This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
1, The Language of Literature (Autumn, 1972), pp. 181-192 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/468500 Accessed: 11/10/2009 15:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to New Literary History.
But this works only as long as one describesthe species without getting too close to the genus: taking for granted there is such a thing as "literarylanguage. "that stylistics. about the language of literature.as Cyril Birch does in his article on Chineseliterature or. It is quite possible to describe a certain type of literary language with more than adequate precision.HENEVER QUESTIONS about the distinctivenessof literary language. Stanley Fish. must rid itself of normativepreoccupations it is ever to get if I The commentary is based on most of the articles published in this issue of New Literary History and on the following earlier essays: Michael Riffaterre. Seymour Chatman. Literature) are so diverse that no inclusive commentary could possibly do them justice. Isaac Rabinowitzin his study on the language of the Old Testament-although.like linguistics before it.~wTasked. some predictabledifficultiesoccur. The more theoreticalamong the studies on literatureand language publishedin this and in recent issues of New Literary History should allow us of to speculate on the systematization this difficulty. to some extent. "Literature in the Reader: Affective Stylistics" (both in NLH." writes Seymour Chatman. .Literatureand Language: A Commentary Paul de Man WH . are being ~ . ominous questions are very close to making their appearance over the horizon of the text. 2 ). in selves of misconceptions The tone is one of impatiencewith recurrenterrorsof definition: "It is evident. 2 ). at the risk of leaving out outstanding contributions. in the latter case. The juxtaposition of these essays reveals a recurrent narrative pattern that may well be more than a mere result of chance or a commonplace of academic exposition: all of the essays suggest that the study of literary language could progressif only we could rid ourthat have hamperedit persistently the past. "The Stylistic Approach to Literary History". complicationsarise. Their inclusion would have extended the commentary beyond reasonable proportions. but as soon as one confronts the question of defining the specificityof literarylanguage as such. "On The articles in this issue (The Language of Defining 'Form'" (NLH." one can describe a particularsubset of the class. I have preferred therefore to narrow down the choice of illustrative material to the smallest number of articles possible.
. but in a manner that defies easy systematization. 6 Riffaterre. 2 . The same basic story underlies all of these essays. I61. and. p. "Whorf. he says. p. Provided only we can get rid of universalist aberrations that pretend to see connections between literary and ordinary language. Chomsky and the Student of Literature."4 but he first has to clear the decks of a number of obstacles such as Wimsatt. linguists. literature is static and monumental: "the text . unhampered task of description or understanding. Richards.I82 NEW LITERARY HISTORY around to the task of describing its object"2 (my italics). the more literary"7. not things or ideas. this issue. Empson. 220. as it happens. All have to set out against an erroneous conception of literature that stands in their way. and social scientists can unite in a joint effort that may elevate us towards the exalted level of the world's literary masterpieces. The nature of this obstacle varies to the point of diametrical opposition.. p. 15-34. 47."3 Stanley Fish is eager to get under way with a method of which he claims that "it works. Beardsley. "has remained largely unexplored") than the reluctance of the historians to realize that "texts are made up of words. Michael Riffaterre can see no other obstacle to the natural cooperation between literary history and textual analysis (a cooperation which. For Riffaterre (at least in this article). 5 George Steiner. This is certainly not because they happen to be a particularly aggressive or self-satisfied group of people: all are eminently fair and respectful of their predecessors. no dialectical complexities mar his assertion that in reading literature "we are implicated in a matrix of inexhaustible specificity. It seems to be in the nature of the question that it has to be asked against previous answers that first have to be shown to be aberrant before the proper definition of literary language can be stated. . . pp."5 If he seems perhaps slightly less sanguine than the others about the prospects of a science of literature. Riffaterre. He has few doubts about the specificity of literary language. None of the authors speak as if they merely had to perform a straightforward." NLH. critics. 4 Fish. this is only because the literary work stands glorified in a semidivine status of inaccessible perfection. 39. The stance is dramatized most intensely in the prose of George Steiner. and it is the task of stylistics to rescue this Chatman. 7 Riffaterre. p. p. "the more of a monument it is . is unchanging"6. 39. 3 Riffaterre.
