideological enemies. The formalist

theory that literature is a special realm to be (distinguished from the
social and political world) clearly stands in direct opposition to the
Marxist belief that literature cannot be understood apart from its
historical context. Because of its emphasis on structure or language,
formalism has inspired or given rise to other language-based
theories of literary criticism. One of such critical perspectives is
Structuralism, which will be examined in subsequent unit.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, you learnt that formalist criticism developed and flourished
in Russia in the middle of the 20th century. To the formalists, a work of
literature is perceived as being autotelic in the sense that such is selfcomplete, written for its own sake, and unified by its form. Jerome
Beaty et al (2002). The interpretation of this is that form (methods,
devices, etc) used to present ideas in a work of literature is exalted more
than content (theme). From the Formalists standpoint, a work of
literature is evaluated on the basis of its literary devices and the
susceptibility of the same to scientific investigation. The critics concern
therefore is to identify and discuss those devices in order to determine
the literariness of such a text (Jide Balogun, 2011).
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, you have been taught that formalist criticism regards
literature as a unique form of human knowledge that needs to be
examined on its own terms. Formalist critics believe that what gives a
literary text its special status as art is how all its elements work together
to create the reader's total experience. A key method that formalists use
to explore the intense relationships within a poem is close reading, a
careful step-by-step analysis and explication of a text. The purpose of
close reading is to understand how various elements in a literary text
work together to shape its effects on the reader. Writing about the
shortcoming of formalist criticism, Jide Balogun opines that the critical
practice of the Formalists needs a further appraisal because of its loss of
the organic essence of literature. This is so because a work of literature
is a representation of a central idea or theme whose interpretation is
dependent on the different elements that contribute to its fulfilment and
meaning. It would not be possible for Wole Soyinkas The Trials of
Brother Jero (1964) to accomplish the enormous task of satirising the
bastardisation and commercialisation of the Christian faith if only the
image of the Lagos Bar Beach has been emphasised in the text without
exposing the gullibility of Prophet Jero and the idiotic character of
Amope. A focus
only on this aspect of a text is a mere pursuance of shadow at the

expense of substance.

1.
2.
Discuss the major concerns of the formalist critics.

List some of the allegations levelled against formalism.
7.0

edition.
University Press.
Gbenoba, F.E. (2006). Contextuality in Ritual Performances of Osiezi
Festival in Agbor, Nigeria. Unpublished thesis submitted at the
University of Ibadan.
Reader.
UNIT 3
NEW CRITICISM
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1 The Emergence of New Criticism
3.2 Main Interpretative Strategies of New Criticism
Conclusion
Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
New Criticism is a product of some American universities in the 1930s
and 40s. It stresses a close reading of the text itself. As a strategy of
reading, New Criticism views the work of literature as an aesthetic
object independent of historical context and as a unified whole that
reflects the unified sensibility of the artist. New Criticism aims at
bringing a greater intellectual rigour to literary studies, confining itself
to careful scrutiny of the text alone and the formal structures of paradox,
ambiguity, irony, and metaphor, among others. The New Critics are
fired by the conviction that their readings of poetry would yield a
humanising influence on readers and thus counter the alienating
tendencies of modern, industrial life. In Critical Theory Today: A User
Friendly Guide, Lois Tyson (2006) submits that New Criticism

dominated literary studies from the 1940s through the 1960s and has left
a lasting imprint on the way we read and write about literature. Some of
its most important concepts concerning the nature and importance of
textual evidencethe use of concrete, specific examples from the text
itself to validate our interpretations have been incorporated into the
way most literary critics today, regardless of their theoretical persuasion,
support their readings of literature. For the New Critics, thorough
textual support is needed for literary interpretations.
To fully appreciate New Criticisms contribution to literary studies
today, we need to remember the form of criticism it replaced: the
biographical-historical criticism that dominated literary studies in the
19th century and the early decades of the 20th. At that time, it was
common practice to interpret a literary text by studying the authors life
and times to determine authorial intention, that is, the meaning the
author intended the text to have. The authors letters, diaries and essays
were combed for evidence of authorial intention as were
autobiographies, biographies and history books. In its most extreme
form, biographical-historical criticism seemed, to some, to examine the
texts biographical-historical context instead of examining the text. In
America, the New Critics called their literary interpretation close
reading.
In this unit, you are going to learn some of New Criticisms
contributions to literary studies and the theoretical framework that
underlies their interpretation. Some other theories like reader-response
criticism and structuralism stand in opposition to New Criticism.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
trace the development of New Criticism

discuss the theoretical postulations of New Criticism
discuss the strengths and shortcomings of New Criticism.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
The Emergence of New Criticism
Kelly Griffith (2002) notes that New Criticism is a product of the rise of
Modernism and one of 20th century's first theories about interpreting
literature. Although New Criticism began well before World War II,
with the criticism of T. S. Eliot and I. A. Richards, it received its fullest
expression after the war by such critics as John Crowe Ransom, W. K.

Wimsatt, Allen Tate, Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren.
The term New Criticism comes from the title of a book published by
John Crowe Ransom in 1941, The New Criticism. Ransom surveyed the
work of new critics, making clear some of his own critical principles.
Other critics who agreed with Ransom came to be called the New
Critics. The New Critics broke dramatically with the 19th-century
emphasis on historical and biographical background. They held that
understanding and appreciating a work of literature need have little or
no connection with the author's intended meanings, with the author's
life, or with the social and historical circumstances that may have
influenced the author. Everything the reader needs to understand and
appreciate a work is contained within the work itself.
How is John Crowe Ransom significant to the theory of New criticism?
3.2
Main Interpretative Strategies of New Criticism
The New Critics see their method as "scientific." The work is a

self-contained phenomenon made up of "physical" qualitieslanguage
and literary conventions (rhyme, meter, alliteration, plot, point of view,
and the like. These qualities can be studied in the same way a geologist
studies a rock formation or a physicist the fragmentation of light particles. But some New Critics, like Cleanth Brooks, claimed that the meaning contained in works of literature cannot be paraphrased, cannot be
separated from the work's form. One can state what a work is "about" or
summarise a work's themes, but a work's meaning is far more complex
than such statements alone. Brooks argued that a work's complexity lies
in its "irony" or paradoxes. A paradox is a statement that seems
contradictory, but it is nonetheless true. Statements such as "the first
shall be last" or "you must lose your life to gain it" are paradoxes.
Brooks claimed that good works of literature are filled with paradoxes.
The New Critics use their theories about literature to judge the quality of
works of literature. A "good" work, they believe, should contain a
network of paradoxes so complex that no mere summary of the work
can do them justice; yet, a good work should also have unity. The
author, they argue, achieves this unity by balancing and harmonising the
conflicting ideas in the work. Everything in the work is meaningfully
linked together. Because the New Critics favour complex, yet unified,
works, they downgrade works that seem simple or those that lack unity.
They preferred "difficult" works that contain apparently illogical and
troubling material. They prefer works that stay away from social and
historical subject matter and that deal rather with private, personal and
emotional experience.
The New Critics believe that the language of great works of literature
should be accessible to modern readers. They are confident that
well-trained interpreters could analyse, understand and evaluate works
of literature. Since to them great literature is one of civilisation's
proudest achievements, they imbue literary criticism with a noble, even
priestly, quality. Their method of analysing literatureusing literary
elements to reveal artistry and meaningwas easy to understand and
even "democratic" as anyone could appreciate and interpret great
literature once they learned how. Finally, their method excuses
interpreters from having to master biographical and historical background. They believe that all that is needed is a careful and thorough
scrutiny of the works themselves.
1.
Why do New Critics adore complex works?
2.
As a student of literary theory, you should study "The Intentional

Fallacy" and "The Affective Fallacy," two influential New
Critical essays by W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley. They
are contained in Wimsatt's The Verbal Icon (1954). Another
stimulating work of New Criticism is Cleanth Brooks's The Well
Wrought Urn (1947).
4.0 CONCLUSION
For the New Critics, readers must focus attention on the literary work as
the sole source of evidence for interpreting it. The life and times of the
author and the spirit of the age in which he or she lived are certainly of
interest to the literary historian, New Critics argue, but they do not
provide the literary critic with information that can be used to analyse
the text itself. According to the New Critics, knowing an authors
intention, therefore, tells us nothing about the text itself; hence, they
coined the term intentional fallacy to refer to the mistaken belief that the
authors intention is the same as the texts meaning. Although the
authors intention or the readers response is sometimes mentioned in
New Critics readings of literary texts, neither one is the focus of
analysis. Rather, the only way we can know if a given authors intention
or a given readers interpretation actually represents the texts meaning
is to carefully examine, or closely read, all the evidence provided by
the language of the text itself: its images, symbols, metaphors, rhyme,
meter, point of view, setting, characterisation, plot, and so forth, which,
because they form, or shape, the literary work are called its formal
elements.
As is evident today, the success of New Criticism in that it has focused
our attention on the formal elements of the text and on their relationship
to the meaning of the text. This is evident in the way we study literature
today, regardless of our theoretical perspective. For whatever theoretical
framework we use to interpret a text, we always support our
interpretation with concrete evidence from the text that usually includes
attention to formal elements, to produce an interpretation that conveys
some sense of the text as a unified whole.
Ironically, however, New Criticisms gift to critical theoryits focus on
the text itselfwas responsible for its downfall. New Criticism was
eclipsed in the late 1960s by the growing interest, among almost all
other schools of critical theory, in the ideological content of literary
texts and the ways in which that content both reflects and influences
society, an interest that could not be served by the New Critical
insistence on analysing the text as an isolated aesthetic object with a
single meaning.
5.0
SUMMARY
As you have read in this unit, for the New Critics, a literary work is a
timeless, autonomous (self-sufficient) verbal object. Readers and
readings may change, but the literary text stays the same. Its meaning is
as objective as its physical existence on the page, for it is constructed of
words placed in a specific relationship to one anotherspecific words
placed in a specific orderand this one-of-a-kind relationship creates a
complex of meaning that cannot be reproduced by any other
combination of words. For the New Critics, the meaning of a poem
could not be explained simply by paraphrasing it, or translating it into
everyday language. You should remember that since New Critics
believe their interpretations are based solely on the context created by
the text and the language provided by the text, they call their critical
practice intrinsic criticism, to denote that New Criticism stays within the
confines of the text itself.
Why do New Critics refer to their critical practice as intrinsic
criticism?
In contrast, other forms of criticism that employ psychological,
sociological, or philosophical frameworksin other words, all criticism
other than their ownthey call extrinsic criticism because they go
outside the literary text for the tools needed to interpret them. New
Critics also call their approach objective criticism because their focus on
each texts own formal elements ensures, they claim, that each text
each object being interpreted would itself dictate how it would be
interpreted.
6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1.
2.
Discuss the concept of close reading as used by the New

Critics.
In what ways are the New Critics similar to the Formalists?

May 15th, 2013.
edition.
Macmillan Press Ltd. Childs, Peter & Fowler, Roger (2006). The
Routledge Dictionary of Literary Terms. Routledge: USA.
Derrida, Jacques.(1976). Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
UP.
Routledge.
Eagleton, Terry. (1996). Literary Theory: An Introduction. (2nd ed.).
University Press.

and Co. Ltd.
Jancovich, Mark. (1993). The Cultural Politics of the New Criticism.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
of
Chicago Press.
Litz, A. Walton, Louis Menand & Lawrence Rainey. (Eds). (2000).
Modernism and the New Criticism. Vol. 7. The Cambridge
History
of
Literary Criticism. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Norris, Christopher.(1982). Deconstruction: Theory and Practice. New
York: Methuen.
Ransom, John Crowe. (1941). The New Criticism. New York: New
Directions.
Reader.
Spurlin, William J., & Michael Fischer. (Eds). (1995). The New
Criticism
and Contemporary Literary Theory: Connections and
Continuities. New York: Garland.
UNIT 4
STRUCTURALIST THEORY
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1 The Emergence of Structuralism
3.2 Principles and Postulations of Structuralist Theory
3.3 Applying Structuralist Theory to Literary Works
3.4 Critique of Structuralism
Conclusion
Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In literary studies, structuralism is concerned with an analysis of texts
based on some linguistic principles. It is an intellectual movement that
made significant contributions not only to literary criticism but also to
philosophy, anthropology, sociology, and history. Structuralist literary
critics, such as Roland Barthes, read texts as an interrelated system of
signs that refer to one another rather than to an external meaning that
is fixed, either by the author or reader. Structuralist literary theory draws
on the work of the Russian formalists, as well as the linguistic theories
of Ferdinand de Saussure and C. S. Peirce. According to Lois Tyson
(2006), in literature, one is not engaged in structuralist activity if one
describes the structure of a short story to interpret what the work means
or evaluate, whether or not it is good literature. However, one is
engaged in structuralist activity if one examines the structure of a large
number of short stories to discover the underlying principles that govern
their composition. For example, principles of narrative progression (the
order in which plot events occur) or of characterization (the functions
each character performs in relation to the narrative as a whole). You are
also engaged in structuralist activity if you describe the structure of a
single literary work to discover how its composition demonstrates the

underlying principles of a given structural system. In other words,
structuralists are not interested in individual buildings or individual
literary works (or individual phenomena of any kind) except in terms of
what those individual items can tell us about the structures that underlie
and organise all items of that kind. This is because structuralism sees
itself as a human science whose effort is to understand, in a systematic
way, the fundamental structures that underlie all human experience and,
therefore, all human behaviour and production. Structuralism should not
be thought of as a field of study. Rather, it is a method of systematising
human experience that is used in many different fields of study: for
example, linguistics, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and literary
studies.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
discuss the theoretical postulations of structuralism

apply structuralist principles to the analysis of literary works.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
The Emergence of Structuralism
According to Kelly Grifith (2002), by the 1950s and 1960s, New

Criticism had become the dominant theoretical approach that guided
teaching and interpretation. Although structuralism shared some of the
methods of New Criticism notably an emphasis on close reading and
attention to the particularities of the text it was diametrically opposed
to it in fundamental ways and took the teaching and interpretation of
literature in an entirely new direction. Structuralism is a mid-20th
century critical movement based on the linguistic theories of
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) and the cultural theories of
Claude Levi-Straus. Ferdinand de Saussure contends that language is
a self-contained system of signs, while Levi-Straus holds that
cultures, like languages, could be viewed as systems of signs and
could be analysed in terms of the structural relations among their
elements. Literary structuralism views literary texts as systems of
interlocking signs and seeks in a scientific way the rules and codes
that govern the form and content of all literature. In Structuralist
Anthropology (1972), Levi-Strauss holds that human activity and its
products, including religion, social conventions, ritual, art and
philosophy, are artificial constructions and not natural. They are all
elements of a structure. They derive their meanings not from the
world of reality, but from their relationship to each other within a
sign system which sustains our perception of reality. The world, like
language, is made up of signs.
The Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure, postulates that language
is a self-contained system or signs which did not have any logical
relation with what it refers to in material or metaphysical planes. He
made a distinction between the signifier and the thing signified. I n his
Course de Linguistik (translated Course in General Linguistics)
(1916), Saussure holds that language is a structured social system
that was coherent, orderly and susceptible to understanding and
explanation as a whole. He goes on to add that language could be
viewed synchronically, that is, as it exists at any particular time, or
diachronically, that is, as it changes in the course of time. He also
makes use of two significant terms, parole, by which he means the
speech of the individual person, and langue, the complete or
collective language (such as Yoruba or English) as it is used at any
particular time. According to Saussure, the proper object of
linguistic study is not the individual utterance (parole), but
language, the distinct system of signs. In his conception, language is
a system of contrasts, distinctions and ultimately opposition since the
elements of language never exist in isolation, but always in relation
to one another. This became the basis of his synchronic view or
language.
Discuss the contributions of structuralism to the study of literature.
3.2
Principles and Postulations of Structuralist Criticism
The structuralist literary theory is intimately linked with structural

linguistics, drawing a parallel between the study of literature and that
of language. The notions of sign, system, part-whole relationship
became dominant features of the artistic and criticism of literature.
In this way, the basic tenets of structural linguistics were fully
appropriated into literary analysis by scholars who were attracted by
Saussure's discoveries. Seen from the doctrine of structuralism,
literature, like language, is comprehended as a system governed by
specific structural laws. A piece of literature is held to be a
functional structure whose individual elements can only be
comprehended in their relation to the whole. Literary structuralism
views literary texts as systems of interlocking signs, and signs are
language based.
Structuuralist analysis seeks to make explicit, in a scientific way, the
logic that governs the form and content of all literatures.
Structuralist critical theory is based on Saussurean language

