<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!-- name="generator" content="blosxom/2.0" -->
<!DOCTYPE rss PUBLIC "-//Netscape Communications//DTD RSS 0.91//EN" "http://my.netscape.com/publish/formats/rss-0.91.dtd">

<rss version="0.91">
  <channel>
    <title>Notebooks   </title>
    <link>http://bactra.org/notebooks</link>
    <description>Cosma's Notebooks</description>
    <language>en</language>

  <item>
    <title>Literary Criticism and Theory of Criticism</title>
    <link>http://bactra.org/notebooks/2009/06/13#lit-crit</link>
    <description>

&lt;P&gt;There are a great many books to read; there are many place to travel to.
Travellers are often much better for advice --- where to go, where to avoid,
what to know and what to do to get the most out of their trip.  It is my humble
opinion that works of literary criticism are the &lt;a
href=&quot;armchair-travel.html&quot;&gt;travel books&lt;/a&gt; of the written world --- sometimes
guides (and it is, for instance, a rash traveller who visits &lt;a
href=&quot;../Poetry/Stevens/&quot;&gt;Wallace Stevens&lt;/a&gt; without one), sometimes
reportage, travelogues, impressions.  This is, or can be, a worthwhile
enterprise, but it does not sound like one which needs or would benefit from a
vast and obscure body of theory, nor one whose successful practioners are
likely to be able theorists.

&lt;P&gt;What, then, accounts for the current deluge of theory of criticism, as
opposed to criticism proper (and as opposed to &lt;a
href=&quot;frankfurt-school.html&quot;&gt;critical theory&lt;/a&gt;, a different beast
altogether)? I have no idea, but I feel licensed by the subject matter to
speculate as to the causes.
	&lt;ol&gt;
	&lt;li&gt; &lt;em&gt;Disaffection.&lt;/em&gt; Mencken observed seventy or eighty years
ago: &quot;Every now and then, a sense of the futility of their daily endeavors
falling suddenly upon them, the critics of Christendom turn to a somewhat sour
and depressing consideration of the nature and objects of their own craft.&quot;
This however merely backs things up one stage: why should critics feel that
criticism is not enough, and practice it?  Failing to practise criticism, why
don't they give up and become actual novelists, poets, etc.?  (Frank
Lentricchia has finally taken this honorable course.)
	&lt;li&gt; &lt;em&gt;Vicious cycle.&lt;/em&gt; Suppose that, for whatever reason, theory
of criticism came to be prized more highly than criticism itself.  Then it
would be to the benefit of fledgling literary scholars to turn to theory, and
to continue to place a high value upon it.  (This last is important, since the
study of literature, at least in the West, is close to self-governing.)  &lt;a
href=&quot;memes.html&quot;&gt;Selection&lt;/a&gt; can take it from there, though that is
&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a guarantee that the result will be sustainable.  Obvious query:
why should theory be more valued than criticism?  Second obvious query: what
are the coefficients of selection?
	&lt;li&gt; &lt;em&gt;Professional deformation.&lt;/em&gt; During this century, and
especially since the Second World War, criticism, and literary culture
generally, have migrated into academia in the most striking way.  The qualities
needed by a good critic --- &quot;intelligence, toleration, wide information,
genuine hospitality to ideas,&quot; to keep with Mencken --- are hard to inculcate
in a lecture or seminar, and make very poor dissertation material.  But theory
of criticism, however appalling (perhaps especially if appalling) can be
lectured on and debated endlessly and &lt;em&gt;published.&lt;/em&gt; (And cited.
Criticism of, say, Milton, is unlikely to be cited by anyone but other Milton
scholars; but theory of criticism can be cited by other theorists and by
critics.)  Because they no longer need appeal to any public other than
themselves, the usual concentration of mutants and anomalies found in small,
in-bred populations may be expected.
	&lt;li&gt; &lt;em&gt;Physics Envy.&lt;/em&gt;  Modesty forbids me to elaborate on this.