is extrinsic. Stanley Fish's characterization of the latter's dynamics of reading (see Fish. . The illusion is one of self-sufficiency and completeness . 8 His entire effort is directed towards substituting the dynamics of reading. not unrelated) polarities-static/dynamic. whereas Seymour Chatman and Josephine Miles are looking instead for "classes of elements which under their surface differences can provide patterns of sustaining likeness. suggesting that none of these antithetical pairs possess a decisive authority. has little sympathy for the intrinsic formalism of stylistic or structuralist methods. there can be no greater aberration than thus to reduce a text to the monumental objectivity of a static entity: "The objectivity of the text. 156-57).9 For Steiner. The spatial metaphor of intrinsic/ extrinsic (inside/outside) literary methods is not more consistent: Riffaterre's traditional historical philologism. and moreover. p. The actual content of the antinomies seems to be less important than the formal necessity of their existence. . Isolating only these eight relatively simple (and. the act of reading is an intratextual event between two successive moments in the temporal constitution of an understanding. conceived as a successive act in time. whereas Miles and Chatman tend to erase the borderlines between literature and ordinary speech." 10 The question of the linguistic specificity of literature is equally divided: universalists like Riffaterre insist on the uniqueness of literature as opposed to ordinary language in hierarchical terms to which a particularist like Steiner could subscribe. pp. is actually a great deal subtler than the categorical assertion of monumentality in Riffaterre's article published in the same issue of NLH. I5 ). to the immobilism of mere description. based on erudition and factual information. pp. the major obstacle to literary studies stems from whatever puts into question the ineffable specificity of a work that is totally selfsufficient and self-identical in the radical difference that separates it from anything that is not itself. But for Stanley Fish. 9 In his discussion of Riffaterre. inside/outside-we distributed in what seems to be a random pattern. based on "Criteria for Style Analysis" (Word. whereas for Fish. "is an illusion. Steiner's organic totalizations allow for no inconsistencies or intrusions coming from the outside -he lines up with Fish on this point-whereas Chatman's insistence on content and on message gives his work an undeniably extrinsic flavor.LITERATURE AND LANGUAGE: A COMMENTARY 183 monumentality from the shifting changes of successive interpretations. 35-45. The texts draw their energy from tensions 8 Fish." NLH. on the other hand. a position also vigorously defended by Fish (against Riffaterre) who. of course. Io Josephine Miles. universal/particular." he writes. 140. privileged/ find no consistency: the polarities are ordinary. because it is so physically convincing. a dangerous illusion. "Forest and Trees. this issue.
Constantin Guys. 12 Riffaterre. But as soon as they offer their own readings. systematically. in his reading of Baudelaire's poem "Bohemiens en voyage. let me hasten to point out that the I same observation also applies to this brief commentary. As soon as this happens. When Riffaterre. but they could not come into being without an opposite against which they offer their own definitions and alternatives." 14 Riffaterre. 41-42. They imply a fundamental misreading of literature which is always. Callot. We are entirely willing to accept what has by now grown into a double pattern of juxtaposed aberration. and other revered names as a representative of the highest "philosophical art" and a practitioner of an aesthetics of absolute irony?13 How can he fail to see the impact that Callot's background-presence in the poem is bound to have on the concluding lines which. We realize this all the more strongly when passing from the critical parts of the articles -with which it is. pour lesquels est ouvert / L'empire familier des tenebres futures. for example (singled out for no other reason than that the example he uses happens to be in a field with which I am familiar). quite easy to agree-to the parts in which the authors propose their own corrected readings... Chatman in his strictures on Barthes. but the latter turn at once into critiques in their own right without in the least redeeming their original targets. it would follow that the specificity of literary language resides in the possibility of misreading and misinterpretation. Hoffmann. Breughel. the temptation to disagree with him is irresistible. 42. p. The critiques deserve the treatment they get at the hands of the critiquants. 13 The main references to Callot in Baudelaire are in the well-known essays "De L'essence du rire" and "L'art philosophique.I84 NEW LITERARY HISTORY that can be substituted almost at will. One experiences little difficulty following Fish in his criticism of Richards. the reader is "free to interpret as Death or cosmic mystery"?14 How can he find an opposition between Callot and the Quest Lest this be misconstrued as a criticism. according to Riffaterre. without going into the specific merits and demerits of each individual position. our own critical sense reawakens. a misreading performed by others. A. or Steiner in his admonitions to Chomsky.11 If one accepts this complication as a purely formal pattern. The last lines of the poem speak of ". for Baudelaire." . in general."12 denies any relevance to the Callot etchings which served as a model for the poem. the inspirer of E. How can he claim that the Callot work is merely an "exercise in the picturesque" when. we feel inclined to find them in error together with the writers they have been censoring. Riffaterre in his assault on literal-minded historians. pp. ces voyageurs. T. rates with Goya.