systems. Literature is seen as a sub-system of signs which derives its
livelihood from the ever-complete large system of (language) signs.
Literature is just one way in which language is used; it is the
equivalent of parole within the langue. Indeed, every manifestation
of social activities be it dress-making smoking, dancing, love making,
history, sociology or cooking, constitutes languages. Early in the 20th
century, Saussure taught three innovative courses in linguistics. His
students pooled their notes and published a reconstruction of the courses
called Course in General Linguistics (1916) as earlier mentioned. This
work is the basis of Saussure's fame and provides the theoretical underpinning of both structuralism and post-structuralism. Saussure's key
points about the nature of language broke new ground for studying
literature.
First, a language is a complete, self-contained system and deserves to be
studied as such. Before Saussure, linguists investigated the history of
languages (how languages evolved and changed through time) and the
differences among languages. For this kind of study, Saussure coined
the word diachronic (literally "through time"). Saussure argued that,
instead of history of a language, linguists should also study how it
functions in the present, how its parts interrelate to make up a whole
system of communication. This kind of study Saussure called
synchronic ("at the same time"). Second, Saussure claimed that a
language is a system of signs. He defined a sign as consisting of a sound
plus the thing the sound represents. He called the sound the signifier and
the thing represented the signified. Third, Saussure said that the sounds
that make up a language system are arbitrary. Any sound, it does not
matter which one, could represent a given thing. The sound for the
concept "tree" varies from language to language, yet it is convntional.
Fourth, any given language is self-contained. The signs that make up a
language have no meaning outside the system of that language. Finally,
Saussure distinguished between the whole system, which he called
langue (French for "language"), and one person's use of the system,
which he called parole (French for "word" or "speech"). Langue consists
of everything that makes the system work, such as words, syntax, and
inflections. Parole consists of these same elements but with variations
from user to user. Each speaker of a language uses the same system but
does so in a slightly different way.
State Sassuures key points about nature of language.
In the 1930s and 1940s, literary critics in Europe began applying
Saussure's ideas and methods to the study of literature. This application
took two different but often merging paths: literary criticism and cultural
criticism. A term that describes both kinds of criticism is semiotics, the
systematic study of signs. Structuralist literary critics attempt to show
that literature is a form of language or that it functions like language.
These critics see the individual work of literature as similar to parole,
and literary genres or literature in general as similar to langue. Just as
linguists study instances of parole in order to understand langue, literary
critics study works of literature in order to understand the system of
signs that make up a genre or literature as a whole.
One kind of structuralist literary criticism is stylistics, the study of the
linguistic form of texts. Stylistics can deal with both prose and poetry,
but has dealt mainly with poetry, particularly with the qualities of language that distinguish poetry from prose. Some stylistic critics claim
that it is only qualities of language that distinguish poetry from prose.
By analysing individual poems, these critics attempt to identify those
qualities. Structuralists who study entire cultures attempt to understand a
culture's sign systems. The most prominent practitioner of this kind of
criticism, as we noted earlier, is the French anthropologist Claude
Levi-Strauss. Levi-Strauss claims that a culture is bound together by
systems of signs, and that these systems are like language. He uses
Saussurean linguistics as a way of describing the "grammar" of these
systems. All aspects of a culture - technology, religion, tools, industry,
food, ornaments, and rituals - form sign systems. The people of the
culture are unaware of these systems; thus the structural anthropologist's
task is to bring them to light. Levi-Strauss is perhaps best known for his
study of myth. He examines multiple versions of individual myths in
order to isolate their essential structural units. Although Levi-Strauss
applies his theories to the study of local cultures, other critics, like the
Frenchman Roland Barthes, use Levi-Strauss's approach to
"psychoanalyse" modern society. They look for the unconscious sign
systems that underlie all aspects of Western culture, including food,
furniture, cars, buildings, clothing fashions, business, advertising, and
popular entertainment.
Structuralist analysis of culture and literature often merge because
literature can be considered an artifact of culture. Literature is a system
of signs that can be studied for itself and for its place in a given culture.
As a result, structuralist critics often shy away from complex and classic
works and focus instead on popular literature. Structuralist critics are
also usually more interested in fitting a work within a culture or a
tradition than in understanding the work itself.
Because of the close affinity between Formalism and Structuralism,
many of the formalist critics made significant contributions to the
theories of fiction and narrative. Roman Jakobson, Jan Mukarovsky, AJ.
Grehmas and even the linguist Noam Chomsky are foremost

structuralists. The formalists, Victor Shklovsky and Vladimir Propp,
made extensive comments on Russian folktales and the nature of
narrative structure.
In The Morphology of the Folktale (1928), Propp deals with ways in
which social and behavioural structures influence and determine fictional
narrative. Propp devises a system of folktale based on the two concepts
of the roles filled by the characters and the functions that they
perform in the plot. He demonstrates that there is a predictable and
finite number of permutations of the rule-function relation. This is
comparable to Jakobson's division between the syntagmatic axis of
language and its paradigmatic axis.
3.3
Applying Structuralist Criticism to Literary Works
As a student of literature, structuralism has very important implications.

After all, literature is a verbal art: it is composed of language. So its
relation to the master structure, language, is very direct. In addition,
structuralists believe that the structuring mechanisms of the human mind
are the means by which we make sense out of chaos, and literature is a
fundamental means by which human beings explain the world to
themselves, that is, make sense out of chaos. Thus, there seems to be a
rather powerful parallel between literature as a field of study and
structuralism as a method of analysis. Literary structuralism attempts to
define, explain and analyse literature by concentrating on signs in a
given text. This means that there is only a thin line of demarcation
between structuralism and semiotics the science of signs. According to
Saussure quoted in Terry Eagletons Literary Theory (1996), language
is:
A system of signs, which was to be studied
synchronically that is to say as a complete
system at a given point of time rather than
diachronically in its historical development.
Each sign was to be seen as being made up of
a signifier (second image, or its graphic
equivalent) and a signified (the concept of
meaning).
Literary structuralism is an attempt to apply the above linguistic
paradigm to the study of literature. The term connotes structures and is
more concerned with the way elements relate with one another in a
literary production. The focus of this approach is to analyse deep
structures in a given literary text. It sees issues in such a text in relation
to the signs employed by a writer. Thus, structuralism focuses on the
text as an independent aesthetic object and also tends to detach literature

from history and social and political implications (Jerome Beaty,
2002).
Structuralists do not try to determine whether or not a literary text
constitutes great literature. Their focus is on the structural systems that
underlie and generate literary meaning. For students of literature,
structuralism has very important implications. After all, literature is a
verbal art: it is composed of language. Hence its relation to the master
structure, language, is very direct. In addition, structuralists believe that
the structuring mechanisms of the human mind are the means by which
we make sense out of chaos, and literature is a fundamental means by
which human beings explain the world to themselves, that is, make
sense out of chaos. Thus, there seems to be a rather powerful parallel
between literature as a field of study and structuralism as a method of
analysis.
Furthermore, structuralist criticism deals mainly with narratives. This
focus is not as narrow as it may seem at first glance; if we remember
that narrative includes a long history and broad range of texts, from the
simple myths and folk tales of the ancient oral tradition to the complex
melange of written forms found in the postmodern novel. In addition,
most drama and a good deal of poetry, though not classified as narrative,
nevertheless have a narrative dimension in that they tell a story of some
sort. In any event, narratives provide fertile ground for structuralist
criticism because, despite their range of forms, narratives share certain
structural features, such as plot, setting, and character. It is important,
however, to bear in mind that structuralism does not attempt to interpret
what individual texts mean or even whether or not a given text is good
literature. Issues of interpretation and literary quality are in the domain
of surface phenomena, the domain of parole. Structuralism seeks instead
the langue of literary texts, the structure that allows texts to make
meaning, often referred to as a grammar because it governs the rules by
which fundamental literary elements are identified (for example, the
hero, the damsel in distress, and the villain) and combined (for example,
the hero tries to save the damsel in distress from the villain).
In general, structuralism is not interested in what a text means, but in
how a text means what it means. After all, structuralism believes that
the structures we perceive in literature, as in everything else, are
projections of the structures of human consciousness. The final goal of
structuralism is to understand the underlying structure of human
experience, which exists at the level of langue, whether we are
examining the structures of literature or speculating on the relationship
between the structures of literature and the structures of human
consciousness.
3.4
Critique of Structuralism
Despite being laudable and science-based, one of the shortcomings of

structuralism is that literature transcends mere analysis of signs.
Literature would not achieve its purpose of expressing those
fundamental and socio-cultural human desires that have passed through
history, if all it preoccupies itself with is an analysis of signs.
4.0
CONCLUSION
According to Eagleton (1996), structuralism, as the term suggests, is

concerned with structures, and more particularly with examining the
general laws by which they work. Literary structuralism flourished in
the 1960s as an attempt to apply to literature the methods and insights of
the founder of modern structural linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure.
Saussure viewed language as a system of signs, which was to be studied
'synchronically'; that is to say, studied as a complete system at a given
point in time, rather than 'diachronically', in its historical development.
Each sign is to be seen as being made up of a 'signifier' (a sound-image,
or its graphic equivalent), and a 'signified' (the concept or meaning). For
instance, the three black marks c - a t constitute a signifier which
evokes the signified 'cat' in an English mind. The relation between
signifier and signified is an arbitrary one: there is no inherent reason
why these three marks should mean 'cat', other than cultural and
historical convention. Each sign in the system has meaning only by
virtue of its difference from the others. 'Cat' has meaning not 'in itself',
but because it is not 'cap' or 'cad' or 'bat'. It does not matter how the
signifier alters, as long as it preserves its difference from all the other
signifiers; you can pronounce it in many different accents as long as this
difference is maintained. 'In the linguistic system,' says Saussure, 'there
are only differences': meaning is not mysteriously immanent in a sign,
but it is functional, the result of its difference from other signs. Finally,
Saussure believes that linguistics would get into a hopeless mess if it
concerns itself with actual speech or parole as he calls it. He is not
interested in investigating what people actually say; he is concerned
with the objective structure of signs which made their speech possible in
the first place, and this he called langue. Neither was Saussure
concerned with the real objects which people speak about: in order to
study language effectively, the referents of the signs, the things they
actually denote, have to be placed in brackets.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, you have learnt that structuralism in general is an attempt to

apply linguistic theory to the study of literature. As Eagleton notes, you
can view a myth, wrestling match, system of tribal kinship, restaurant
menu or oil painting as a system of signs and a structuralist analysis will
try to isolate the underlying set of laws by which these signs are
combined into meanings. It will largely ignore what the signs actually
'say', and concentrate instead on their internal relations to one another.
Structuralism, as Fredric Jameson puts it, is an attempt to rethink
everything through once again in terms of linguistics.

Language is the basis of structuralist criticism. Discuss.
7.0

edition.
Eco, Umberto.(1983). The Name of the Rose. San Diego: Harcourt.
Eco, Umberto.(.(1979). The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the
Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana.
Freeman, Donald C. (Ed.). (1970). Linguistics and Literary Style. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
University Press.
Hawkes, Terence.(1977). Structuralism and Semiotics. Berkeley: U

California P.
Reader.
Saussure, Ferdinand de.(1986). Course in General Linguistics. LaSalle,
IL:
Open Court.
Scholes, Robert. (1974). Structuralism in Literature: An Introduction.
New Haven: Yale UP.
Todorov, Tzvetan.(1977). The Poetics of Prose. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Welleck, Rene & Warren Austin. (1973). Theory of Literature.
UNIT 5
SEMIOTICS
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
3.1 Central Concerns of Semiotic Analysis

Conclusion
Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Simply put, semiotics is the science of signs. As a literary theory,
semiology proposes that a great diversity of our human action and
productions-our bodily postures and gestures, the social rituals we
perform, the clothes we wear, the meals we serve, the buildings we
inhabit-all convey "shared" meanings to members of a particular culture,
and so can be analysed as signs which function in diverse kinds of
signifying systems.
Linguistics (the study of verbal signs and structures) is one branch of
semiotics that supplies the basic methods and terms which are used in
the study of all other social sign systems. This unit examines the
theoretical postulations of semiotic analysis. Semioticians apply
structuralist insights to the study of what it calls sign systems. A sign
system is a linguistic or non-linguistic object or behaviour (or collection
of objects or behaviours) that can be analysed as if it were a specialised
language. In other words, semiotics examines the ways linguistic and
non-linguistic objects and behaviours operate symbolically to tell us
something. In terms of literary analysis, semiotics is interested in literary
conventions: the rules, literary devices, and formal elements that
constitute literary structures. Semiotics recognises language as the most
fundamental and important sign system.
While structural linguistics see linguistic sign as a union of signifier
(sound image) and signified (concept to which the signifier refers),
semiotics expands the signifier to include objects, gestures, activities,
sounds, imagesin short, anything that can be perceived by the senses.
Clearly, semiotics gives the signifier a wide range of possibilities.
However, of the three recognised classes of signsindex, icon, and
symbolsemiotics limits its study to signs that function as symbols.
Among the major figures of this theory include Charles Peirce,
Ferdinand de Saussure, Michel Foucault, Umberto Eco, Gerard
Genette, and Roland Barthes.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
discuss the concerns of semiotic analysis

apply semiotics in the analysis of literary texts
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
Central Concerns of Semiotic Analysis
'Semiotics', or 'semiology', as we mentioned above means the systematic

study of signs. Semiotics deals with the study of signs: their production
and communication, their systematic grouping in languages or codes,
and their social function. It is relevant to the study of literature, because
literature uses language, the primary sign system in human culture, and
is further organised through various subsidiary codes, such as generic
conventions. The American founder of semiotics, the philosopher C. S.
Peirce, distinguished between three basic kinds of sign. These are:
1.
The 'iconic', where the sign somehow resembled what it stood for
(a photograph of a person, for example);
2.
The 'indexical', in which the sign is somehow associated with

what it is, for instance, a sign of smoke with fire or spots with
measles); and
3.
The 'symbolic', where the sign is only arbitrarily

conventionally linked with its referent.
or
Semiotics takes up this and many other classifications: it distinguishes

between 'denotation' (what the sign stands for) and 'connotation' (other
signs associated with it); between codes (the rule-governed structures
which produce meanings) and the messages transmitted by them;
between the 'paradigmatic' (a whole class of signs which may stand in
for one another) and the 'syntagmatic' (where signs are coupled together
with each other in a 'chain').
Further, semiotics speaks of 'metalanguages', where one sign-system
denotes another sign-system (the relation between literary criticism and
literature, for instance); 'polysemic' signs which have more than one
meaning, and a great many other technical concepts. One of the leading
semioticians is Yury Lotman. To a large extent, structuralism and
semiotics, as they impinged onliterary
studies, are often
indistinguishable, especially when semiotics concentrated on the
production of meaning rather than its communication.
Semiotics is central to structuralist linguistics, hence Saussure,

from the structuralist and constructionalist approach, defined
semiotics as
'the science of signs' with the purpose of understanding systematic
regularities from which meaning is derived. Saussure treated
language as a sign-system, and his work in linguistics supplied
the concepts and methods that semioticians apply to sign-systems

other than language. One such basic semiotic concept is
Saussures distinction between the two inseparable components of
a sign: the signifier, which in language is a set of speech sounds
or marks on a page, and the signified, which is the concept or
idea behind the sign. Saussure also distinguished parole, or actual
individual utterances, from langue, the underlying system of
conventions that makes such utterances understandable; it is this
underlying langue that most interests semioticians.
Briefly explain the basic concerns of semiotics.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, you learnt that 'semiotics', or 'semiology', means the
systematic study of signs. Semiotics deals with the study of signs: their
production and communication, their systematic grouping in languages
or codes, and their social function. It includes the study of how meaning
is constructed and understood. For semioticians, signs do not just
'convey' meanings, but constitute a medium in which meanings are
constructed. Semiotics helps us to realise that meaning is not passively
absorbed but arises only in the active process of interpretation.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, you learnt that semiotics is central to structuralist
linguistics, hence Saussure, from the structuralist and
constructionalist approach, defined semiotics as 'the science of
signs' with the purpose of understanding systematic regularities
from which meaning is derived. Saussure treated language as a
sign-system, and his work in linguistics supplied the concepts
and methods that semioticians apply to sign-systems other than
language.

