Scan barcode
lewreviews's review
4.0
I swear, I was trying to figure out what the hell structuralism was for like a month on the internet / in class, and only this book actually told me what it is. Why do literary studies fail to provide clear examples of applying these complicated theories... WHY???? Do they not see that my academic background is rooted in business case studies and hence I feel I have trained my brain to only understand theoretical concepts if they are carefully described through page-long examples???? Hello?????
smuds2's review against another edition
It just wasn't what I thought it was going in to it. I think if I approach it like the textbook it is/can be used as, I would finish it. I'll probably pick it up in such a manner eventually - but not now.
It gave good historical context, and some examples, for different theoretical approaches to lit like Husserl vs Heidigger, Formalists, structuralists, post structuralists, etc - but what i think I really wanted was "here is a well known book, here is an example of a structuralist approach wrt this book - here's why it's structuralist - here are some tell tale signs."
kind of like "a users guide to lit theory" or something.
Overall not bad in any way, and for the subject matter, was pretty engaging, just not what i thought I was getting in to at this time.
It gave good historical context, and some examples, for different theoretical approaches to lit like Husserl vs Heidigger, Formalists, structuralists, post structuralists, etc - but what i think I really wanted was "here is a well known book, here is an example of a structuralist approach wrt this book - here's why it's structuralist - here are some tell tale signs."
kind of like "a users guide to lit theory" or something.
Overall not bad in any way, and for the subject matter, was pretty engaging, just not what i thought I was getting in to at this time.
andresreading's review
5.0
Definitely a great way to be introduced to the realm of literary theory. To me, it has accurately solidified what I had previously learnt.
shaunnow38's review
3.0
Read this sporadically and out of order for an introductory criticism class. Eagleton does a good job of providing an overview of each of the major schools of literary theory from Russian Formalism to Psychoanalysis. Eagleton's prose is actually more enjoyable than most academic texts, but it maintains a certain rigor. This book is not easy to read, it is not a casual read, no matter how much Eagleton's wisecracking makes it seem like it is.
Eagleton's own biases come to the fore here, which isn't a problem for my tastes. His opinion is well informed by the criticism he read and his own thoughts. However, in framing the book narratively as he does, I cannot help but feel his biases leave out major thinkers, including post-colonial thinkers and writers of the 50s and 60s.
Overall, I want to give this book about a 3.25 to a 3.5. The difficulties I had in reading it lower my opinion of the book, but not of Eagleton as a writer.
Eagleton's own biases come to the fore here, which isn't a problem for my tastes. His opinion is well informed by the criticism he read and his own thoughts. However, in framing the book narratively as he does, I cannot help but feel his biases leave out major thinkers, including post-colonial thinkers and writers of the 50s and 60s.
Overall, I want to give this book about a 3.25 to a 3.5. The difficulties I had in reading it lower my opinion of the book, but not of Eagleton as a writer.
elliot_burr's review
A specialist in any of the given paradigms Eagleton introduces here would probably hate this book, but that's why it's great. Mad respect to him for writing an introduction to a field in which he just goes ham on it. Some of the critiques get a little self-righteous/underdeveloped but it's still good stuff. Useful refresher a few years out of uni
aimiller's review
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
Okay so as An Historian, I don’t think I need to be convinced hugely of the major interventions here about identifying these literary theory movements as being historically grounded and appearing at specific times with specific politics—and that they are in fact deeply imbued with politics. But I do think that Eagleton does so clearly and convincingly. It was also very useful to have these movements described to me, a person who is not at all familiar with most of them except maybe post-structuralism very loosely. The psychoanalysis chapter in particular I think takes Freud seriously in a way that almost no one seems to (for better or for worse.)
The one flaw I would really highlight is that Eagleton references the Russian Formalists a LOT and I don’t think ever explains Formalism? (I really only noticed this because he DOES spend an entire chapter doing so in How to Read a Poem, and I realized that I finally understood what he was talking about.) And again, maybe that’s something that you have a better understanding of if you’re like a student of Literature and not just an idiot off the street like me.
The conclusion of the book really was what made me stand up and applaud, even if, of course, the afterword to the edition I read explains why perhaps some of the things he called for in that conclusion didn’t play out as he had maybe wanted or hoped. But I found the book on the whole to be really valuable if not as immediately delightful as his other works that I’ve read.