by their very pertinence. I6 This countercriticism undermines the methodological foundations of the reading it attacks. is forced to leave the reader "free to interpret" as he pleases. The difficulty of reading. obviously. in its turn. We can hardly believe in Riffaterre's assertion that the literary work consists of an "immutable code" bound to elicit a definite response in the reader if we can legitimately put in question all the readings he suggests and if he himself. allow for the immediate eclosion of a critical counterdiscourse which (if I had been uncautious enough to develop it fully) it would not be difficult to subject. Why have historians been." Obviously. when confronted with a crucial line in which the two readings differ literally as life differs from death. to another turn of the critical screw. The Callot source of the poem was pointed out as early as 1919 by Antoine Adam. but have little to say about the reasons that have so persistently misled the other critics. Callot does not account for all the details in the poem which combines various allusive strands. They leave us confronted with a self-defeating situation. How are literary studies ever to get started when every proposed method seems based on a misreading and a misconceived preconception about the nature of literary language? The next step. But. a correct reading. 15 Interestingly enough in two lines of verse inscribed on the etching: "Ces pauvres gueux pleins de bonadventures / Ne portent rien que des choses futures. I merely want to demonstrate how his remarks. when it is mentioned at all. so dull-witted that they failed to realize the obvious fact that poems are made of words? Why do writers on literature keep so stubbornly returning to irrelevant value judgments? Riffaterre and Chatman have nothing to tell us on this point. or a controlled set of readings. when it is Callot himself who introduced the prophetic. for centuries. will have to reflect on the nature and status of these misreadings. always a crucial event in Baudelaire. will ensue. our authors are curiously uninformative: they argue vigorously and effectively against the specific substantial issue they reject. on this point. But the semantic impact of these allusive configurations is distorted if Callot is excluded from consideration. It seems obvious to them that once the proper methodological assumptions have been made. for nearly all of these authors (with the possible exception of Stanley Fish). futureoriented dimension from the start?15 How can he so peremptorily separate the source's genetic from its allusive function in a case when the transposition from one medium (painting) into another (poetry). never as a constitutive obstacle to literary understanding.16 Similar observations could be made about each of the essays. makes the juxtaposition particularly delicate and complex? My point is not to disagree with Michael Riffaterre on the exegesis of a specific Baudelaire text. exists at most as a contingent. to a similar inquisition.LITERATURE AND LANGUAGE: A COMMENTARY I85 theme. .
It is as if an organized conspiracy made it anathema to raise the question. this issue. as when a word is preferred to a synonym for phonetic rather than semantic reasons. with a scenario that would have to differ somewhat from the recurrent plot shared by all of them. I can take space for two examples only.I86 NEW LITERARY HISTORY In this particular respect. (2) figurality (the presence of representational or nonrepresentational tropes). of responsible reference to identifiable linguistic facts. calls "superimposed ordering.e. "The Limits of Literature. This is hardly the place to offer alternatives or to speculate on the origin of difficulties that are implicitly recognized but not openly stated in these articles." NLH. pp. in literary discourse. As for the critics who are interested in the theory of interpretation. It would at any rate have to include as a visible articulation this moment of recoil that now unwittingly gets written into some of the essays. But is this really the case? Markiewicz's primarily historical argument tries to show that the I7 Henryk Markiewicz. perhaps because the vested interests in literary studies as a respectable intellectual discipline are at stake or perhaps for more ominous reasons. I would instead like to follow up the argument of the papers that come closest to entering into the orbit of the question that is being systematically avoided.. is a general symptom shared by all methods of literary analysis. . Henryk Markiewicz17 offers a succinct but precise set of properties whose existence is a necessary condition for "literariness." These properties are (I) fictionality (the possible absence. and (3) what Markiewicz. whether they be structural or thematic. There is some interest in isolating the moment when the writers recoil before the evidence they have produced. of an empirical referent). principles of linguistic choice guided by considerations that are not purely referential. The systematic avoidance of the problem of reading. American or European. Starting out from German philosophical traditions and from Slavic studies of linguistic form." i. formalist or referential. of the interpretative or hermeneutic moment. their main task seems to be to reassure at all costs their more pragmatically or more formalistically oriented colleagues about the self-evident possibility of achieving correct readings. 5-14. if they had chosen to continue on their course. with reference to Jakobson. What would happen beyond this moment. the articles are by no means atypical of literary studies as they are practiced today. The obvious advantage of this terminology over traditionally expressive or aesthetic characterizations of literature resides in a precision that gives at least an illusion of objectivity. is another story. apolitical or socially committed.