Discuss the contributions of C. S. Peirce to the study of
semiotics.
7.0
Bailey, R. W; Matejka, L. & Steiner, P. (1978). The Sign: Semiotics

Around the World.
Barthes, Roland. (1972). Elements of Semiology. Trans. R. Howard.
Evanston: North-western UP.-(1972). Mythologies. Trans. Annette
Lavers.
New York: Hill and Wang, 1972.
Blanchard. E. (1980). Description: Sign, Self, Desire; Critical Theory in
the
Wake of Semiotics.
Culler, Jonathan.(1973). Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism,
Linguistics, and the Study of Literature. New York: Cornell UP. (de)
Saussure,
Ferdinand. (1974). Course in General Linguistics. Trans. W. Baskin.
London: Fontana/Collins.
Eagleton, T. (1996). Literary Theory: An Introduction, Second

Edition.
Eco, Umberto. (1976). Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Hawkes, Terence. (1977). Structuralism and Semiotics. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Wikipedia. Semiotics.
UNIT 6
POST
STRUCTURALISM
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1 The Emergence of Poststructuralism
3.2 Major Postulations of Poststructuralism
Conclusion
Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Like structuralism, poststructuralism is based on the linguistic
theories of Ferdinand de Saussure and draws extensively from the
Deconstructionist theories of Jacques Derrida. Poststructuralism is
centered on the idea that language is inherently unreliable and does not
possess absolute meaning in itself. All meanings, post-structuralism
avers, reside in "intertextuality, or the relationship of the text to past and
future texts" (Merriam, 1995). Intertextuality means that every text is

absorbed and transformed by previous and future texts. Derrida
postulates that "every concept is necessarily and essentially inscribed in
a chain or a system, within which it refers to another and to other
concepts by the systematic play of differences" (Derrida, 1973). In
both post-structuralism and deconstruction, there is no single correct
reading of a text as interpretations can go on almost interminably, one
conflicting with the other.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
define poststructuralism
discuss the major postulations of poststructuralism
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
The Emergence of Poststructuralism
Post-structuralism, according to Kelly Griffith (2002) evolved from

Saussure's theories of language. It accepts Saussure's analysis of language and uses his methodology to examine the language of literary
works, but it concerns itself with the relationship between language and
meaning. Post-structuralism, in fact, offers a radical theory of reading
that altogether rejects the certainty of meaning. The most influential
post-structuralist critic is the Frenchman Jacques Derrida. Others
include the works of the French historian Michel Foucault, the writings
of the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan and of the feminist
philosopher and critic Julia Kristeva.
The basis of Derrida's radical skepticism is Saussure's distinction
between signifier and signified. Theorists of language have long maintained that words (signifiers) represent identifiable objects (the
signified). The word tree represents the object "tree." But Saussure
questioned the pervasiveness of such one-to-one correspondences.
Words, he said, refer not to objects but to "concepts," which are expressed by other words. It seems possible, then, that language, or at least
parts of language, may not refer to anything in the sensuously apprehensible world. Saussure said that language is a self-contained system and that in order to function it does not need to reflect reality; it
needs only to reflect itself. Signs gain meaning from other signs in the
system, not necessarily from the real world.
Derrida and other post-structuralist critics conclude from Saussure's
theories that there is a "gap" between signifier and signified. This gap
blurs the meaning of the signifier so that we cannot know exactly what it
refers to. The resulting ambiguity is multiplied by the connection of
signifier to signifier in an endless chain, no part of which touches the
real world. A literary text is equivalent to just such a chain. It is a
self-contained system that exists independently from the real world. As
we read, we absorb this system with our consciousness, which Derrida
maintains is itself made up of language. Reading is the confrontation of
one language system (our consciousness) with another (the text). Recovering meaning from texts, then, is impossible because interpretations
of a text never point to the real world but only to more language. Our
interaction with the text makes us think we are moving toward meaning,
but we never get there.
3.2
Major Postulations of Poststructuralism
Post-structuralist critics are concerned with the relationship between

self and language and the culture embodied in it. Both structuralism and
post-structuralism are founded on the Saussurean principle that
language must be considered at the synchronic plane, that is, within a
single temporal plane. Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan and Michel
Foucault are the chief exponents of post-structuralism. Derrida argues
that meaning is conceived as existing independently of the language in
which it is communicated and that is not subject to the play of
language. Derridas concepts of logocentrism and difference help to
show how his argument is an advancement of the structuralist position.
Logocentrism is used to describe all forms of thought which base
themselves on some external points of reference, such as the notion of
truth. It is generally held that language is subservient to things and ideas
in the world. But Derrida says that it is language that gives meaning and
coherence to ideas and things, and not vice-versa. In Saussurean
linguistic theory, language is primary, and meaning is the product of
language. The second concept, 'difference', refers to the fact that any
element or language relates to other elements in a text and the fact that
it is distinct from them. The meaning of an element is never fully
present because it depends on its association with other elements to
which it refers. At the same time, its existence as an element depends
on its being, distinct from other elements.
What is logocentricism and how does it relate to Derridas position on
language?
Like in formalism and structuralism, poststructuralism accepts the
primacy of the text. There is nothing outside the text. Derrida's theory
insists that if language in general is not governed by anything outside
it, then individual literary texts are not governed by anything outside
them. The purpose of poststructuralist criticism is to expose the indeterminancy of meaning in texts. Derrida calls his critical method
deconstruction. To "deconstruct" a work, the critic analyses the text
especially its languageto show that whatever connection may seem to
exist between the text and the real world is an illusion created by the
author's clever manipulation of language. Whatever the author may have
intended the work to mean or whatever a reader may think it means is
always undercut by the ambiguity of the work's language. The gap
between signifier and signified is symptomatic of a "space" of emptiness, nothingness, nonmeaning that lies at the heart of every text. The
critic attempts to demonstrate that the presence of this space makes the
text an "abyss" of limitless and contradictory meanings.
Discuss the impacts of Ferdinand de Saussure and Jacques Derrida to
the theory of deconstruction.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, we discussed poststructuralism. We noted that while
structuralism believes in the explanation of all phenomena through the
science of signs, post-structuralism objects to this position. The
argument of the post-structuralist is that meaning is not entirely
contained in a sign but rather in a chain of related issues within which
signs function. The purpose of post-structuralist criticism is to expose
the indeterminacy of meaning in texts. Derrida calls his critical method
deconstruction. To "deconstruct" a work, the critic analyses the text
especially its languageto show that whatever connection may seem to
exist between the text and the real world is an illusion created by the
author's clever manipulation of language.
5.0
SUMMARY
Poststructuralism is based on the linguistic theories of Ferdinand de

Saussure and draws extensively from the deconstructionist theories of
Jacques Derrida. The theory is centred on the idea that language is

inherently unreliable and does not possess absolute meaning in itself.
All meanings, post-structuralism avers, reside in "inter-textuality or the
relationship of the text to past and future texts". Inter-textuality means
that every text is absorbed and transformed by previous and future
texts. Derrida postulates that "every concept is necessarily and
essentially inscribed in a chain or a system, within which it refers to
another and to other concepts by the systematic play of differences". In
both post-structuralism and deconstruction, there is no single correct
reading of a text as interpretations can go on almost interminably, one
conflicting with the other.

1.
2.
Explain in detail Jacques Derridas concept of inter-texuality.

Compare and contrast structuralism and post structuralism.

th
May 15 , 2013.
Beaty, J. et al. (2002). The Norton Introduction to Literature (8th ed.).
New
York: W.W Norton Company.
Derrida, Jacques.(1976). Of Grammatology. Baltimore: John Hopkins
UP.
During, Simon. (Ed). (1999). The Cultural Studies Reader. London:
Routledge.

University Press.
and Co. Ltd. Lentricchia, Frank. (1980). After the New Criticism.
York: Methuen.
Reader.
UNIT 7
DECONSTRUCTION
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1 The Emergence of Deconstruction
3.2 Theoretical Postulations of Deconstructionist Criticism
Conclusion
Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Deconstruction, as a theory of literature, rejects the traditional
assumption that language can accurately represent reality. According to
deconstructionists, language is a fundamentally unstable medium;
hence, literary texts which are made up of words have no fixed and
single meaning. According to Paul de Man, deconstructionists insist on
the impossibility of making the actual expression coincide with what has
to be expressed, of making the actual signs coincide with what is
signified. Since they believe that literature cannot adequately and
definitely express its subject matter, deconstructionists tend to shift their
attention away from what is being said to how language is being used in
a text. In many ways, deconstructionist criticism shares certain tenets
with formalism since both methods usually involve close reading.
Why do deconstructionists believe that literature cannot adequately and
definitely express its subject matter?
As a theoretical concept, deconstruction, according to Lois Tyson
(2006), has a good deal to offer us: it can improve our ability to think
critically and to see more readily the ways in which our experience is
determined by ideologies of which we are unaware because they are
built into our language. However, in order to understand how
deconstruction reveals the hidden work of ideology in our daily
experience of ourselves and our world, we must first understand
deconstructions view of language because, according to Derrida,
language is not the reliable tool of communication we believe it to be,
but rather a fluid, ambiguous domain of complex experience in which
ideologies program us without our being aware of them.
Deconstructions theory of language, in contrast, is based on the belief
that language is much more slippery and ambiguous than we realise. As
a literature student, your goal is to use deconstruction to help enrich
your reading of literary texts, to help you see some important ideas they
illustrate that you might not have seen so clearly or so deeply without
deconstruction, and to help you see the ways in which language blinds
us to the ideologies it embodies.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
trace the origin of Deconstruction

discuss the theoretical postulations
Criticism.
of
Deconstructionist
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
The Emergence of Deconstruction
Deconstruction differs from New Criticism because it does not attempt

a resolution of paradoxes and ambiguities through any appeal to
organic unity in the literary text. Deconstruction queries the notion
of the self-enclosed literary work and the idea that any work has a
fixed identifiable meaning. It does not place exclusive emphasis on
the text alone because the theory expands the notion of what
constitutes a text. Deconstruction was developed by the French
critic Jacques Derrida in the late 1960s and became a major influence
on literary studies during the late 1970s. Deconstruction takes apart
the logic of language and insists that all texts include unconscious
traces of other positions exactly opposite to that which it sets out to
uphold. Deconstruction attempts to loosen language from preconceived concepts and referents. It attacks the assumption that a
text has a single, stable meaning. Derrida suggests that all interpretation
of a text simply constitutes further texts, which means there is no
outside the text at all. Therefore, it is impossible for a text to have
stable meaning. The practice of deconstruction involves identifying the
contradictions within a texts claim to have a single, stable meaning, and

showing that a text can be taken to mean a variety of things that differ
significantly from what it purports to mean. Apart from Derrida, other
proponents of deconstructive criticism include John Miller and Paul de
Man.
Discuss the impact of Jacques Derrida on the development of
deconstruction.
3.2 Theoretical
Criticism
Postulations
of
Deconstructionist
Primarily, deconstructive criticism is concerned with :

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The relation of words to things,

Whether or not there is certainty of truth,
Whether or not texts have meanings beyond what the reader
makes of what he reads, and
Whether interpretation is an individual thing, or it is the
particular thing that the author has in mind when writing.
Lois Tyson (2006) argues that deconstruction claims that language is

non-referential because it refers neither to things in the world nor to our
concepts of things but only to the play of signifiers of which language
itself consists. Deconstruction thus offers us a radical vision of the
activity of thinking. Our mental life consists not of conceptsnot of
solid, stable meaningsbut of a fleeting, continually changing play of
signifiers. Derrida, on his part, argues that language has two important
characteristics:
(1)
and
(2)
Its play of signifiers continually defers, or postpones, meaning,

The meaning it seems to have is the result of the differences by
which we distinguish one signifier from another.
He combines the French words for to defer and to differ to coin the
word diffrance, which is his name for the only meaning language can
have. For deconstruction, therefore, if language is the ground of being,
then the world is the infinite text, that is, an infinite chain of signifiers
always in play. Because human beings are constituted by language, they,
too, are texts.
In other words, deconstructionist theory of language has implications for
subjectivity, for what it means to be a human being as the theory asserts
that our experience of ourselves and our world is produced by the

language we speak, and because all language is an unstable, ambiguous
force-field of competing ideologies, we are, ourselves, unstable and
ambiguous force-fields of competing ideologies. Basically, for
deconstruction:
(1)
Language is dynamic, ambiguous, and unstable, continually

disseminating possible meanings;
(2)
Existence has no centre, no stable meaning, no fixed ground; and
(3)
Human beings are fragmented battlefields for competing
ideologies whose only identities are the ones we invent and choose
to
believe.
Explain the deconstruction claim that language is non-referential?
For deconstruction, literature is as dynamic, ambiguous and unstable as
the language of which it is composed. Meaning is not a stable element
residing in the text for us to uncover or passively consume. Meaning is
created by the reader in the act of reading. Or, more precisely, meaning
is produced by the play of language through the vehicle of the reader,
though we generally refer to this process as the reader. Furthermore,
the meaning that is created is not a stable element capable of producing
closure; that is, no interpretation has the final word. Rather, literary
texts, like all texts, consist of a multiplicity of overlapping, conflicting
meanings in dynamic, fluid relation to one another and to us. What have
been considered the obvious or commonsense interpretations of a
given text are really ideological readings interpretations produced by
a cultures values and beliefswith which we are so familiar that we
consider them natural. In short, we create the meaning and value we
find in the text. Just as authors cannot help but draw on the
assumptions of their cultural milieu when they construct their texts,
readers as well cannot help but draw on the assumptions of theirs when
they construct their readings. Therefore, both literary and critical texts
can be deconstructed.
What do deconstructionists take as the meaning of a text?
There are generally two main purposes in deconstructing a literary text,
and we may see either or both at work in any given deconstructive
reading:
(1)
to reveal the texts undecidability and/or
(2)
text
the
to reveal the complex operations of the ideologies of which the

is constructed. To reveal a texts undecidability is to show that
meaning of the text is really an indefinite, undecidable, plural,
conflicting array of possible meaning and that the text, therefore,
has no meaning, in the traditional sense of the word, at all. This goal can
be accomplished, in brief, by the following procedure:
(1)
note all the various interpretationsof characters, events,
images,
and so onthe text seems to offer;
(2)
show the ways in which these interpretations conflict with one
another;
(3)
show how these conflicts produce still more interpretations,
which produce still more conflicts, which produce still more
interpretations; and
(4)
use steps 1, 2, and 3 to argue for the texts undecidability. Unde
cidability does not mean that the reader is unable to choose
among
possible interpretations. It does not mean that the text
cannot make
up its mind as to what it wants to say. Rather,
undecidability means
that reader and text alike are inextricably
bound within languages dissemination of meanings. That is, reader
and text are interwoven
threads in the perpetually working loom of
language. Specific meanings are just moments of meaning that give
way, inevitably,
to more meanings. Thus, the literary text is used to
illustrate the indefinite, plural, conflicting possible meanings that
constitute all texts, literary and otherwise, because all texts are made of
language.
The other purpose in deconstructing a literary text is to see what the text
can show us about the ideologies of which it is constructed. This
endeavour usually shows us something about the ways in
Deconstructive criticism which ideologies operate in our own view of
the world as well.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, you have learnt that for deconstructionist critics:
(1)
Language is dynamic, ambiguous, and unstable, continually

disseminating possible meanings;
(2)
Existence has no centre, no stable meaning, no fixed ground; and
(3)
Human beings are fragmented battlefields for competing
ideologies whose only identities are the ones we invent and choose
to
believe.
You also learnt that there are generally two main purposes in
deconstructing a literary text:
(1)
(2)
text
To reveal the texts undecidability and/or

To reveal the complex operations of the ideologies of which the
is constructed.
To reveal a texts undecidability is to show that the meaning of the

text is really an indefinite, undecidable, plural, conflicting array of
possible meaning and that the text, therefore, has no meaning, in the
traditional sense of the word, at all
5.0 SUMMARY
Literature, for deconstructionist critics, is as dynamic, ambiguous and
unstable as the language of which it is composed. Meaning is not a
stable element residing in the text for us to uncover or passively
consume. Meaning is created by the reader in the act of reading. Or,
more precisely, meaning is produced by the play of language through
the vehicle of the reader, though we generally refer to this process as
the reader. Furthermore, the meaning that is created is not a stable
element capable of producing closure; that is, no interpretation has the
final word. Rather, literary texts, like all texts, consist of a multiplicity
of overlapping, conflicting meanings in dynamic, fluid relation to one
another and to us.
What have been considered the obvious or commonsense
interpretations of agiven text are really
ideological readings
interpretations produced by a cultures values and beliefswith which
we are so familiar that we consider them natural. In short, we create
the meaning and value we find in the text. Just as authors cannot help
but draw on the assumptions of their cultural milieu when they construct
their texts, readers as well cannot help but draw on the assumptions of
theirs when they construct their readings

1.
2.
Discuss the theory of deconstruction.