	&lt;li&gt; &lt;em&gt;Spirit of the Age.&lt;/em&gt; It has sometimes been claimed that
&quot;we&quot; are now much more self-conscious and reflexive than our predecessors.
This would seem to fit with critics preferring to theorize about criticism to
criticizing, but the exact relationship is obscure.  Would the general increase
in self-consciousness &lt;em&gt;explain&lt;/em&gt; the shift to theory, or would the shift
be part of what is meant by the general increase in self-consciousness?
	&lt;/ol&gt;

&lt;P&gt;But at this point a doubt arises.  &lt;em&gt;Has&lt;/em&gt; higher-order writing grown
faster than direct, first-order literature or its immediate, second-order
criticism?  I know of no statistics on this, so I made some very crude ones of
my own, by counting the number of titles in the UW-Madison on-line catalog
assigned to various Library of Congress call numbers.  Books in the category
PN, which are &lt;em&gt;about&lt;/em&gt; literature in general, grew at 4.1 +- 0.2 percent
between January 1950 and April 1998; the PS, PR and PZ categories, which
roughly comprise literature in English (with some translations in PZ, and
criticism in PS and PR) at only 2.9 +- 0.1 percent.  By way of comparison, the
QC category, which is (almost all of) physics grew at 4.8 +- 0.4, and the
combination of PG, PQ and PT (literature in modern European languages other
than English) at 3.9 +- 0.2.  (The numbers are from a least-squares fit to a
simple exponential curve, so the error bars should be taken with grains of
salt.)  The growth of non-English literature is probably mostly a change in our
acquisition policy, but the difference between English literature and writing
about literature is clearly statistically significant.  Going from the number
of books to the number of writers and so to something like relative fitnesses
for different sorts of literary writers would, however, be pretty difficult.
(Thanks to Jason Hsu for pointing out an unfortunate ambiguity of wording.)&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;At some point I should use this space to record some thoughts about what a
natural history of literature would look like, and how it would differ from
hitherto-existing literary criticism; but really I should be working now, and
you can probably figure out what I'd say from my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/graphs_trees_materialism_fishing/&quot;&gt;contribution&lt;/a&gt; to
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thevalve.org/&quot;&gt;the
Valve's&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a
href=&quot;http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/archive_asc/C48&quot;&gt;symposium on
Moretti&lt;/a&gt;.  At the same time, because I seem to have been unclear about this,
I should emphasize that I don't think that sort of natural history is
the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; sort of literary scholarship, much less the only sort of
literary criticism, worth pursuing.

&lt;P&gt;&lt;em&gt;See also&lt;/em&gt;
	&lt;a href=&quot;analogy.html&quot;&gt;Analogy and Metaphor&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;books.html&quot;&gt;Books and Their History&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;cognitive-science.html&quot;&gt;Cognitive Science&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;cultural-criticism.html&quot;&gt;Cultural Criticism&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;epics.html&quot;&gt;Epics and Oral Poetry&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;fantasy.html&quot;&gt;Fantasy&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;freud.html&quot;&gt;Sigmund Freud and Psychoanalysis&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;intellectual-standards.html&quot;&gt;Intellectual Standards and
Competence&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;intellectuals.html&quot;&gt;Intellectuals&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;linguistics.html&quot;&gt;Linguistics&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;modernity.html&quot;&gt;Modernity and All That&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;mysteries.html&quot;&gt;Mysteries&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;myths.html&quot;&gt;Myths&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;stories.html&quot;&gt;Narratives&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;novels.html&quot;&gt;Novels&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;poetry.html&quot;&gt;Poetry, Poets&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;pomo.html&quot;&gt;Postmodernism, Poststructuralism, etc.&lt;/a&gt;;
	the &lt;a href=&quot;romanticist.html&quot;&gt;Romanticists&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;rhetoric.html&quot;&gt;Rhetoric&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;science-fiction.html&quot;&gt;Science Fiction&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;semiotics.html&quot;&gt;Semiotics&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;structuralism.html&quot;&gt;Structuralism&lt;/a&gt;;
	&lt;a href=&quot;universal-images.html&quot;&gt;Universal signs, images and symbols&lt;/a&gt;


&lt;ul&gt;Recommended:
	&lt;li&gt;Aristotle, &lt;citE&gt;Poetics&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Marissa Bortolussi and Peter Dixon, &lt;cite&gt;Psychonarratology:
Foundations for the Empirical Study of Literary Response&lt;/cite&gt; [Experimental
&lt;a href=&quot;cognitive-science.html&quot;&gt;cognitive psychology&lt;/a&gt; applied to analyzing
questions of &lt;a href=&quot;stories.html&quot;&gt;narrative theory&lt;/a&gt; and response to
literature.  This is brilliant; why doesn't everyone know about it?]