.LITERATURE AND LANGUAGE: A COMMENTARY I87 presence of a single one of these "properties" suffices to confer a degree of literariness on any discourse and that it is not necessary to have all three of them simultaneously present. assonance. . as distinct from each other as red is distinct from green. But if we translate the three terms back into the rhetorical modes of which they are the conceptualization. but enough has perhaps been said to suggest that the three terms overlap to such an extent that it makes little sense to speak of any of them being present x8 Heinrich Lausberg. Mimesis. . he is clearly treating his three categories as distinct properties of language. to keep the various tropes and figures rigorously apart. to establish precisely when catachresis becomes metaphor and when metaphor turns into metonymy. . And metaphor can be considered as an imitation (which is how Markiewicz. to quote an apt water-metaphor to which an expert in the field has to resort precisely in his discussion of metaphor: "the transition (of one figure to another. of course. understands mimesis) in which the tenor imitates the vehicle or. One could and should pursue this discussion at length. perhaps mistakenly. as discussed by Markiewicz."18 And the three figures picked by Markiewicz are particularly redoubtable: paranomasis can be considered as one special. sound-based case of metaphor in which the phonic resemblance at least intimates the possibility of a substitution on the level of substance. or acidity from sweetness. would "justify . asks whether "it is indeed possible to find a common denominator for the three characterizations of 'literariness' . logically as well as historically. rhetorical figures. or "rhetoricity." ." then a first and obvious answer to this question would be that rhetoric considered as a property of language." constitutes this common denominator. and paranomasis all are. an objective relationship between words described as literary. or alliteration).. the literal meaning imitates the figural meaning on the basis of a common resemblance to a third term of comparison. and with a helpful reference to Hegel. near the end of his essay. p.." the mention of Jakobson labels it as paranomasis. in this case. a less clear-cut model is revealed. 295: "Der Ubergang von der Metonymis zur Metapher ist fliessend . it is notoriously difficult.. metaphor. the pairing or combining of words on a phonetic basis (as in rhyme. to use another terminology. But can rhetoricity be called a definite property that. when Markiewicz therefore. and indirectly justify also a relative unity of the subject matter of literary studies"? As anyone who has ever consulted a treatise of rhetoric will testify. Fictionality. As for "superimposed ordering. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (Munich. in Markiewicz's words. I960). . from metaphor to metonymy) is fluid. ? 57I. figurality is directly. identified as metaphor. is clearly another term for mimesis.
we reach the conclusion that the determining characteristic of literary language is indeed figurality. the only thing that can be stated with certainty is that it allows for the confusion between the two choices. in the somewhat wider sense of rhetoricity. a thing-in-itself. Markiewicz denies that fictionality can be called a universal characteristic of literature by invoking the case of memoirs and letters as opposed to novels: are we to infer from this that everything stated in memoirs or in letters is true and that novels are made up exclusively of lies? Mimesis can be said to imply a referential verification as well as to dodge it. the one example mentioned by Markiewicz. each of the terms is highly ambiguous in its own right. Each has the possibility of misreading built into its own constitution. The dangerously seductive powers of paranomasis are easier to convey. but that. It is no longer an object. rhetoric implies the persistent threat of misreading. far from constituting an objective basis for literary study. Hegel's distinction between "eigentliche Verbildlichung" and "uneigentliche Verbildlichung" (literal and figural representation) leads directly into the infinitely deceiving epistemology of representation and into the innumerable ways in which it is possible to confuse images and things. More important still. To start with imitation. the mischief wrecked by this wiliest of Pandora's boxes defies the challenge of trying to evoke it in a few words. Markiewicz's brief but suggestive essay provides categories and a terminology by means of which this investigation could proceed." For Fish. meaning can only be the narrative of this temporal process and cannot be reduced to statement. We only have to remind ourselves that Jakobson based his discussion of the figure on the phonetic analysis of the slogan "I like Ike". the utterance of meaning cannot be separated from the process by means of which this meaning is reached or. they can indeed be said to be the conceptual denomination of this possibility. stated more radically. something that happens to. By merely following up Markiewicz's own categories. euphony is probably the most insidious of all sources of error. As for metaphor. but an event. but concludes in the illusion of a false precision at the very moment when it has in fact revealed the inevitability of confusion. the one closest to treating reading explicitly as a problem is Stanley Fish's "Literature in the Reader: Affective Stylistics. . Of all the essays considered in this commentary. Whether it also implies the impossibility of truthful reading could hardly be decided in the space of a few sentences. "An observation about the [literary] sentence as an utterance-its refusal to yield a declarative statement-has been transformed into an account of its experience (not being able to get a fact out of it).I88 NEW LITERARY HISTORY at the exclusion of the other.