Meaning, for deconstructionists, is not a stable element residing
in the text. Expatiate.

May 15th, 2013.
Barthes, Roland. (1972). Elements of Semiology. Trans. R.

Howard.
Evanston: North-western UP.-(1972).
Mythologies. Trans. Annette Lavers. New York: Hill and Wang.
Blanchard. E. (1980). Description: Sign, Self, Desire: Critical Theory in
the
Wake of Semiotics.
edition.
Culler, Jonathan. (1973). Structuralist Poetics:Structuralism,
Linguistics, and the Study of Literature. New York: Cornell
UP. (de) Saussure, Ferdinand. (1974). Course in
General
Linguistics. Trans.
W.
Baskin.
London:
Fontana/Collins.
UP.
Routledge.
Eco, Umberto. (1976). Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington:
Indiana
University Press.
University Press.

Hawkes, Terence. (1977). Structuralism and Semiotics. Berkeley:
University of California Press
and Co. Ltd.
of
Chicago Press.
Litz, A. Walton, Louis Menand, & Lawrence Rainey. (Eds). (2000).
History
of Literary Criticism. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Moore-Gilbert, Bart Stanton, Gareth, & Maley Willy. ((Eds). (1997).
Naas, Michael. (2003). Taking on the Tradition: Jacques Derrida and
the
Legacies of Deconstruction. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University
Press.
York: Methuen.
Directions.
Reader.
Royle, Nicholas, (Ed.) Deconstructions: A Users Guide. (2000). New

York: Palgrave.
Wikipedia. Semiotics.
MODULE 3
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit 5
Marxist Theory and Criticism

Biographical Criticism
Historical Criticism
New Historicism
Psychoanalytical Theory
UNIT 1
MARXIST CRITICISM
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1 The Origin of Marxist Theory and Criticism
3.2 Contributions of Karl Marx to Marxist Criticism
3.3 The Fundamental Premises of Marxist Criticism
3.4 Criticisms against Marxist Criticism
Conclusion
Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Marxist criticism is based on the social and economic theories of Karl
Marx and Friedrich Engels. Their beliefs include the following: value is
based on labour; and the working class will eventually overthrow the
capitalist middle class. In the meantime, the middle class exploits the
working class. Most institutionsreligious, legal, educational and
governmentalare corrupted by middle-class capitalists. Marxist critics
apply these economic and social theories to literature by analysing first,
ideologies that support the elite and place the working class at a
disadvantage, and secondly, class conflict. Marxist criticism is often
interested in unravelling how a literary work reflects (intentionally or
not) the socio-economic conditions of the time in which it was written
and/or the time in which it is set, and what those conditions reveal about
the history of class struggle? According to Kelly Griffith (2002), fully
developed Marxist criticism appeared early in the 20th century,
especially in the 1930s during the Great Depression. This "socialist"
criticism applauded literature that depicted the difficulties of the poor
and downtrodden, especially when they struggled against oppressive
capitalist bosses. Examples of literature with such strong "proletarian"
elements are works by Emile Zola, Maxim Gorky, Charles Dickens,
Richard Wright, John Steinbeck, Theodore Dreiser, Ngugi wa Thiongo

and Femi Osofisan. Early Marxist critics approved of a socialist solution
to the problems of the oppressed and judged the quality of works on the
basis of their Marxist orientation. The strong proletarian elements in
the works of African writers like Ngugi assume combative dimensions
in the late 1970s and 1980s with street theatre enactments of Marxistoriented plays that shook the establishment earning him the tag of
literary guerilla of the masses in his country, Kenya.
Begining from World War II, however, a new generation of critics
infused Marxist criticism with renewed vigour. A good example is the
Hungarian critic Georg Lukacs, who argues that literature should reflect
the real world. By this, Lukacs does not mean that literature should be a
mirror image of society by, for example, giving detailed descriptions of
its physical contents or its patterns of behaviour. Rather, literature
should represent the economic tensions in society as described in Marx's
writings. Ironically, for Lukacs, works that accurately represent the real
world may be less "real" than works that emphasise themes (ideas) over
description. Lukacs believes that literature might even have to distort
reality in order to represent the "truth" about society. To show the
economic struggles caused by capitalism, for example, an author might
have to create character types one would never meet in real life. This
unit examines the theoretical postulations of Marxism as well as its
shortcomings.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
discuss the theoretical postulations of Marxism

explain its shortcomings as a theoretical construct
explain Karl Marxs influnce on Marxism.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
The Origin of Marxist Theory and Criticism
As mentioned earlier, Marxist criticism evolved from the philosophies

of Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels. Marxism views a
literary text as the product of an ideology particular to a specific
historical period, not the product of an individual consciousness. The
text, for Marxist critics, is judged on the basis of its portrayal of
social actions. They insist that literature must be understood in
relation to historical and social reality. The central Marxist position
is that the economic base of a society determines the nature and
structure of the ideology, institutions and practices, including
literature, that form the superstructure of that society. In Lukacs book,

The Historical Novel, he argues that literature must evoke a
revolutionary consciousness in the common people. In his view, a
good artist is one who can effectively represent the totality of human
life. The most effective mode for this representation is literary
realism, which for Lukacs reflects reality in the Ma rxist sense.
Lukacs sees realism as the only literary mode capable of
representing the totality of society by revealing through its narrative
form the underlying. movement of history. Marxism situates
literature in its historical contexts and in its socio-economic
development. Marxism describes history as the history of the
conflict between classes. Foremost Marxist critics, such as
Christopher Claudwell, Georg Lukacs and Walter Benjamin, see
literature as refracting socio-economic reality.
Importantly too, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) is also revered as one of
th
the key contributors to the Marxist tradition in the 20 century, along
with thinkers such as Louis Althusser and Vladimir Lenin. His
contribution entailed a revision of predominant interpretations of
Marxs writings during his time, in order to address the flurry of
criticisms levelled at Marxist theory (both from within and outside the
Marxist tradition). More specifically, Gramscis ideas can be described
as political and revolutionary. He sought to formulate a variant of
Marxism that would make sense of existing power relations and the
political currents within Italian society; at the same time, he
advocated a distinct (and extensive) course of action for his
countrys socialist movements. Two main trends could be identified in
Gramscis postulations.
Firstly, Gramsci fundamentally rejects
interpretations of Marx which trade on a crude materialism (and
economism)-to this end, he accords a greater role to the superstructure
and emphasises the importance of culture, civil society, political
practice, and social action. Secondly, Gramsci consistently resists
mechanistic (or deterministic) readings of Marxs theory of history;
instead he stresses the logic of contingency in place of logic of
necessity with regards to social change-this is
evidenced
in
his prescriptions for
political (and revolutionary) practice.
In fact, Gramsci sought to develop a coherent account to explicate and
explain a structure-superstructure dialectic, departing from the dominant
underpinnings of materialism and economism present in accounts of
classical Marxism. It is evident that he could not envision a simple oneway causal relationship which proceeded directly from structure to
superstructure. In line with questioning crudely materialist accounts of
Marxism, Gramsci was also clearly interested in emphasising the role of
ideas and social practice.
Discuss the importance of ideology to Marxist criticism.
3.2
Contributions of Karl Marx to Marxist Criticism
As we noted earlier, Marxist criticism evolves from the philosophies of

Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels. Marx made a number of
important statements on the nature of human society one of which is
that consciousness determines life. A change in material conditions
does lead to changes in the way humans think. He was also persuaded
that the economic system is the most fundamental aspect of any
society. Other aspects of society, culture, literature, politics and
religion, are parts of a "superstructure" whose characteristics are, at
least, to some extent dependent on the nature of the base. Marx's
Philosophy though focusing on history, philosophy, and economics,
has proved to be of special interest to critics of literature and culture.
The concepts of "alienation" and "commodification" have proved
useful to Marxist critics of literature. With division of labour in
society, a separation occurs between individuals who become
distanced from each other because of their different skills and
engagements. Individuals also become estranged from society as a
whole because they participate only in small portions of what is
going on in society. As far as Marx is concerned, a "commodity" is an
article produced not for use but for sale. A "commodity" is valued not
for its use but for its price. The individual may become emotionally
attached to the commodity in a way that causes his estrangement
from material reality. The individual is alienated from the fruit of his
labour. Marx regards literature as a form of ideology just like the
parliament, judiciary, education, religion, philosophy, politics and
law which can be used for the needs of the capitalists or the
proletariat. Necessarily, literature, the Marxists contend, reflects the
reality outside it. This is quite the opposite of what the formalists
believe. The message is more important in Marxist criticism than the
form or the device. Almost all leading Marxists, like Lenin, have
made significant pronouncements on literature and society. Lenin, for
instance, calls for an openly class-partisan literature. He argues that
neutrality in writing is impossible; rather literature should be linked
with the working-class movement.
Discuss why the message is more important than the form or the
device in Marxist criticism in the light of commodification.
3.3
The Fundamental Premises of Marxist Criticism
The function of Marxist literary criticism is to expose how works of

literature represent dominant ideologies. Some Marxist critics, like
Louis Althusser, believe that literature helps readers see the contradictions and fault lines in ideology. Others, like Terry Eagleton, hold that
literature furthers ideology by making it seem attractive and "natural."
Eagleton's work, Marxism and Literary Criticism (1976), provides an
overview of recent Marxist criticism, while his Literary Theory: An
Introduction (1983) surveys modern critical theory from a Marxist point
of view. In Marxism and Literary Criticism, Eagleton rightly defines
Marxist criticism as part of a larger body of theoretical analysis which
aims to understand ideologies the ideas, values and feelings by which
men experience their societies at various times. And certain of those
ideas, values and feelings are available to us only in literature. He
finally summarises its value, maintaining that to understand ideologies
is to understand both the past and the present more deeply; and such
understanding contributes to our liberation.
Attempt a Marxist analysis of Ngugi wa Thiongo Petals of Blood.
For Marxist critics, politics and economics cannot be separated from
art. Marxists hold that any theory which treats literature in isolation
as pure aesthetics or the product of a writer's ingenuity, divorcing it
from society and history, will be seriously deficient in its abi lity to
explain what literature really is. For Marxist critics, social
background is important in the consideration of any particular work.
Furthermore, Marxists see history as a series of struggles between
antagonistic social classes and the type of economic production they
engage in. The structure o f history and the structure of society are
referred to as dialectical- the dynamic and opposed forces at work
within them. Dialectic refers to a method by which history and
society can be analysed in order to reveal the true relationship
between their component parts.
Marxism has very many different approaches. A critic might, for
instance, start by looking at the structure of history and society to see
how literature reflects or distorts this structure. He could also start
from a general concept of literature and then move to writers and
texts and out to society. He could also start from a specific text and
move to the author, the author's class and the role of this cla ss in
society. In Marxist thinking, the socio-economic element in any
society is the ultimate determinant of that society's character. The
basic economic structure engenders a number of social institutions

and beliefs which act to regulate or dissipate the conflict and keep
the mode of production in order. Literature is one of the things
situated in the base or superstructure of society. This means that
literature is a social element that can be used either to keep the
capitalist mode of economy and life -style in place or to expose and
attack it.
Marxism has also given rise to the doctrine of socialist realism
which sees literature as social criticism and analysis. The artist is a
social activist. The writer, according to Marxist critics, translates
social facts into literary facts, and the critic's duty is to decode the
facts and uncover its reality. It is the writer's duty to provide a truthful,
historico-concrete portrayal of reality. This makes the notion of
reflection of reality a deep-seated tendency in Marxist criticism. It is
a way of combating formalist theory which locks the literary work
within its own sealed world, divorced from history and social reality.
The Marxist writer is a socially or ideologically committed writer. In
Marxist criticism, there is no room for arts for art's sake'. The writer
must be interested in his own time and be socially responsible.
3.4
Criticisms against Marxist Criticism
As you have learnt so far, Karl Marx saw a capitalist society as basically
a class society where the oppression of a class by another is perpetrated.
He was an avowed adversary of oppression in whatever form and joined
the proletariat (working class) to advocate for the abolition of class
oppression. You also learnt that the philosophy of Marxism is rooted in
what is known as dialectical materialism, which stresses economic
determinism (economic survival) as an index of social struggles. Marxist
ideologues believe that all social struggles are economy-based whose
resolution stirs conflicts among the different classes inhabiting a social
milieu. For the Marxists, human society is divided into two broad
classes; the oppressor and the oppressed (in Marx parlance the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat). By holding the means of production, the
bourgeoisie becomes dominant thereby oppressing the latter.
One of the allegations levelled against Marxism is that by the fact that
the Communist Bloc in Europe has failed, it is a proof that Marxism is
not a viable theory. Again, the overthrow of the upper class by the
peasants, as advocated by Marxism, remains a mirage in reality.
Despite its shortcomings, Marxist theory still provides us a meaningful
way to understand history and current events.
1.
The interest of Marxist literature is to defend the cause of the
oppressed. Discuss.
2.
Marxism is rooted in dialectic materialism; how does this relate
to the literary text?
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, you have learnt in sufficient detail the theory of Marxist
criticism. According to Lois Tyson (2006), literature, for Marxist critics,
does not exist in some timeless, aesthetic realm as an object to be
passively contemplated. Rather, like all cultural manifestations, it is a
product of the socio-economic and hence ideological conditions of the
time and place in which it was written, whether or not the author
intended it to be so. Because human beings are themselves products of
their socio-economic and ideological environment, it is assumed that
authors cannot help but create works that embody ideology in some
form. For Marxists, the fact that literature grows out of and reflects real
material/historical conditions creates at least two possibilities of interest
to Marxist critics:
(1).
(2).
The literary work might tend to reinforce in the reader the

ideologies it embodies, or
It might invite the reader to criticise the ideologies it represents.

Many texts do both. And it is not merely the content of a literary
workthe action or the themethat carries ideology, but the
form as most Marxists would argue. They contend that if content is the
what of literature, then form is the how. Realism, for example,
gives us characters and plot as if we were looking through a window
onto an actual scene taking place before our eyes. Our attention is drawn
not to the nature of the words on the page but to the action those words
convey. For some Marxists, realism is the best form for Marxist
purposes because it clearly and accurately represents the real world,
with all its socio-economic inequities and ideological contradictions. It
also encourages readers to see the unhappy truths about
material/historical reality, for whether or not authors intend it they are
bound to represent socio-economic inequities and ideological
contradictions if they accurately represent the real world.
5.0 SUMMARY
Marxist criticism is fundamentally anchored on the work of Karl Marx.
It is a dominant critical theory propounded in the middle of the 19th
century and flourished tremendously throughout the 20th century. It is
concerned with historical and cultural issues. Marxism identifies social
and economic factors as crucial denominators of relationship in society.
Karl Marx saw a capitalist society as basically a class society where the
oppression of a class by another is perpetrated. He was an avowed
adversary of oppression in whatever form. Thus, he joined the
proletariat (working class) to advocate for the abolition of class
oppression. The philosophy of Marxism is rooted in what is known as
dialectical materialism, which stresses economic determinism
(economic survival) as an index of social struggles. The Marxist
ideologues believe that all social struggles are economy-based whose
resolution stirs conflicts among the different classes inhabiting a social
milieu. Society is divided into two broad classes; the oppressor and the
oppressed, who in Marxist parlance are the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat respectively. Because the former holds the means of
production, it becomes dominant and hence oppresses the latter.
It is the duty of Marxist writers to expose the oppressors class and its
mechanism of oppression. This is the reason Marxist critics see the
history of society as the history of class struggles and also explain the
class struggles and antagonism predominant in a capitalist society. The
interest of Marxist literature is to defend the course of the oppressed.
The Marxist critics believe that the achievement of this goal is by
evolving an egalitarian society where the ideal is stressed. To achieve
this, they explore society and situate sources of oppression. They
identify and critique elements of exploitation, alienation and other
indices of oppression. They go beyond critiquing to also proffer panacea
to the crises engendered by social parity (Jide Balogun, 2011).