	&lt;li&gt;Brophy, Levey and Osborne, &lt;cite&gt;Fifty Works of English (and
American) Literature We Could Do Without&lt;/cite&gt; [Amusing, even if you don't
agree with all their choices.]
	&lt;li&gt;Kenneth Burke, &lt;cite&gt;The Philosophy of Literary Form&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;A. S. Byatt, &lt;cite&gt;Passions of the Mind&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Steven Cassedy, &lt;cite&gt;Flight from Eden: The Origins of Modern
Literary Criticism and Theory&lt;/cite&gt; [&lt;a
href=&quot;http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft8h4nb55x/&quot;&gt;Online&lt;/a&gt;.  --- It's not
relevant to his argument, but, contrary to what he says on p. 137, the integers
are not a group under multiplication (merely a monoid).  Otherwise I can't
detect any errors of fact.]
	&lt;li&gt;Frederick Crews
		&lt;ul&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;The Critics Bear It Away: American Fiction and the
Academy&lt;/cite&gt; [&quot;&lt;a
href=&quot;http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/crews.txt&quot;&gt;The New Americanists&lt;/a&gt;&quot; and
&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/crews2.txt&quot;&gt;Whose American
Renaissance?&lt;/a&gt;&quot; are on-line]
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;The Pooh Perplex&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Postmodern Pooh&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Skeptical Engagements&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Out of My System: Psychoanalysis, Ideology, and
Critical Method&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;/ul&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;John M. Ellis, &lt;cite&gt;The Theory of Literary Criticism: A Logical
Analysis&lt;/cite&gt; [An extremely appealing account by somebody who actually knows
something about logic, methodology, etc., &lt;em&gt;and cares about literature&lt;/em&gt;.
In particular, he's convinced me that literature consists of those texts which
people &lt;em&gt;use&lt;/em&gt; in a certain way, and while some &lt;em&gt;properties&lt;/em&gt; of
those texts make them more or less well-suited to that role, it's the usage
that's defining, not the properties.  I'm less completely convinced he's
correctly characterized that usage, and much of the rest of his argument rests
on that.  But he actually argues rigorously from his definitions!]
	&lt;li&gt;E. D. Hirsch, &lt;cite&gt;The Aims of Interpretation&lt;/cite&gt; [See comments
under &lt;a href=&quot;interpretation.html&quot;&gt;Interpretation&lt;/a&gt;.]
	&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://homepage.mac.com/jholbo/homepage/index.html&quot;&gt;John
Holbo&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;The Advantages and Disadvantages of Theory for Life&quot; [&lt;a
href=&quot;http://homepage.mac.com/jholbo/homepage/pdf/advantages.pdf&quot;&gt;PDF&lt;/a&gt;]
	&lt;li&gt;Frank Lentriccha, &quot;Last Will and Testament of an Ex-Literary
Critic&quot;, &lt;cite&gt;Lingua Franca,&lt;/cite&gt; Sept.--Oct. 1996 [Now reprinted in
the &lt;cite&gt;Lingua Franca&lt;/cite&gt; anthology, &lt;cite&gt;Quick Studies&lt;/cite&gt;]
	&lt;li&gt;John Leonard [Literary editor for &lt;cite&gt;&lt;a
href=&quot;http://www.thenation.com/&quot;&gt;The Nation&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/cite&gt; Reading his essays
makes me sick with envy and despair, but I can't help myself, because they're
so ridiculously well-done.]