he can conceal and reveal it at his discretion.. The reason why this sorry situation is allowed to develop is not because the category of meaning has been undermined but because it has been displaced: the author himself. "that construction . .. what makes problematical sense as a statement makes perfect sense as a strategy."21 The same self-confidence is present in the felicitous formulation of Fish's own critical procedure. Fish. The question must arise. what the truth value of such a narrative can be and whether one can afford to be as unworried about this as Fish seems to be. He can play with the reader as a cat plays with a mouse because. the temporary adoption of these inappropriate strategies is itself a response to the strategy of an author. appears as an evil counselor. We are told. this happening. I26.. being in full control of his own meaning. His reading-stories unquestionably contain many episodes of aberration and deceit: "what the sentence does is give the reader something and then take it away. The relationship between author and reader is a highly dramatic one. rather than the referent of the statement. 125.LITERATURE AND LANGUAGE: A COMMENTARY 189 and with the participation of. "In my account of reading . I would argue. drawing him on with the unredeemed promise of its return". and."19 The merits of the position are clearly in evidence in the examples discussed in the article: we are freed at last from the tedious business of paraphrase and from the less tedious but mystified practice of thematic reconstruction and rearrangement. as an action made upon a reader" (Fish. 124). for example. but it tells a rather sordid story in which the reader is manipulated and exploited by a callous author who. "the two negatives combine . pressures the reader to perform exactly those mental operations whose propriety the statement of the sentence-what it is saying-is challenging. a temptor who fails to deliver the goods. What we are offered instead is certainly much closer to the actual event of literary understanding. . etc. . p. ".. ."20 etc. that is. the reader. 144).. above all. now seems to be the sole depository of meaning. By tracing back the meandering thread 19 20 21 Fish. however. and the resulting mistakes are part of the experience provided by that author's language and therefore part of the meaning" (p. in the course of a few random quotations.. I33. p. I25. that Pater's sentence "deliberately frustrates the reader's natural desire to organize the particulars it offers" and the dynamics of reading are persistently referred to as a "strategy" or as an "effect. as a falsifier of truth.. pp. to prevent the reader from making the simple (declarative) sense which would be the goal of a logical analysis". the meaning of the sentence. And it is this event. The reading-stories he tells are true because they are given to us by an author in full control of his language.