1.
2.
Discuss the fundamental premises on which Marxist criticism

revolves.
Explain the role of Karl Marx in the development and spread of
Marxist critical theory.

May 15th, 2013.
edition. New York: W.W Norton Company.
Bennett, Tony. (1979). Formalism and Marxism. London: Methuen.
Derrida, Jacques.(1976). Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
UP.
Routledge.
Eagleton, Terry. (1976). Marxism and Literary Criticism. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
University Press.
Gbenoba, F.E. (2008). Tracing Ngugis Journey of Commitment from
Performance to Narration. Quill Pen, Journal of
Communications, Issues and Events, Vol. 6, 48-92.

Haslett, Moyra.(2000). Marxist Literary and Cultural Theories. New
York: St. Martins.
and Co. Ltd.
of Chicago Press.
Modernism and the NewCriticismVol. 7. The Cambridge
History of Literary Criticism. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Lukacs, Georg. (1971).History and Class Consciousness. (1923 Trans.
Rodney Livingstone). Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Marx, Karl. (1967). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. (1867
ed.). New York: International Publishers.
Naas, Michael. (2003). Taking on the Tradition: Jacques Derrida and
the Legacies of Deconstruction. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press.
York: Methuen.
Directions.
Reader. (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Royle, Nicholas (ed.). (2000). Deconstructions: A Users Guide. New
York: Palgrave.
Williams, Raymond. (1977). Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
UNIT 2
BIOGRAPHICAL CRITICISM
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1 Biographical Criticism: A Definition
3.2 Fundamental Tenets of Biographical Criticism
3.3 Shortcomings of Biographical Criticism
Conclusion
Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
An authors life, to a large extent, could affect the meaning of a work.
Biographical criticism is a theoretical approach to literature that
manifests some interest in the author. In this unit, you are going to learn
how the facts about an author's life could signpost the ideas in his work.
You will also learn how an event in the authors life could affect his or
her themes or choice of subject matter. Biographical criticism began with
the simple but central insight that literature is written by actual people
and that understanding an author's life can help readers comprehend the
work more thoroughly. Anyone who reads the biography of a writer
quickly sees how much an author's experience shapesboth directly and
indirectly what he or she creates. Sometimes, mere knowing a single
important fact about an authors life could illuminate our reading of a
poem or story written by that author.
Though many literary
theorists have assailed biographical
criticism on
philosophical grounds,
the
biographical
approach to literature has never disappeared because of its obvious
practical advantage in illuminating literary texts.
Explain in details the theoretical assumptions of biographical
criticism.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
define biographical criticism

discuss the postulations of biographical criticism
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
Biographical Criticism: A Definition
Biographical criticism is the practice of analysing a piece of literary

work through the lens of the authors experience. It considers the ways
age, race, gender, family, education, and economic status inform a
writers work. In biographical criticism, a critic might also examine how
a literary work reflects personality characteristics, life experiences, and
psychological dynamics of the author. The thrust of biographical
criticism is that to understand some literary works, readers need
knowledge of the authors biographical facts or experiences.
Kelly Griffith (2002) opines that biographical criticism received
intellectual impetus from 19th and 20th centuries ideas about science
and is still very much practised. Samuel Johnson is reputed to be the
first great biographical critic. His book Lives of the Poets (1779)
provides truthful accounts of authors' lives and astute assessments of
their literary achievements. Biographical criticism provides a practical
assistance of understanding subtle but important meaning in a work.It
focuses on explicating a litearay text by using the insight provided by
knowledge of the authors life. Among the questions to ask in
biographical criticism include: "How does the text reflect the author's
life? Is this text an extension of the author's position on issues in the
author's life?" In this unit, our focus is to identify and critique some of
the rudiments of biographical criticism
Define biographical criticism.
3.2
Fundamental Tenets of Biographical Criticism
As noted in the introductory section above, biographical criticism

investigates how an individual author's life and thoughts influence a
work. This means that biographical criticism is not an attempt to draw
parallels between the author's life and his fiction; rather, it is a study of
the author's intention and audience. Biographical criticism seeks to
illuminate the deeper meaning of themes, conflicts, characters, settings
and literary allusions based on the author's own concerns and conflicts.
For biographical critics, a literary work is a reflection of the authors
life, and should be studied in conjunction for full meaning and
appreciation.
Biographical criticism examines the effect and influence of the writer's
life on his or her work. The premise behind biographical criticism is that
knowing something about the writer's life helps us to more fully

understand his or her work. Understanding the writer's life and
influences helps the reader discover the author's intended meaning. The
assumption of biographical criticism is that interpretation of a literary
work should be based on an understanding of the context in which the
work was written. Although biographical criticism is not concerned with
retelling the author's life, it applies information from the author's life to
the interpretation of the work. The focus remains on the work of
literature, and the biographical information is pulled in only as a means
of enhancing our understanding of the work. For biographical critics, the
writing of literary works is affected by the lives and experiences of their
authors. This, however, is not to assume that all works are biographical;
rather, all works are certainly influenced by the life experience of the
writer.
For a thorough biographical criticism, the reader should research the
authors life, use the biographical information to understand the
inferential and evaluative levels of the work; research the authors
beliefs; relate those systems of belief to the work; explain how the
connections reflect in the work's themes and topics; explain what can be
determined about the author's statements within the text based on the
biographical information. Thus, when doing a biographical criticism, the
following questions should be asked:
1).
2).
3).
4).
Are facts about the writer's life relevant to my understanding of

the work?
Are characters and incidents in the work versions of the writer's
own experiences?
Are the writer's values reflected in the work?
How do the connections explain the author's purpose and the
overall meaning of the work?
Biographical criticism has some weaknesses that should be avoided. For

instance, the critic should always avoid equating the work's content with
the author's life (or the character with the author) as they may not
necessarily be the same.
Attempt a biographical criticism of any literary text you have read.
3.3
Shortcomings of Biographical Criticism
As you have learnt so far, biographical criticism examines to what

extent an authors life unintentionally affects his work. One drawback to
this approach in literary criticism is the reliance on source material that
may not be accurate or complete. Again, the New Critics school of

literary criticism believe that the biographical approach tends to reduce
art to the level of biography, making it relative (to the times) rather than
universal. Thus, a biographical critic should base his interpretation on
what is in the text itself. In essence, biographical data should simply
amplify the meaning of a text and not to drown it out with irrelevant
material.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, we have examined the theoretical postulations of
biographical criticism. According to Wikipedia, biographical criticism is
a form of literary criticism which analyses a writer's biography to show
the relationship between the author's life and his work. This critical
method dates back to the Renaissance period, and was employed
extensively by Samuel Johnson in his Lives of the Poets (1779-81). Like
any critical methodology, biographical criticism should be used with
discretion and insight or employed as a superficial shortcut to
understanding the literary work on its own terms. Biographical criticism
came under disapproval by the New Critics of the 1920s, who coined the
term "biographical fallacy to describe criticism that neglected the
imaginative genesis of literature. Notwithstanding this critique by the
New Critics, biographical criticism remains a significant mode of
literary inquiry and continues to be employed in the study of literature.
5.0 SUMMARY
In summary, biographical criticism postulates that all literary works are
situated in specific historical and biographical contexts from which they
are generated. It rejects the concept that literary studies should be
limited to the internal or formal characteristics of a literary work, and
insists that it properly includes knowledge of the life of the author who
created the work. The biographical approach allows one to better
understand elements within a work, as well as to relate works to
authorial intention and audience.

1.
2.
Briefly itemise and discus the tenets of biographical criticism.

What are the shortcomings and weaknesses of biographical
criticism?
7.0 REFERENNCES/FURTHER READING

May 15th, 2013.
Bush, Douglass. (1965). "Literary History and Literary Criticism." In
Literary History and Literary Criticism. Leon Edel (Ed.). New
York: New York UP.
University Press.
and Co. Ltd.
Press.

Richter, David H. (Ed). (1998). The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts
and Contemporary Trends. Boston: Bedford Books.
UNIT 3
HISTORICAL CRITICISM
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1 Overview of Historical Criticism
3.2 Fundamental Tenets of Historical Criticism
Conclusion
Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Kelly Griffith (2002) observes that during the 19th century, the growing
faith in science influenced both literature and the interpretation of
literature, making historical criticism a popular critical approach.
Historical criticism emphasises the social and cultural environment that
surrounds a work of art. Historical criticism has several goals, including
the study of a particular culture and the evolution of literary tradition.
Historical criticism attempts to understand literary references in the
context of the environment in which they were written since both
language and cultures change over time. This unit introduces you to the
origin and theoretical tenets of historical criticism.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
define historical criticism

discuss the theoretical tenets of historical criticism
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
Overview of Historical Criticism
Historical theory requires that you apply to a literary text specific

historical information about the time during which an author wrote.
History, in this case, refers to the social, political, economic, cultural,
and/or intellectual climate of the time. Griffith states that historical
critics believe they could illuminate works of literature by studying what
gave birth to them: the intellectual and cultural environment from which
they came, their sources and antecedents, authors' lives, authors'
intentions and authors' language. They believe that their approach is
"scientific" because they deal with objective realityhistorically

verifiable factsand use a scientific method for collecting such facts.
Two French philosophers who influenced historical criticism are
Auguste Comte and Hippolyte Taine. Taine, in his History of English
Literature (1863), holds that all art is an expression of the environment
and time in which the artist lives. Historical critics concentrate on
authors they assume are "great," not worrying much about why or what
the works meant. A major emphasis of historical criticism is the
historical periods and intellectual movements to which works belonged.
To this end, critics study the conventions and ideas that characterise
movements, such as blank verse during the Renaissance and an
emphasis on free-will during the Romantic period. They place works
within evolving traditions (the novel, Christian literature, allegory,
political fiction, and the epic) and compare them to the literature of
other countries. Historical critics assume that the ideas associated with a
particular age are manifested in the works of the age.
What is the relationship of history to a literary text according to
historical critics? Who are the philosophers that influence this critical
canon?
3.2
Fundamental Tenets of Historical Criticism
As noted above, historical criticism seeks to recognise the influence of

the environment on literature. Among the steps to take when considering
the historical context in literary criticism are:
determine the historical period of the work

consider major events, values, beliefs, etc. of the epoch
consider how the work fits with, or stands apart from,
mainstream values or beliefs of the time
consider other texts of the time that might give the reader insight
into the time period.
Summing up the fundamental principles of historical criticism,

Douglass Bush (1965) surmises that since the great mass of great
literature belongs to the past, adequate criticism must grow out of
historical knowledge, cultural and linguistic, as well as out of intuitive
insight. Every work must be understood on its own terms as the product
of a particular mind in a particular setting, and that mind and setting
must be re-created through all the resources that learning and the
historical imagination can musternot excluding the author's intention,
if that is known. The very pastness of a work is part of its meaning for
us and must be realised to the best of our power . If we do not pay atten-
tion to authors and their historical context, Bush says, we run the risk of
anachronistic misreadings and misunderstandings. We may be limited in
our ability to:
re-create the outward and inward conditions in
which a work of art was engendered, but unless
we try, we cannot distinguish between its local
and temporal and its universal and timeless
elements, indeed we may not be able to
understand some works at all.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, you learnt that historical criticism seeks to understand a
literary work by investigating the social, cultural, and intellectual
context that produced it-a context that necessarily in cludes the artist's
biography and milieu. You also learnt that historical critics are less
concerned with explaining a work's literary significance for today's
readers than with helping us understand the work by recreating, as
nearly as possible, the exact meaning and impact it had on its or iginal
audience. A historical reading of a literary work begins by exploring
the possible ways in which the meaning of the text has changed over
time.
5.0 SUMMARY
Historical criticism can help one to better understand how the time and
place in which the creation of a literary work affects its meaning and
interpretation. A major emphasis of historical criticism is the historical
period and intellectual movement to which the literary work belongs. To
this end, critics study the conventions and ideas that characterises
movements, such as blank verse during the Renaissance and an
emphasis on free will during the Romantic period. They place works
within evolving traditions (the novel, Christian literature, allegory,
political fiction, the epic) and compare them to the literature of other
countries. Historical critics assume that the ideas associated with a
particular age are manifested in the works of the age.

1.
2.
3.
Distinguish between biographical criticism and historical

criticism.
What are the fundamental tenets of historical criticism?
Attempt an analysis of Chimamanda Adichies Half of a Yellow
Sun, using the historical criticism paradigm.

May 15th, 2013.
York: New York UP.
University Press.
and Co. Ltd.
Press.

UNIT 4
NEW HISTORICISM
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1 The Emergence of New Historicism
3.2 Theoretical Perspective of New Historicism
Conclusion
Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
New Historicism is a term coined by Stephen Greenblatt. It designates a
body of theoretical and interpretive practices that began largely with the
study of early modern literature in the United States. According to New
Historicism, the circulation of literary and non-literary texts produces
relations of social power within a culture. New Historicist thought
differs from traditional historicism in literary studies in several crucial
ways. Rejecting traditional historicisms premise of neutral inquiry,
New Historicism accepts the necessity of making historical value
judgments. According to New Historicism, we can only know the
textual history of the past because it is embedded, a key term, in the
textuality of the present and its concerns. For the New Historicist, all
acts of expression are embedded in the material conditions of a culture.
Texts are examined with an eye for how they reveal the economic and
social realities, especially as they produce ideology and represent power
or subversion. New Historicism takes particular interest in
representations of marginal/marginalised groups.
As a theoretical concept, New Historicism views literature as part of
history, and furthermore, as an expression of forces on history. New
Historicism compares literary analysis to a dynamic circle whereby the
work tells us something about the surrounding ideology (slavery, rights
of women, etc.) and a study of the ideology tells us something about the
work. Generally, New historicism takes two forms, namely : analysis of
the work in the context in which it is created and analysis of the work in
the context in which it is critically evaluated. New Historicists like
Kirszner and Mandell (2008), assert that literature does not exist
outside time and place and cannot be interpreted without reference to the
era in which it was written. As a a theoretical perspective, New
Historicism claims that readers are influenced by their culture, hence no
objective reading of a work is possible. Adherents of New Historicism
are of the opinion that critics should consider how their own culture
affects their interpretation of the historical influence on a work. The aim
of this unit is to introduce you to the theoretical tenets of New
Historicism.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
trace the emergence of New Historicism

discuss the theoretical tenets of New Historicism
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
The Emergence of New Historicism
Lois Tyson (2006) argues that New Historicism emerged in the late
1970s, rejecting both traditional historicisms marginalisation of
literature and New Criticisms enshrinement of the literary text in a
timeless dimension beyond history. Thus, for new historicist critics, a
literary text does not embody the authors intention or illustrate the spirit
of the age that produced it, as traditional literary historians asserted; nor
are literary texts self-sufficient art objects that transcend the time and
place in which they were written, as New Critics believed. Rather,
literary texts are cultural artefacts that can tell us something about the
interplay of discourses, the web of social meanings, operating in the
time and place in which the text was written. And they can do so
because the literary text is, itself, part of the interplay of discourses, a
thread in the dynamic web of social meaning. For new historicism, the
literary text and the historical situation from which it emerged are
equally important because text (the literary work) and context (the
historical conditions, that new historical and cultural criticism which
produced it) are mutually constitutive: they create each other. Like the
dynamic interplay between individual identity and society, literary texts
shape and are shaped by their historical contexts.
New Historicism is not interested in historical events as events, but with
the ways in which events are interpreted, with historical discourses, with
the ways of seeing the world and modes of meaning. Historical events
are viewed by New Historicists not as facts to be documented but as
texts to be read in order to help us speculate about how human
cultures, at various historical moments, have made sense of themselves
and their world. Although we cannot really know exactly what happened
at any given point in history, we can know what the people involved
believed happened, and we can also interpret those interpretations. For
New Historical literary critics, the literary text, through its
representation of human experience at a given time and place, is an

interpretation of history. As such, the literary text maps the discourses
circulating at the time it was written and is itself one of those discourses.
That is, the literary text shapes and is shaped by the discourses
circulating in the culture in which it is produced. Likewise, our
interpretations of literature shape and are shaped by the culture in which
we live.
1.
When did new historicism emerge and which critical canons did
it react to?
2.
How does New Historicist view the literary text?
3.2
Theoretical Perspective of New Historicism
The key assumptions of New Historicism, according to Kelly Griffith