		&lt;ul&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;This Pen for Hire&lt;/cite&gt; [Reviews from when he worked
for the New York &lt;cite&gt;Times,&lt;/cite&gt; which either cramped his style a bit or
before he really found it]
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;The Last Innocent White Man in America and Other
Writings&lt;/cite&gt; [The mature style begins here, it seems]
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Smoke and Mirrors: Violence, Television and Other
American Cultures&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;When the Kissing Had to Stop: Cult Studs, &lt;a
href=&quot;right.html&quot;&gt;Khmer Newts&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;spies.html&quot;&gt;Langley Spooks&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a
href=&quot;science-fiction.html&quot;&gt;Techno-Geeks&lt;/a&gt;, Video Drones, Author Gods, Serial
Killers, Vampire Media, &lt;a href=&quot;ufos.html&quot;&gt;Alien Sperm-Suckers&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a
href=&quot;possession.html&quot;&gt;Satanic Therapists&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;left.html&quot;&gt;Those of
Us Who Hold a Left-Wing Grudge&lt;/a&gt; in the Post Toasties New World
Hip-Hop&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Lonesome Rangers: Homeless Minds, Promised Lands,
Fugitive Cultures&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;/ul&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;John Livingston Lewes, &lt;cite&gt;The Road to Xanadu&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Carol Lloyd, &lt;a
href=&quot;http://www.salonmagazine.com/feb97/loveslave970210.html&quot;&gt;I Was Michel
Foucault's Love Slave&lt;/a&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;H. L. Mencken, &lt;a
href=&quot;../Mencken/criticism-of-criticism-of-criticism/&quot;&gt;&quot;Criticism of Criticism
of Criticism&quot;&lt;/a&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Franco Moretti [Struggling towards a naturalistic, evolutionary
theory of literature --- a &quot;materialist sociology of literary forms,&quot; as he
says.  I think his efforts in this direction are entirely laudable, but, at
least in the books below, he's still too much given to type-thinking (as
opposed to population thinking), to psychoanalysis, and to
teleology.  --- &lt;cite&gt;Graphs, Maps, Trees&lt;/cite&gt;, published 2005, collects
three recent articles from &lt;citE&gt;New Left Review&lt;/cite&gt;, and largely corrects
these deviations from proper materialist thinking, though he is, in places,
excessively tactful towards those who still are in the thrall of error.]
		&lt;ul&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Atlas of the European Novel,
1800--1900&lt;/cite&gt; [&lt;a href=&quot;../reviews/atlas-of-the-european-novel/&quot;&gt;Review:
One Effort More, Litterateurs, if You Would Be Empiricists!&lt;/a&gt;]
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for Literary
History&lt;/cite&gt; [Discussed at great length &lt;a href=&quot;../weblog/404.html&quot;&gt;in my
weblog&lt;/a&gt;.]
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Modern Epic: The World-System from Goethe to
Garcia Marquez&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Signs Taken for Wonders: Essays on the Sociology of
Literary Forms&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&quot;The Slaughterhouse of Literature&quot;, &lt;cite&gt;Modern
Language Quarterly&lt;/cite&gt; &lt;strong&gt;61&lt;/strong&gt; (2000): 207--227
		&lt;/ul&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Ezra Pound, &lt;cite&gt;The ABC of Reading&lt;/cite&gt; [Pound is frustrating,
because he has some interesting and insightful things to say, mixed from page
to page --- even from sentence to sentence --- with rubbish.  Fortunately, here
the rubbish (about, e.g., the nature of Chinese characters) is entertaining,
and his fascism is not on display in this book.]