as Fish convincingly demonstrates. among other things. . for his text has its share of reservations and ambivalences with regard to its own doctrine. we recover the totality of the literary experience which was only temporarily hidden from us. which set the tone. . . Yet it dominates his own discourse throughout. On the other hand. No trace in Fish's text suggests that the possibility of such an unwarranted metaphorization is ever being considered. considered as a conscious subject. casts doubt on whether the evildoers perceived the gravity of their own plight. never clear whether the concealment and complication of meaning emanates from the author. they can be 22 The examples are amplified rather than contradicted by the other examples from Pater and Plato. It is impossible to speak of a text as performing strategically without projecting into it the metaphor of an intentional consciousness or subject.90o NEW LITERARY HISTORY of the writer's strategies. chart and project the developing response" (Fish's own italics). for example. Fish can promise that. "Analysis in terms of doings and happenings is . The first two examples. The critic shares the same fundamental selfassurance with the author-who perhaps borrowed it from him in the first place. let alone dominated. It traces the trajectory of its own truth. his commitment to the dramatics of action compels him to make these ambivalent subjects (centaurs that are half-man. It is." Reading is no real problem because it coincides with the successive unfolding of its own process. Fish carefully states that Pater's "sentence deliberately frustrates . halftext) into the grammatical subjects of transitive verbs that perform highly anthropomorphic gestures. truly objective because it recognizes the fluidity." or that errors are forced upon the reader by the "author's language" (my italics).22 deal with lines from Thomas Browne and Milton centered on Judas and on Satan. . 'the movingness. by following this "verbal string" into the labyrinth of the text. or from the (his?) text. . I may have overstated Fish's assurance. "the developing responses of the reader to the words as they succeed one another on the page" or "the temporal left to right reception of the verbal string. and each of these lines. which is presumably not quite the same as Pater or the author doing these things themselves.' of the meaning experience and because it directs us to where the action is-the active and activating consciousness of the reader." Like Riffaterre. "I am able to. from his choice of examples. There is only one other character in the essay whose behavior bears a close resemblance to these Satanic models: if the authors are indeed as deliberate and responsible as Fish makes them out to be. as is apparent.
The ideal reader is the author himself. But the passages that have been selected assert the impossibility of passing judgment because the evidence of guilt. The author is ahead of the reader only in the knowledge of his impossibility. although it reduces his methodological claims to nought. p. the readers. . he remarks that "perhaps literature is what disturbs our sense of self-sufficiency. because he does not share the illusions of the naive reader-in this case Stanley Fish-about the writer's authority. he reduces the reader to the same condition of ignorance. the same unavoidable threat of semantic nihilism is again perceived: "Nothing is [the meaning]. by his very utterance. and of his own critique of thematic and structural semanticism. Fish's own text infers this. cannot be ascertained. then." a formulation that. let alone a process. or feelings." 23 The only need that can be at play here is that of not seeing the universal negativity of what then can no longer be called an aesthetics of literature. in the final analysis. to read it correctly as a radical deconstruction of the truth of all literary texts. neither reader nor author. To place Plato's Phaedrus at the center of an essay on the rhetoric of reading. both tend to fuse in their common deviation from referential models. the examples thus reveal the utter bewilderment of the author before his own text: did he. but. spells the end of criticism as a scientific mode of discourse. It is doubtful whether the conveyance of this negative insight could still be called an act. But he immediately retreats from such implications: "the result [of thus defining literature] would probably be more a reflection of personal psychological need than of a universally true aesthetic. Later in the article. or did he not know what he was saying? No one can tell.LITERATURE AND LANGUAGE: A COMMENTARY igi charged with the gravest sins in Hell. And it is equally doubtful whether this no-act can be represented by a geometrical line ("verbal string") or by a narrative that lays claim to mimetic veracity. Perhaps. the word mean23 Fish. Neither reading nor writing resemble action. Reflecting apologetically on the one-sidedness of his examples. Or is it perhaps a not-so-naive gesture of self-defense? Stanley Fish has more than glimpsed the implications of the Phaedrus. Within the inner logic of Fish's argument. whether they be things. and then to go on to claim of one's own critical discourse that it will "chart and project the developing response" in a "truly objective way" is making things almost too easy for the critical commentator. acts. and this need is neither personal nor psychological. including the betrayal of their benefactors. of the poetic texts he quotes. I47. personal and linguistic. either by Scriptural authority or by the inner voice of conscience.
. The double movement of revelation and recoil will always be inherent in the nature of a genuine critical discourse. But this speculative moment is also at once repressed by substituting a regressive notion of unmediated "experience" for meaning and by a curiously primitivistic statement about experience being "immediately compromised the moment you say anything about it. .or place-bound phenomenon characteristic of American formalist criticism in the early seventies." a pseudoelegiac theme which. It can appear in infinitely varied versions and this diversity creates the possibility of a history of critical trends and movements. the particular obstacle that interferes with reading stems from a wishful confusion between the analytical rigor of the exegetic procedure and the epistemological authority of the ensuing results. has generated even more words than the wars of Troy. p. its presence in these essays bears witness to their vitality. . In the case of most of these articles. YALEUNIVERSITY 24 Fish. . The systematic avoidance of reading is not a time. despite its assumed hostility towards language.192 NEW LITERARY HISTORY 24 ing should also be discarded. 160.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.