(2002), are embedded in its understanding of several related concepts:
culture, text, discourse, ideology, the self and history. These concepts, in
turn, establish the New Historicist approach to the study of literature and
are based on structuralist and post-structuralist theories of language. The
first term, culture, is the most important. In an anthropological sense,
"culture" is the total way of life of a particular societyits language,
economy, art, religion, and attachment to a location. For New
Historicists, culture is also a collection of codes that everyone in a
society shares and which allows them to communicate, create artifacts,
and act. These codes include not just language but every element of a
cultureliterature, dress, food, rituals, and games.
The New Historicists approach to literary study is based on three
thingsliterature, the author, and the reader and this helps distinguish
it from other theoretical approaches. New Historicism claims that
literature is merely a "text" indistinguishable in nature from all the other
texts that constitute a culture. The concept "literature" is "socially
constructed"; every society decides what "literature" is and what its
conventions are, and these definitions always vary from society to
society and age to age. Equally relative are judgments about literary
value. No single author's works are better than those of other authors; no
single work is better than others; no one culture's works are better than
those of other cultures. Rather, all texts, literary and otherwise
(including "popular" texts such as television shows, advertisements, and
drugstore romances), are worthy of study.
The author, for the New Historicists, is far less noble and autonomous
than in other approaches. Like everyone else, authors are "subjects"
manufactured by culture. A culture "writes" an author who, in turn,

transcribes cultural codes and discourses into literary texts. Authors'
intentions about the form and meaning of their work merely reflect
cultural codes and values. Likewise, culture "proggrammes" the reader
to respond to its codes and forms of discourse. When readers read works
of literature, they respond automatically to the codes embodied by them.
New Historicists believe that literature is history. It is "enmeshed" in
history. Hence, when New Historicists study literature, they examine
such things as how the work was composed, what the author's intentions
were, what events and ideas the work refers to, how readers have
responded to the work, and what the work means for people today. They
draw upon many disciplines-anthropology, sociology, law, psychology,
and history-to show what role literature has played in history, from the
author's time to the present. Again, New Historicists focus on literature
as cultural text. They study the relationship between literature and other
texts, including non-literary and popular texts. They identify the codes
that constitute literary discourse and ascertain how people use such
discourse to communicate with one another and to comment on society.
In addition, New Historicists scrutinise the relationship of literature to
the power structures of society. They want to show how literature
serves, opposes and changes the wishes of the power elites and therefore
what ideologies literature supports or undermines. Finally, many New
Historicists see criticism itself as an "intervention" in society.
1.
What distinguishes the other critical approaches from the New

historicist approach?
2.
How do New historicists see the literary writer and the reader of a
literary text?
3.
For New historicists, literature is history, and criticism is an

intervention in society. Explain.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, the origin and theoretical postulations of New Historicism
were outlined. You learnt that New Historicism views literature as part
of history. New Historicism compares literary analysis to a dynamic
circle whereby the work tells us something about the surrounding
ideology (slavery, rights of women, etc.), and a study of the ideology
tells us something about the work. Generally, New historicism takes two
forms, namely : analysis of the work in the context in which it was
created and analysis of the work in the context in which it was critically
evaluated. As a a theoretical perspective, New Historicism claims that

readers are influenced by their culture; hence no objective reading of a
work is possible. Adherents of New Historicism are of the opinion that
critics should consider how their own culture affects their interpretation
of the historical influence on a work.
5.0 SUMMARY
As Griffith has noted, the New Historicist approach to literary study is
based on three thingsthe text, the author, and the reader and this
helps distinguish it from other theoretical approaches. New Historicism
claims that literature is merely a "text" indistinguishable in nature from
all the other texts that constitute a culture. The concept "literature" is
"socially constructed"; every society decides what "literature" is and
what its conventions are, and these definitions always vary from society
to society and age to age. Equally relative are judgments about literary
value. No single author's works are better than those of other authors; no
single work is better than others; no one culture's works are better than
those of other cultures. Rather, all texts, literary and otherwise
(including "popular" texts such as television shows, advertisements, and
drugstore romances), are worthy of study.

1.
2.
Distinguish between Historicism as a theoretical concept from

New Historicism.
Culture affects the interpretation of literary works. Discuss this
statement in light of the postulations of New Historicism.

edition. New York:
W.W Norton Company.

Semiotics ofTexts. Bloomington: Indiana.
Freeman, Donald C. (Ed). (1970). Linguistics and Literary Style. New
University Press.
UNIT 5
PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1 The Emergence of Psychoanalytic Theory
3.2 The Influence of Sigmund Freud on Psychoanalysis
Theory
3.3 Fundamental Premises of Psychoanalytic Theory
Conclusion
Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
According to Kelly Griffith (2002), psychoanalytic criticism, also
called psychological criticism or Freudian theory, is a vast critical
category, which often employs many approaches. First it investigates
the creative process of the arts: what is the nature of literary genius,
and how does it relate to normal mental functions? Such analysis may
also focus on literature's effects on the reader. How does a particular
work register its impact on the reader's mental and sensory faculties?
The second approach involves the psychological study of a particular
artist. Most modern literary biographers employ psychology to
understand their subject's motivations and behaviour . The third
common approach is the analysis of fictional characters. Sigmund
Freud's study of Sophocles Oedipus Rex in his work, The
Interpretation of Dreams (1895), is an example of this approach, which
tries to bring modern insights about human behaviour into the study of
how fictional characters act. While psychoanalytical criticism
carefully examines the surface of the literary work, it customarily
speculates on what lies underneath the textthe unspoken or perhaps
even unspeakable memories, motives, and fears that covertly shape the
work, especially in fictional characterisations. In this unit, you will
learn the origin and application of psychoanalysis to the study of
literature.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
discuss the origin of psychoanalysis criticism

apply psychoanalytical method in the analysis of works of
literature.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
The Emergence of Psychoanalytic Theory
Psychoanalytic (also called psychological) literary criticism has its

roots in the work of the Austrian neurologist, Sigmund Freud (18561930). Freud was the first to employ this approach to the analysis of
literature. Originally, psychoanalysis is a medical technique, a
method of therapy for the treatment of mentally ill or distressed
patients which helps them understand the source of their symptoms.
It is, in a way, a method of interpretation of the patient's words,
actions and attitudes. Freud used examples from literature to diagnose
his patient's illnesses. He referred to Oedipus Complex to explain
the natural erotic attachment of a young infant to the mother. Freud
also propounded a tripartite model that the human psyche is not a
single integrated entity but in fact consists of three very different parts.
These three parts are: "id", "ego" and "superego". These three
aspects of the mind have different goals and desires and operate
according to different principles. The id is the site of natural
drives; it is a dark area of seething passion that knows only desire
and has no sense of moderation or limitation. The 'ego moderates
between the authoritarian demands of the superegoand
the
unmitigated desires of the id. The ego is equivalent to the conscious
thinking mind. It is the major interface between the psyche and the
outside world. The superego is an internalised representation of the
authority of the father and of society. Freud's tripartite model has been
applied to literature by critics. Freud also contended that dreams are
an indication of repressed desires in the human unconscious. Dreams
represent a leaking of the unconscious mind into consciousness. In
.
his book, The Interpretation of Dreams (1895), Freud deals with the
techniques of interpreting dreams, and critics have found his
techniques highly applicable to the interpretation of literary texts.
3.2
The Influence of Sigmund Freud on Psychoanalytic

Theory
As already stated, Psychoanalysts analyse literature to reveal insights

about the way the human mind works. It is based on the work of
Sigmund Freud. It works well as a method of analysing characters
actions and motivations. Psychoanalysis is based on the belief that all
actions are influenced by the unconscious. Human beings must repress
many of their desires to live peacefully with others. Repressed desires
often surface in the unconscious, motivating actions. Freud is of the
opinion that the content of dreams is so rich and complex that no

dream can ever be completely interpreted, much in the same way that
literary scholars have often emphasised that no single interpretation
of a work of literature can ever be final or complete. Freud suggests
that the making of a dream is like that of a literary text. A dream is
constructed throughthe
operation of four basic processes:
condensation,
displacement or
disguise or
symbolisation, considerations or representability or dream
images, and further disguise of certain elements. It is very clear
that all of the processes of dream-construction described by
Freud have
analogies in the construction of
a work of literature. Condensation and interpretation of a literary work
are as true or literature as in dream-world.
Literary works also rely on figurative language in ways that make
interpretation necessary. Much of the work of the literary artist involves
a search for images and motifs. Language is central both to the writing
of literature and to the construction of th e dream-world. The
parallels between literary works and Freud's dream -work are really
important. For Freud, the creation of art, like dreaming, is largely a
mechanism for the release of unconscious psychic energies.
Psychoanalytic critics study the psychological make-up of artists
through an analysis of their art, because works or art reveal something
about the psychology of their creator.
Contemporary psychological critics continue to find Freud's theories a
rich source of ideas about literature, but, whereas earlier critics focused
on authors and characters, recent critics have turned their attention to
readers and texts. The critic, Norman Holland, for example, argues that
readers' psyches respond subconsciously to certain aspects of works of
literature. The reader in effect "makes" the text, so that the text is different for every reader. Like Holland, the French critic, Jacques Lacan,
posits ideas about how readers respond to literary texts. Lacan combines
Freud's theories of the unconscious with Saussurian linguistics. He holds
that the human psyche is made up of language. Our conscious and subconscious minds are born into language, a system of signifiers. From infancy to adulthood, we grow toward what we think is a secure and
coherent identity. But at the heart of the psyche is an unbridgeable gap
between signifier and signified. As a result, our psyche is never fully coherent, our identity never stable.
It is also noteworthy to state that the theories of Carl Jung, the Swiss
psychologist, have also been employed by psychoanalytic literary
critics. Jung suggests the idea that the unconscious mind also
harbours "collective unconscious", that is, a repository or primitive
desires common to the entire human race. In his cultural studies, Jung
finds that certain images are present in myths and legends from all
over the world. These myths are powerful because they appeal to
unconscious desires in every culture, possibly inherited by all
members of the human race. A number of fundamental images,
motifs or archetypes are present in the collective unconscious; hence,
it is clear that the archetypes appearing in myths and legends would
also frequently appear in literary works.
Briefly explain why Sigmund Freud is considered the father of
psychoanalytic criticism.
3.3
Fundamental Premises of Psychoanalytic Theory
Psychological criticism examines the behaviour of characters within the

text in order to unearth its deeper meaning. Just as the economic
theories of Karl Marx engendered Marxist criticism, the psychological
theories of Sigmund Freud inspired psychoanalytic literary
interpretation. Psychological criticism is usually applied in different
ways. For instance, a work of literature can be viewed as a "dream", the
expressive manifestation of the subconscious. By interpreting the
symbolic nature of the work, we gain insight into the psyche of the
author. Psychological criticism can also focus on the characters of a
work, analysing their motives, desires and conflicts even though these
characters are fictional. Characters, as well as their underlying traits, are
often drawn from real people and therefore can display some of the
same psychological patterns. Psychological theory also influences
authors as they utilise these new ideas to create more complex
characters. In addition, psychological criticism can also be used to
interpret the relationship between the text and the reader. In this
approach, the critic acknowledges that a work of literature functions as
the secret expression of what the reader wants to hear. It is this aspect
that creates our enjoyment of a book.
Psychoanalysis is geared towards understanding individuals by
uncovering desires hidden deep within the mind and revealing their
connections with the unconscious surface. In literature, however,
psychoanalytic critics believe that the unconscious mind of the author
is revealed in his works. Thus, the psychoanalytic critic may begin
with a study of the elements in a writer's biography that shape his
imagination and then apply this to the work. He may also use the work
as the equivalent of a confession and then go on to draw conclusion
about the writer from this. Psychoanalytic criticism believes that
literature provides a fruitful and complex source for the analysis of
the human mind. It helps to reveal to us things about the relation
between the conscious and the unconscious mind, language and
reality. A psychoanalytical interpretation of a work can help to

solve the mysteries involved in complex and symbolic themes.
In subjecting a text to psychoanalytical reading, the questions to ask
include: what ways can we view a literary work as analogous to a
dream? That is, how might recurrent or striking dream symbols reveal
the ways in which the narrator or speaker is projecting his or her
unconscious desires, fears, wounds, or unresolved conflicts onto other
characters, onto the setting, or onto the events portrayed? What does the
work suggest about the psychological being of its author? What might a
given interpretation of a literary work suggest about the psychological
motives of the reader? It is important to note that not all psychoanalytic
critics will interpret the same work in the same way, even if they focus
on the same psychoanalytic concepts. The overall goal is to use
psychoanalysis to help enrich ones reading of literary works, to help
one see some important ideas they illustrate that we might not have seen
so clearly or so deeply without psychoanalysis (Lois Tyson, 2006).
Explain why psychoanalytic critics would regard a literary text as a
recant of its authors dream.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, our focus is on psychoanalytic Criticism. Jide Balogun
(2011) avers that psychoanalysis could be considered from the
perspectives of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Jacques Lacan and Carl
Gustav Jung (1875-1961). The centrality of psychological criticism is to
define literature as an expression of the authors psyche pivoted on his
or her unconscious being which requires an interpretation like a dream.
Psychological criticism deals with a work of literature primarily as an
expression, in fictional form, of the personality, state of mind, feelings,
and desires of its author. The assumption of psychoanalytic critics is that
a work of literature is correlated with its author's mental traits. In
psychoanalytic criticism, reference to the author's personality is used to
explain and interpret a literary work. Also, reference to literary works is
made in order to establish, biographically, the personality of the author.
The mode of reading a literary work itself is a way of experiencing the
distinctive subjectivity or consciousness of its author. This theory
requires that we investigate the psychology of a character or an author to
figure out the meaning of a text. You also learnt in this unit that the
leading tradition in psychological criticism is that of Freud. According
to its followers, the meaning of a work of literature depends on the
psyche and even on the neuroses of the author. Thus, a literary work is
valued based on the authors unconscious.
5.0
SUMMARY
In literature, psychoanalytic critics believe that the unconscious

mind of the author is revealed in his works. Thus, the psychoanalytic
critic may begin with a study of the elements in a writer's biography
that shape his imagination and then apply this to the work. He may also
use the work as the equivalent of a confession and then go on to draw
conclusion about the writer from this. Psychoanalytic criticism
believes that literature provides a fruitful and complex source for the
analysis of the human mind. It helps to reveal to us things about the
relation between the conscious and the unconscious mind, language
and reality. A psychoanalytical interpretation of a work can help to
solve the mysteries involved in complex and symbolic themes.
Furthermore, psychoanalytic criticism investigates the creative process
of the arts: what is the nature of literary genius, and how does it relate
to normal mental functions? Such analysis may also focus on literature's
effects on the reader. How does a particular work register its impact on
the reader's mental and sensory faculties? Another approach in volves
the psychological study of a particular artist. Most modern literary
biographers employ psychology to understand their subject's
motivations and behaviour. Finally, another common approach is the
analysis of fictional characters like in Freud's stu dy of Sophocles
Oedipus Rex in his work, The Interpretation of Dreams.

1.
2.
Discuss the contributions of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung to

the development of Psychoanalysis criticism.
Explain, in details, the theoretical underpinning of
psychoanalytic criticism.

May 15th, 2013.
Beaty, J. et al. (2002). The Norton Introduction to Literature, (8th ed.).
York: New York UP.