	&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;richards-i-a.html&quot;&gt;I. A. Richards&lt;/a&gt;
		&lt;ul&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Practical Criticism: A Study of Literary
Judgment&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Principles of Literary Criticism&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Science and Poetry&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;/ul&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Alan Richardson, &lt;a
href=&quot;http://www2.bc.edu/~richarad/lcb/home.html&quot;&gt;Literature, Cognition and the
Brain&lt;/a&gt; --- includes a very useful &lt;a
href=&quot;ttp://www2.bc.edu/~richarad/lcb/bib/annot.html&quot;&gt;annotated
bibliography&lt;/a&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Levin L. Sch&amp;uuml;cking, &lt;cite&gt;The Sociology of Literary
Taste&lt;/cite&gt; [The specific examples are both German and dated; but with a
little search-and-replace it becomes universal.]
	&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;simon.html&quot;&gt;Herbert Simon&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;Literary Criticism: A
Cognitive Approach,&quot; &lt;cite&gt;Stanford Humanities Review&lt;/cite&gt;, 1994 [&lt;a
href=&quot;http://bactra.org/weblog/archives/000056.html&quot;&gt;My
discussion, with links&lt;/a&gt;]
	&lt;li&gt;Ren&amp;eacute; Wellek, &lt;cite&gt;Concepts of Criticism&lt;/cite&gt; [Paper
collection.  The attempts at periodization are especially interesting, though
ultimately they leave me unpersuaded that one &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; identify dominant
clusters of ideas in the way Wellek proposes.  Similarly, the attack on
&quot;evolutionism&quot; only convinces me of the awful lack of understanding of
evolution among Wellek's literary-theoretical predecessors.]
	&lt;li&gt;Ren&amp;eacute; Wellek and Austin Warren, &lt;cite&gt;Theory of
Literature&lt;/cite&gt; [Sensible and acute, but they give a hopelessly circular
definition of the function and value of literature.]
	&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;To read:
	&lt;li&gt;M. H. Abrams, &lt;cite&gt;The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and
the Critical Tradition.&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Auerbach, &lt;cite&gt;Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western
Literature&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Bakhtin
	&lt;li&gt;Mark Bauerlein, &lt;cite&gt;Literary Criticism: An Autopsy&lt;/cite&gt;
[Recommended, without comment, by John Holbo.  I've only read the introduction
so far, and it inspires very mixed feelings --- I alternate, sometimes within a
single sentence, between &quot;right on!&quot;, &quot;this needs saying?&quot; and &quot;that's just
wrong&quot;.  Also, I cannot determine if Bauerlein gets his underlying epistemology
from Althusser, or a certain strand of American pragmatism...]
	&lt;li&gt;Michael B&amp;eacute;rub&amp;eacute; [Has a nice &lt;a
href=&quot;http://www.michaelberube.com/&quot;&gt;blog&lt;/a&gt;, and some very agreeable &lt;a
href=&quot;http://www.michaelberube.com/essays/index.php&quot;&gt;essays&lt;/a&gt;, so I feel like
reading his actual work.]
		&lt;ul&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;The Employment of English: Theory, Jobs, and the
Future of Literary Studies&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Public Access: Literary Theory and American Cultural
Politics&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;/ul&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Wayne C. Booth, &lt;cite&gt;The Rhetoric of Fiction&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;A. S. Byatt, &lt;cite&gt;On Histories and Stories&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;David Carroll, &lt;cite&gt;French Literary Fascism: Nationalism,
Antisemitism, and the Ideology of Culture&lt;/cite&gt; [I &lt;em&gt;had&lt;/em&gt; a copy of this
very interesting book, but it was destroyed by the post office.]