The one flaw I would really highlight is that Eagleton references the Russian Formalists a LOT and I don’t think ever explains Formalism? (I really only noticed this because he DOES spend an entire chapter doing so in How to Read a Poem, and I realized that I finally understood what he was talking about.) And again, maybe that’s something that you have a better understanding of if you’re like a student of Literature and not just an idiot off the street like me.
The conclusion of the book really was what made me stand up and applaud, even if, of course, the afterword to the edition I read explains why perhaps some of the things he called for in that conclusion didn’t play out as he had maybe wanted or hoped. But I found the book on the whole to be really valuable if not as immediately delightful as his other works that I’ve read.
rachelmansmckenny's review
3.0
Everything is through a Marxist lens, not surprisingly, but a good solid overview of the development of literary criticism. Even some humor!
robk's review against another edition
4.0
Reading this reignited some of my neurons that haven't been as active as they were in college. This is an introduction to different schools of literary theory, and much of Western literary thought is discussed. Eagleton's biases show through on occasion, but it's a good read.
bucket's review against another edition
4.0
Written in the 1980s, Eagleton has crafted a fairly easy-to-follow chronological summary of literary theory, beginning with the rise of "English" as an academic pursuit in the first place, moving through the new criticism, then phenomenology, hermeneutics, semiotics, structuralism, post-structuralism, psychoanalysis, and finally ending with the turn to Marxist and Feminist critical theories in the 1970s and 80s.
In his introduction, Eagleton writes about what literature is, arguing that it really isn't anything objective - it's a subjective decision about what is 'good' - and this is meaningless.
In his conclusion, he argues that literary theory really ought to be broadened beyond a tight focus on literature - after all, any language/art/communication can be analyzed using the technics of literary theory. In an afterward added to the second edition in 1996, he writes about the advent of postmodernism and cultural studies, which fit very well with his earlier suggestion.
"Indeed literary theory is less an object of intellectual enquiry in its own right than a particular perspective in which to view the history of our times. Nor should this be in the least cause for surprise. For any body of theory concerned with human meaning, value, language, feeling and experience will inevitably engage with broader, deeper beliefs about the nature of human individuals and societies, problems of power and sexuality, interpretations of past history, versions of the present and hopes for the future."
I was an English major in college, so everything was pretty familiar, which I expected. I got exactly what I wanted out of this book, which was a succinct sentence or two explaining in a nutshell each of the theories the field has moved through in the past two centuries. I've kept these sentences in my reading log for future reminders.
I also really enjoyed Eagleton's "chronological history" approach. He provides enough depth to really see how the theories altered and morphed over time as various academics added their ideas and perspectives and time marched forward. He also connects back to historical and cultural contexts every step of the way.
Themes: literature, theory, communication, textbook, research
In his introduction, Eagleton writes about what literature is, arguing that it really isn't anything objective - it's a subjective decision about what is 'good' - and this is meaningless.
In his conclusion, he argues that literary theory really ought to be broadened beyond a tight focus on literature - after all, any language/art/communication can be analyzed using the technics of literary theory. In an afterward added to the second edition in 1996, he writes about the advent of postmodernism and cultural studies, which fit very well with his earlier suggestion.
"Indeed literary theory is less an object of intellectual enquiry in its own right than a particular perspective in which to view the history of our times. Nor should this be in the least cause for surprise. For any body of theory concerned with human meaning, value, language, feeling and experience will inevitably engage with broader, deeper beliefs about the nature of human individuals and societies, problems of power and sexuality, interpretations of past history, versions of the present and hopes for the future."
I was an English major in college, so everything was pretty familiar, which I expected. I got exactly what I wanted out of this book, which was a succinct sentence or two explaining in a nutshell each of the theories the field has moved through in the past two centuries. I've kept these sentences in my reading log for future reminders.
I also really enjoyed Eagleton's "chronological history" approach. He provides enough depth to really see how the theories altered and morphed over time as various academics added their ideas and perspectives and time marched forward. He also connects back to historical and cultural contexts every step of the way.
Themes: literature, theory, communication, textbook, research