University Press.
and Co. Ltd.
Press.
MODULE 4
CONTENTS
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Feminist/Gender Criticism
Reader-Response Criticism
Postcolonial Theory
UNIT 1
FEMINIST/GENDER CRITICISM
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1 The Emergence of Gender/Feminist Criticism
3.2 Stages of Development of Feminist Criticism
3.3 Theoretical Postulations of Gender/Feminist Criticism
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Feminist criticism grew out of the womens movement that followed

World War II and seeks to analyse the role of gender in works of
literature. A leading feminist critic, Elaine Showalter, describes two
purposes of feminist criticism: first, feminist critique (the analysis of
works by male authors, especially in the depiction of womens writing);
and secondly, gynocriticism (the study of womens writing). Beyond
this, feminist critics have also focused on recovering neglected works by
women authors through the ages and creating a canon of womens
writing. Importantly, gender issues play a part in every aspect of human
production and experience, including the production and experience of
literature, whether we are consciously aware of these issues or not.
Feminist/gender criticism examines how sexual identity influences the
creation and reception of literary works. A feminist critic sees cultural
and economic disabilities in a "patriarchal" society that have hindered or
prevented women from realising their creative possibilities and women's
cultural identification as a merely negative object, or "Other," to man as
the defining and dominating "Subject." There are several assumptions
and concepts held in common by most feminist critics. First is that our
civilisation is pervasively patriarchal. Second, is that the concepts of
"gender" are largely, if not entirely, cultural constructs, effected by the
omnipresent patriarchal biases of our civilisation. Third, is that this

patriarchal ideology also pervades those writings that have been
considered great literature. Such works, feminist critics aver, lack
autonomous female role model, and are implicitly addressed to male
readers, leaving the woman reader an alien outsider or else solicit her to
identify against herself by assuming male values and ways of
perceiving, feeling, and acting. In this unit, you will be introduced to
feminist/gender criticism and the forces that influenced it.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
trace the origin of feminist criticism

define feminist/gender criticism
discuss the postulations of feminist criticism
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
The Emergence of Gender/Feminist Criticism
Feminist or gender criticism, according to Kelly Griffith (2002), bases

its interpretations on ideas about the nature of females and female
experience. With the rise of feminism in the 1950s and 1960s, feminist
critics claimed that, over the years, men had controlled the most
influential interpretive communities. Men decided which conventions
made up "literature" and judged the quality of works. Men wrote the literary histories and drew up the lists of "great" worksthe literary
canon. Because works by and about women were omitted from the
canon, women authors were ignored, and women characters
misconstrued. Since the 1960s, however, feminist literary critics have
successfully challenged these circumstances. Many more women now
teach, interpret, evaluate, and theorise about literature than ever before.
Literary genres practised by women, such as diaries, journals, and
letters, have gained more respect. Numerous anthologies, literary
histories and interpretive studies explore women's contributions to
literature. Today, a new movement, "gender studies," has evolved out of
feminist studies in order to address broader issues; notably, the nature of
both femininity and masculinity, the differences within each sex, and the
literary treatment of men and homosexuals. Feminist criticism is
political in that it argues for the fair representation and treatment of
women.
3.2
Stages of Development of Feminist Criticism
Scholars have attempted to periodise the stages of emergence of feminist

criticsm. However, it should be noted that this categorisation is not cast
on stone. Griffith states that a survey of the history of feminist and
gender criticism helps to spotlight their concerns. The first stage of
feminist criticism began with two influential books: Simone de
Beauvoir's The Second Sex (1949) and Kate Millet's Sexual Politics
(1970). Both authors criticise the distorted representation of women by
well-known male authors. Their works laid the foundation for the most
prevalent approach of this stage, the "images of women" approach.
Following de Beauvoir and Millet, feminist critics called attention to the
unjust, distorted, and limited representation (images) of females in
works of literature, especially works authored by males. They celebrated
realistic representations of women and brought to light neglected works
by and about women. They sought to expose the "politics" of
self-interest that led people to create stereotypical and false images of
women.
In the second stage of feminist criticism, beginning in the early 1970s,
critics shifted away from works by males to concentrate on works by
females. Elaine Showalter, a prominent critic from this period, called
this approach "gynocriticism." Gynocritics urged women to become familiar with female authors and to discover their own female "language,"
a language that supposedly enters the subconscious before the
"patriarchal" language of the dominant culture. They tried to delineate a
female poetics, a use of literary conventions and genres that seems
typically "female." Some critics based feminist poetics on the possible
connection between writing and the female body. Because women's
bodies have more fluids than men's, they argued, women's writing is
more "fluid." It is less structured, less unified, more inclusive of many
points of view, less given to neat endings, and more open to fantasy than
writing by men. It rejects or undermines the "marriage plot" and the
"happy ending," in which a strong female protagonist submits to a male
by marrying him. Female poetics seeks to understand why female
authors tend to favour certain genres (lyric poetry, novel, short story,
tale, letters, diaries, and memoirs) over others (epic, martial romance,
drama, and satire).
The third stage of feminist criticism rebelled against the "essentialist"
assumptions of gynocriticism with its focus on the cultural creation of
identity. The third stage of feminist criticism attempts to distinguish
between "sex" and "gender." While sex is the biological difference
between males and females, gender is the cultural difference. Culture
determines the traits and behaviour that set masculinity apart from
femininity. Western culture, for example, has seen women as passive
rather than active, irrational rather than rational, subjective rather than
objective, at home rather than at "work," spiritual rather than material,
and impractical rather than practical. It has ruled that certain kinds of
behaviour are "abnormal" and "unnatural" for females to practise, such
as pursuing careers, doing construction work, being pastors or priests,
wearing "male" clothes, or being assertive. Such gender distinctions,
feminist critics claim, are arbitrary and almost always give women less
power, status, and respect than men. They argue that many women are
"trapped" by the gender traits assigned to them by culture.
The three "stages" of feminist criticism higlighted, according to Grffith,
have overlapped and coexisted, and continued to be practised.
List the three stages of development of feminist criticism and the focus
of each stage.
3.3 Theoretical Postulations of Gender/Feminist Criticism

Feminist criticism covers almost anything that has to do with female
emancipaption and empowerment. Jide Balogun (2011) holds that
Feminist criticism is an attempt by the women-folk to universally
liberate itself from male chauvinism and patriarchy. He argues that
while the shift is not intended to cause gender terrorism, it aims at
making the position of women at home, at work, at school, in the street
etc more challenging to themselves and their men-folk in the social
phenomenon. The radical posture of feminist criticism is reflected in its
dissatisfaction with the place of women in global social and cultural
situations. Because of its interest in social issues, feminist criticism, like
Marxism, is historical, and political, and it proposes a dynamic
ideological commitment.
The feminist literary critics interest is to pursue the cause of women in
literary texts. This is accomplished by encouraging women authors to
write novels, plays and poems. Furthermore, the feminist literary writer
features and makes women characters and ideas dominant in her works.
Such writers endeavour to propagate feminist thought, female concerns,
ideas and accomplishments and to recover the largely unrecorded and
unknown history of women in earlier times (Jerome Beaty, 2002).
According to Lois Tyson (2006), feminist criticism examines the ways
in which literary texts reinforce patriarchy because the ability to see
when and how patriarchal ideology operates is crucial to ones ability to
resist it in ones life. Feminists have observed that the belief that men
are superior to women has been used to justify and maintain the male
monopoly of positions of economic, political, and social power, in other

words, to keep women powerless by denying them the educational and
occupational means of acquiring economic, political, and social power.
That is, the inferior position long occupied by women in patriarchal
society has been culturally, not biologically, produced. For feminist
critics, patriarchal ideology works to keep women and men in traditional
gender roles and thereby maintain male dominance. Women are
oppressed by patriarchy economically, politically, socially, and
psychologically, and patriarchal ideology is the primary means by which
they are kept so. In every domain where patriarchy reigns, a woman is
the other: she is objectified and marginalised, defined only by her
difference from male norms and values, and by what she (allegedly)
lacks but which men (allegedly) have.
Who are the major writers that influenced feminist/gender criticism?
List some of their major works.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, you learnt that feminist criticsm was influenced by such
works as Simone Beavoirs The Second Sex (1949) and Kate Millets
Sexual Politics (1970). You also learnt that feminist critics believe that
culture has been so completely dominated by men to the extent that
literature is full of unexamined male-produced assumptions. To this
end, feminist critics tend to see their criticism as correcting the
imbalance, by analysing and combating patriachy. All feminist activity,
including feminist theory and literary criticism, has as its ultimate goal
to change the world by promoting womens equality. Thus, feminist
activity can be seen as a form of activism that directly promotes social
change in favour of women. Among the foremost feminist writers in
Africa include the Ghanaian playwright and author of The Dilemma of a
Ghost (1965); Zulu Sofola, the Nigerian playwright and author of Old
Wives are Tasty (1991); Buchi Emecheta, the Nigerian novelists and
author of The Joys of Motherhood (1979) and Bina Nengi-Ilagha the
Nigerian author of Condolences (2002).
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, you learnt that feminist criticism examines the ways in
which literary texts reinforce patriarchy because the ability to see when
and how patriarchal ideology operates is crucial to ones ability to resist
it in ones life. The duty of the feminist literary critic is to pursue the
cause of women in literary texts. This is accomplished by encouraging
women authors to write novels, plays and poems. Furthermore, the
feminist literary writer endeavours to feature and make women

characters and ideas dominant in her works.

1.
2.
Explain the theoretical tenets of feminist criticism.

Highlight some of the ways patriarchal assumptions are
deconstructed by feminist critics.

Beaty, J. et al. (2002). The Norton Introduction to Literature.
(8th ed.). New York: W.W Norton Company.
Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana.
Freeman, Donald C. (Ed.). (1970). Linguistics and Literary Style. New
University Press.

UNIT 2
READER-RESPONSE THEORY
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1 The Origin of Reader-Response Theory
3.2 Theoretical Postulations of Reader-Response Theory
33
Criticisms against Reader-Response Theory
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Reader-response theory focuses on the activity of reading a work of

literature. Reader-response critics turn from the traditional conception of
a work as an achieved structure of meanings to the responses of readers
as they read a text. By this shift of perspective, a literary work is
converted into an activity that goes on in a reader's mind; that is, a
reader's experience and the text. It is through this interaction that
meaning is made. Proponents of this school of criticism believe that
literature has no objective meaning or existence; rather readers bring
their own thoughts, moods and experiences to whatever text they are
reading and get out of it whatever they happen to base on their own
expectations and ideas. This unit introduces you to the origin, tenets and
criticism levelled against reader-response theory.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
explain the concept of reader-response theory

trace the origin of reader-response theory
highlight some of the shortcomings of reader-response theory
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
The
Origin
of
Reader-Response
Theory
As its name implies, reader-response criticism focuses on readers
responses to literary texts. This attention to the reading process,
according to Lois Tyson (2006), emerged during the 1930s as a reaction
against the growing tendency to reject the readers role in creating
meaning, a tendency that became a formal principle of the New

Criticism which dominated critical practice in the 1940s and 1950s.
Reader-response theory did not receive much attention until the 1970s.
This school maintains that what a text is cannot be separated from what
it does. Reader-response theorists share two beliefs:
(1).
(2).
That the role of the reader cannot be omitted from our

understanding of literature and
That readers do not passively consume the meaning presented to
them by an objective literary text; rather they actively make the
meaning they find in literature.
This second belief, that readers actively make meaning, suggests, of

course, that different readers may read the same text quite differently. In
fact, reader-response theorists believe that even the same reader reading
the same text on two different occasions will probably produce different
meanings because so many variables contribute to our experience of the
text. The knowledge we have acquired between our first and second
reading of a text, personal experiences that have occurred in the interim,
a change in mood between our two encounters with the text, or a change
in the purpose for which we are reading it can all contribute to our
production of different meanings for the same text.
3.2
Theoretical Postulations of Reader-Response Theory
Kelly Griffith (2002) in Writing Essays About Literature contends that

reader-response theory is a school of criticsm which maintains that
readers actually contribute to the meaning of works of litearture.
Reader-response criticism studies the interaction of reader with the text.
Reader-response critics hold that the text is incomplete until it is read.
Each reader brings something to the text that completes it and that
makes each reading different. For this school of thought, the literary text
has no life of its own without the reader.
Although reader-response criticism borrows its methodology from New
Criticism, Structuralism and Post-structuralism, it challenges their dominance and rejects their contention that the work must be studied in
isolation from its context. Contexthistorical, biographical, cultural,
psychoanalyticis relevant to the understanding of the text.
Reader-response theory further rejects the post-structuralist claim that
texts are meaningless. Texts may be incomplete in themselves, but the
reading of them makes them potentially reflective of the real worldor
at least the reader's experience of the real world. Reader-response
scholars, like the German critic, Wolfgang Iser, agrees with Jacques
Derrida that works contain "gaps which must be filled. Authors always
leave something unsaid or unexplained and thus invite readers to fill the
resulting spaces with their own imaginative constructs. Iser argues,
therefore, that many equally valid interpretations of a work are possible.
Interpretations of a work will vary from person to person and even from
reading to reading.
Some groups of reader-response critics focus on how biographical and
cultural contexts influence the interpretation of texts. These critics argue
that reading is a collective enterprise. For instance the American critic
Stanley Fish states that a reader's understanding of what "literature" is
and what works of literature mean is formed by "interpretive
communities" (groups to which readers belong). These groups could be
small (a circle of friends) or large (a region or cultural entity). Fish
rejects the idea that a text has a core of meaning that everyone in any
age would accept. Rather, shared understandings of a text's meaning
come from the beliefs of a community of readers, not from the text.
Each reader's preconceptions actually "create" the text. If, for example, a
reader believes that a miscellaneous collection of words is a religious
poem, the reader will perceive it as a religious poem. If a reader believes
that the work fits a particular theory, the reader will find facts in the
work to support that theory. The theory, in a sense, "creates" the facts.
A literary text is incomplete until it is read? Discuss this assertion in
relation to Reader Response theory.
3.3
Criticisms against Reader-Response Theory
You have been taught that reader-response criticism sees the reader as
essential to the interpretation of a work. Each reader is unique, with
different educations, experiences, moral values, opinions, and tastes, etc.
Therefore, each readers interaction with a work is unique. A readerresponse critic analyses the features of the text that shape and guide a
readers reading. The critic emphasizes recursive readingre-reading
for new interpretations. For reader-response critics, each generation has
different experiences, values, and issues; hence, each generation will
read a work differently. However, reader-response theory has been
criticised as being overly impressionistic and guilty of the affective
fallacy (too focused on the emotional effect of the work). Other critics
have plainly said that it is not intellectual. These attacks have led to the
adaptation of another version of reader-response criticism called
reception theory.
What are some of the critique against reader-response theory?
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, you learnt that reader-response theory is a school of criticsm
which maintains that readers actually contribute to the meaning of
works of litearture. Reader-response theory studies the interaction of
reader with the text. Reader-response critics hold that the text is
incomplete until it is read. Each reader brings something to the text that
completes it and that makes each reading different. For this school of
thought, the literary text has no life of its own without the reader.
5.0 SUMMARY
As its name implies, reader-response theory focuses on readers
responses to literary texts. Proponents of reader-response theory believe
that literature has no objective meaning or existence; rather, readers
bring their own thoughts, moods and experiences to whatever text they
are reading and get out of it whatever they happen to base on their own
expectations and ideas. Reader-response theory has been criticised as
being overly impressionistic and guilty of the affective fallacy. Some
other critics have plainly said that it is not intellectual.

1.
2.
Discuss the theoretical tenets of reader-response theory.

In what way does the reader contribute to making meaning in a
work of litearture?

May 15th, 2013.
Beaty, J. et al. (2002). The Norton Introduction to Literature. (8th ed.).
Bleich, David. Subjective Criticism. (1978). Baltimore: The John
Hopkins University Press.

Davis, Todd F., & Kenneth Womack. ( 2002.). Formalist Criticism and
Reader-Response Theory. New York: Palgrave.
UP.
Routledge.
University Press.
and Co. Ltd.
Iser, Wolfgang. (1978). The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic
Response. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Iser, Wolfgang.(1974). The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication
in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: The John
of Chicago Press.

York: Methuen.
Richards, I. A. Practical Criticism: A Study of Literary Judgment.
(1929). New York: Harcourt Brace.
Rosenblatt, Louise. (2005). Making Meaning with Texts: Selected
Essays. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.
Tompkins, Jane (Ed.). (1980). Reader-Response Criticism: From
Formalism to Post-Structuralism. Baltimore: The John
UNIT 3
POSTCOLONIAL THEORY
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main Content
3.1 The Emergence of Postcolonial Theory
3.2 Theoretical Postulations of Postcolonial Theory
3.3 Criticisms against Postcolonial Theory
Conclusion
Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Lois Tyson (2006), in Critical Theory Today: A User Friendly Manual,
holds that as a domain within literary studies, postcolonial theory is both
a subject matter and a theoretical framework. As a subject matter,
postcolonial theory analyses literature produced by cultures that
developed in response to colonial domination, from the first point of
colonial contact to the present. Any analysis of a postcolonial literary
work, regardless of the theoretical framework used, might be called
postcolonial criticism. Postcolonial criticism focuses on the literature of
cultures that developed in response to British colonial domination.
However, as a theoretical framework, postcolonial criticism seeks to
understand the operationspolitically, socially, culturally and
psychologicallyof colonialist and anti-colonialist ideologies. For
example, a good deal of postcolonial criticism analyses the ideological
forces that, on the one hand, pressed the colonised to internalise the
colonisers values and, on the other hand, promoted the resistance of
colonised peoples against their oppressors, a resistance that is as old as
colonialism itself.
Postcolonial criticism is a term which has obviously become globalised.
However, a key problem remains in the actual naming. The prefix post
raises questions similar to those arising from its attachment to the term
modernism. Does post signal a break into a phase and consciousness
of newly constructed independence and autonomy beyond and after
colonialism, or does it imply a continuation and intensification of the
system, better understood as neo-colonialism? According to Raman
Selden, Peter Widdowson and Peter Brooker (2005):
The appearance of postcolonial theory has
overlapped with the debates on postmodernism,
though it brings, too, an awareness of power relations

between Western and Third World cultures which
the more playful and parodic, or aestheticising
postmodernism has neglected or been slow to
develop. From a postcolonial perspective, Western
values and traditions of thought and literature,
including versions of postmodernism, are guilty of a
repressive ethnocentrism.
In this unit, our aim is to explain the concept of Postcolonialism as well
as its theoretical predilections.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
define Postcolonialism
outline the theoretical tenets of Postcolonialism
list and discuss the leading theorists of Postcolonialism
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
The Emergence of Postcolonial Criticism
Postcolonialism as a literary theory emerged in the late 19th century and

thrived throughout the 20th century. Postcolonialism is a literary
approach that gives a kind of psychological relief to the people (the
colonised) for whom it was born. The focus of the postcolonial critic is
to expose the mechanism and the evil effect(s) of that monster called
colonialism on the colonised. Colonialism which is the capitalistic and
exploitative method by a superior nation (coloniser) to lord itself over
a less-privileged nation (colonised) leads to the impoverishment of the
latter. The concept of colonialism has political, economic and cultural
implications.
Postcolonialism sees literature as an avenue to probe into the history of
society by recreating its past experience with the mind of forestalling the
repetition of history. The ultimate for the postcolonial critic is to
develop a kind of nostalgia about his historical moment that produces a
new dawn in his society. Postcolonialism is a dominant feature in
African and Caribbean literature as writers in these settings see
colonialism as an instrument aimed at reducing them to nonentities. An
interesting feature of postcolonial theory is its attempt, not only to
expose the oddities of colonialism but to reveal and discuss what the
independent nations make of themselves even after the demise of
colonialism.
In another sense, postcolonial denotes a period of recovery after

colonialism as well as a signification of its ongoing cultural aftermath.
Emphasising its ideological predilection, Kehinde argues that:
Postcolonial African novelists use their novels to facilitate the
transgression of boundaries and subversion of hegemonic rigidities
previously mapped out in precursor literary canonical texts about
African and her people. In The Empire Writes Back: Theory and
Practice in Postcolonial Literatures (1989), Bill Ashcroft et al aver that
postcolonial criticism covers all the cultures affected by the imperial
process from the moment of colonisation to the present. Awan Ankpa
views the concept in like manner as representing those fields of
significations in which people who had been colonised by Europe
struggle to redefine themselves and their environment in the face of
Euro-centricisms epistemological violence. Thus, viewd from the
perspective of a counter-discourse, postcolonial literatures become in
the words of Ayo Kehinde veritable weapons used to dismantle the
hegemonic boundaries and the determinants that create unequal relations
of power, based on binary oppositions such as Us and Them; First
world and Third world; White and Black; Coloniser and
Colonised.
What does postcolonial theory offer the colonised

people?
3.2
Theoretical Postulations of Postcolonial Theory
Despite the polemics surrounding the concept of postcolonialism, it is

unarguable that the emergence of the Post in literary and cultural
studies in the 20th Century is a significant development that has
radically widened the scope of literary theorising, criticism and
interpretation. Depending on the context in which it is employed, post
connotes both a succession as well as a transcending of existing
perspectives. From post-structuralism, post-marxism, postmodernism,
to postcolonial criticism, the aim has been to interrogate dominant
epistemologies and re-theorise their claims in the light of emerging new
knowledge. This is the thrust of Esiaba Irobis (2010) argument that
postcolonialism is:
A reaction to
Western imperialist history and
intellectual ideologyIt seeks to dismantle the
epistemologies of intellectual hegemony cultivated
by the west via its academics as well as confront
the ex-colonized with the options available for their
critical redemption via alternative modes of
discourse which may be different from those

traditions of discourse fashioned by the west.
This politics of power and representation by the West which
postcolonial criticism seeks to interrogate has been examined critically
by the Palestinian scholar, Edward Said, in his influential works,
Orientalism (1978) and Culture and Imperialism (1993). Known for his
anti-colonial stance, Said in both works argues that in order to bolster
its claim of superiority, there is a condescending zeal by the West to
inferiorise, marginalise and stereotype other history and cultures which
it does not understand or which it knows very little about. For him, the
West has a limited and over-simplified concept of the East and
believes in the supremacy of its values, while relegating the values and
cultures of others as uncivilised. Said questions the Wests notion of
history and authority of knowledge and calls for its re-valuation. Homi
Bhabha (1994) in the same mode of thinking posits that colonial
ideology rests upon a Manichaean structure that divides the world into
dichotomous identity categories of the civil and the barbaric, the us
and the them. In his estimation: the objective of colonialist discourse
is to construe the colonised as a population of degenerate types on the
basis of racial origin, in order to justify conquest and to establish
systems of administration and instruction.
Thus, postcolonial theory on the one hand takes the garb of a countercanon, a revision of dominant Western postulation about its perceived
Other. Elleke Boehmer in Colonial and Postcolonial Literature (1995)
concurs to this thinking. For her, the concept emerged as a resistance
to imperial domination:
In writings as various as romances, memoirs,
adventure tales or the later poetry of Tennyson, the
view of the world as directed from the colonial
metropolis was consolidated and confirmed. Thus, it
also followed almost automatically that resistance to
imperial domination (especially on the part of those
who lacked guns or money) frequently assumed
textual form.
As a radical literary construct, at least in its ideological commitment,
postcolonial theory acquires different significations in the context of
African and Third World literature. It is an epistemology which seeks
to rupture the absolutist claims of Western epistemology, including its
representations of Africa and other Third World countries especially in
literary, philosophical and cultural discourses. In other words,
postcolonial criticism sets out to comment on, and criticise colonial
hegemony and the process of decolonisation in former colonised
nations. The leading postcolonial critics and writers include Homi

Bhaba, Edward Said, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Chinua Achebe,
Salman Rushdie, Ngugi wa Thiongo, Wole Soyinka, Nadine Gordimer,
Derek Walcott, and J. M. Coetzee.
Edward Ako (2004), tracing the transition of Commonwealth Literature
into postcolonial literature, observes that postcolonial critics deal with
problems of migration, slavery, suppression, resistance, representation,
difference, caste, class, race, gender, place and responses to the
influential master discourses of imperial Europe, such as history,
literature, philosophy, linguistics and the fundamental experiences of
speaking and writing by which all these come into being. Thus, in its
engagement with literature postcolonial criticism, especially for the
Third World, is a politico-literary discourse which in the words of
Rehnuma Sazzad opposes the power-knowledge nexus constructed by
the West and devising in the alternative, fresh ways of approaching old
epistemologies. Thus, Chinua Achebes Things Fall Apart (1958)
epitomises the postcolonial as a counter-narrative to Joyce Carys Mister
Johnson (1902) and Joseph Conrads Heart of Darkness (1902)
respectively. J.M Coetzees Foe (1986), in the same light, represents a
revision of Daniel Defoes Robinson Crusoe (1719). These are Western
Master Texts which portray distorted images of Africa and its people.
Postcolonial criticism therefore takes as part of its objectives the critique
of Colonial ethos reflected in Colonialist texts.
Beyond the claims of counter-balancing, the dominant discursive ethos
of the West, postcolonial African writers also foreground the political
tensions in their emergent independent states. With the failure of
political independence to usher in the dividends of democratisation in
many African countries, disillusionment has set in, and writers in their
works reflect these social dissonances manifested in political instability,
ethnic identity, inequality, corruption, abuse of power and leadership
failure. The effects and aftermaths of colonisation become a fascinating
theme of these writers, including the wide socio-economic inequality in
society which often results in conflict. In all, postcolonial critics always
share a sense of solidarity with the oppressed and marginalised.
List prominent postcolonial critics and writers in the Third World and
state their primary mission.
3.3
Criticisms against Postcolonial Theory
It has been stated that postcolonial theory tilts strongly towards the
incorporation of politics into literary theorising. Postcolonial criticism
often interrogates the dichotomy between history and fictional

representation, Otherness and hybridity and their relationship to issues
of identity. However, as a theoretical construct, Postcolonialism
provokes both critical acclaim and critical bashing, especially among
Third World scholars. For instance, the Nigerian poet, Niyi Osundare,
dismisses it as another form of imperialism of theory; the Ghanaian
writer, Ama Ata Aidoo, rejects it on the grounds that colonialism has
not been posted at all. Aidoos observation finds elements of validity as
events in many African societies show that neo-colonialism in the form
of Western multinational conglomerates is very much alive, pauperising
and inflicting hardship on the hapless poor. Advancing Aidoos line of
thought, Tyson states that another debate engaging the attention of
postcolonial critics concerns the politics of their own critical agenda.
For example, the term postcolonial criticism implies that colonialism is
a thing of the past, while in reality, it is not. Colonialism is no longer
practised as it was between the late 15th and mid-20th centuries, through
the direct, overt administration of governors and educators from the
colonising country. But today, through different means, the same kind of
political, economic and cultural subjugation of vulnerable nations occurs
at the hands of international corporations from such world powers as the
United States, Germany and Japan. Again, there are fears that
postcolonial literature will be colonisedthat is, interpreted according
to European norms and standards-by the cultural Euro-centrism that
dominates literary education and literary criticism the world over.
Discuss some of the criticisms against postcolonial theory?
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, you learnt that postcolonial criticism helps us see the
connections among all the domains of our experience - the
psychological, ideological, social, political, intellectual, and aesthetic in ways that show us just how inseparable these categories are in our
lived experience of ourselves and our world. In addition, postcolonial
theory offers us a framework for examining the similarities among all
critical theories that deal with human oppression, such as Marxism, and
feminism. Postcolonial criticism defines formerly colonised peoples as
any population that has been subjected to the political domination of
another population; hence postcolonial critics draw examples from the
literary works of African Americans as well as from the literature of
aboriginal Australians or the formerly colonised population of India.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, we explained that most postcolonial critics analyse the ways
in which a literary text, whatever its subject matter, is colonialist or anticolonialist; that is, the ways in which the text reinforces or resists
colonialisms oppressive ideology. For example, in the simplest terms, a
text can reinforce colonialist ideology through positive portrayals of the
colonisers, negative portrayals of the colonised, or the uncritical
representation of the benefits of colonialism for the colonised.
Analogously, texts can resist colonialist ideology by depicting the
misdeeds of the colonisers, the suffering of the colonised, or the
detrimental effects of colonialism on the colonised. Postcolonial
criticism pursues not merely the inclusion of the marginalised literature
of colonial peoples into the dominant canon and discourse, it also offers
a fundamental critique of the ideology of colonial domination and at the
same time seeks to undo the imaginative geography of Orientalist
thought that produced conceptual as well as economic divides between
West and East, civilised and uncivilised, First and Third Worlds. In
this respect, postcolonial criticism is in a way activist and adversarial in
its basic aims. It is a theory that has brought fresh perspectives to the
role of colonial peoples (their wealth, labour and culture) in the
development of modern European nation states.

1.
2.
What is the signification in the prefix Post in Postcolonialism?

Outline the theoretical postulations of Postcolonialism.

Ako, Edwards. (2004). From Commonwealth to Postcolonial
Literature. CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture. Vol.
6, Issue 2.
Ankpa, Awan. (1993). Europe in its Other World: Marginality, Cultures
and Postcolonial Discourses in African Drama. Paper presented
at a Seminar of the Centre for the Study of Languages and
Cultural Theory, University of Southampton, London, February
22, 1993.
Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, & Helen Tiffin. (Eds). (1989). The
Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Postcolonial
Literatures. London: Routledge.

May 15th, 2013.
Beaty, J. et al. (2002). The Norton Introduction to Literature 8th edition.
Bhabha, Homi K.(1994). The Location of Culture.(Routledge:
London.
Boehmer, Elleke. (1995). Colonial and Postcolonial Literature. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Routledge.
University Press.
and Co. Ltd.
Irobi, Esiaba. (2010). The Problem with Postcolonial Theory: ReTheorising African Performance, Orature and Literature in the
Age of Globalisation and Diaspora Studies. Sentinel Literary
Quarterly, Vol2, No 1 October 2008. www.sentinelqurtely.com.
Accessed June 7, 2010.
Iser, Wolfgang. (1978). The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic

Response. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Iser, Wolfgang.(1974). The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication
in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: The John
Kehinde, Ayo. (2010). Postcolonial African Literature and the
Counter-Discourse: J.M Coetzees Fiction and Reworking of
Canonical
Works.
www.africaresearch.org/
papers/JO7/JO72khn.pdf. Accessed July25, 2010.
Raman Selden, Peter Widdowson & Peter Brooker. (Eds). (2005). A
Readers Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. United
Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited
Richards, I. A. (1929). Practical Criticism: A Study of Literary
Judgment. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Richter, David H. (1998). (Ed.). The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts
Said, Edward. (1978). Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient.
London: Penguin.
Said, Edward. (1993). Culture and Imperialism. New York: Knopf.
Wikipedia:http//www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/creativity.

Eng 415

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eng 415

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eng 415

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENG 415

NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY

OF NIGERIA SCHOOL OF ARTS

AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

COURSE CODE: ENG 415

COURSE TITLE: LITERARY THEORY

LITERARY THEORY AND CRITICISM

Course Team Dr. Felix E. Gbenoba and Fidelis N.

NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

National Open University of Nigeria

All Rights Reserved

Final Examination and

viii How to Get the Most from this Course

viii Tutors and

Welcome to ENG 415: Literary Theory and

Each unit explains the basic principles of the theory it

course in general, demonstrates how critical theories

This Course Guide gives you an overview of the course. It

enabling students to grasp some theoretical concepts in literature

Each unit of the course also has some set objectives.

objectives. This would help you assimilate the task you

discuss the emergence of literary theory and criticism

WORKING THROUGH THIS

To complete the course, you are required to read the

The major materials you will need for this

There are 21 study units in this course as follows:

Module 1 An Overview of Literary Theory and

Background to Literary Theory and Criticism

Literary (Critical) Theory: A Definition

Literary Theory as a Discipline

Unit 4 Literary Criticism: A Definition

Functions of Literary Criticism

The Relationship between the

Module 2 Theories of Literature (1)

Unit 1 Mimetic Theory of Arts

Formalist Theory and Criticism

uctur alism Unit 6

Module 3 Theories of Literature (2)

Marxist Theory and Criticism

Unit 2 Biographical Criticism

Module 4 Theories of Literature (3)

Unit 1 Feminist/Gender Criticism

TEXTBOOKS AND REFERENCES

Many books have been recommended in the course. You

Beaty, J. et al. (2002). The Norton Introduction to Literature.

(8th ed.). New York: W.W Norton Company.

Blamires, H. (1991). A History of Literary Criticism.

Childs, Peter & Fowler, Roger (2006). The Routledge

Culler, Jonathan. (1997). Literary Theory: A Very Short

During, Simon. (Ed). (1999). The Cultural Studies

Eagleton, T. (1996). Literary Theory: An Introduction,

Fish, Stanley. (1989). Is there a Text in this Class? The

Frye, N. (1957). Anatomy of Criticism. New Jersey:

Lentricchia, Frank. (1980). After the New Criticism.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Moore-Gilbert, Bart Stanton, Gareth, & Maley Willy.

Rice, Philip & Waugh Patricia. (1998). Modern

Richter, David H. (Ed.). (1998). The Critical Tradition:

Rivkin, Julie & Ryan, Michael. (Eds).