	&lt;li&gt;John Carey, &lt;cite&gt;What Good are the Arts?&lt;/cite&gt; [Sounds
interesting, to judge by this &lt;a
href=&quot;http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-1626588,00.html&quot;&gt;Review by
David Lodge&lt;/a&gt;]
	&lt;li&gt;Antoine Compagnon, &lt;cite&gt;Literature, Theory, and Common
Sense&lt;/cite&gt; [&lt;a href=&quot;http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7618.html&quot;&gt;Blurb&lt;/a&gt;]
	&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.btinternet.com/~j1837c/jbc/jccv.html&quot;&gt;John
Constable&lt;/a&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Peter Dear (ed.), &lt;cite&gt;The Literary Structure of Scientific
Argument: Historical Studies&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Mark Edmundson, &lt;cite&gt;Literature Against Philosophy, Plato to
Derrida: A Defense of Poetry&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;John M. Ellis, &lt;cite&gt;Literature Lost: Social Agendas and the
Corruption of the Humanities&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Raplh Ellison, &lt;cite&gt;Shadow and Act&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Empson
		&lt;ul&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Seven Types of Ambiguity&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Some Versions of Pastoral&lt;/citE&gt;
		&lt;/ul&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Angus Fletcher, &lt;cite&gt;Allegory: The Theory of a Symbolic
Mode&lt;/citE&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Donald Freeman, &lt;a
href=&quot;http://ucs.byu.edu/gened/facsem/postmod/freeman.htm&quot;&gt;Cognitive Metaphor
and Literary Theory: Towards the New Philology&lt;/a&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Girard, &lt;cite&gt;Fiction and Diction&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;John Guillory, &lt;cite&gt;Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary
Canon Formation&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Giles Gunn, &lt;citE&gt;The Culture of Criticism and the Criticism of
Culture&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Stephen Halliwell, &lt;cite&gt;Aesthetics of Mimesis: Ancient Texts and Modern Problems&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Geoffrey G. Harpham, &lt;cite&gt;Shadows of Ethics: Criticism
and the Just Society&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Jerry R. Hobbs, &lt;cite&gt;Literature and Cognition&lt;/cite&gt; [&lt;a
href=&quot;http://standish.stanford.edu/pdf/00000103.pdf&quot;&gt;Fulltext as a free
PDF&lt;/a&gt;.  Large, because it's scanned images, rather than electronically-set
text.  But very cool!]
	&lt;li&gt;Patrick Colm Hogan, &lt;cite&gt;Empire and Poetic Voice: Cognitive and
Cultural Studies of Literary Tradition and Colonialism&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Norman N. Holland, &lt;cite&gt;The Brain of Robert Frost: A Cognitive
Approach to Literature&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Irving Howe
		&lt;ul&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;A Critic's Notebook&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Politics and the Novel&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Selected Writings, 1950--1990&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;/ul&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Stanley Edgar Hyman
		&lt;ul&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;The Armed Vision&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;The Tangled Bank&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;/ul&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Charles Kaplan, &lt;cite&gt;The Overwrought Urn: A Potpourri of Parodies
of Critics Who Triumphantly Present the &lt;em&gt;Real&lt;/em&gt; Meaning of Authors from
Jane Austen to J. D. Salinger&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Paisley Livingston, &lt;cite&gt;Literary Knowledge: Humanistic Inquiry
and the Philosophy of Science&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Deidre Shauna Lynch, &lt;cite&gt;The Economy of Character: Novels, Market
Culture, and the Business of Inner Meaning&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Nick Montfort, &lt;cite&gt;Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to
Interactive Fiction&lt;/cite&gt; [&lt;a
href=&quot;http://mitpress.mit.edu/item.asp?ttype=2&amp;tid=9907&amp;mlid=217&quot;&gt;Blurb&lt;/a&gt;]
	&lt;li&gt;Franco Moretti [NLR = &lt;cite&gt;New Left Review&lt;/cite&gt;]
		&lt;ul&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&quot;Conjectures on World
Literature&quot;, &lt;citE&gt;NLR&lt;/cite&gt; &lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; (2000): 54--68 [&lt;a
href=&quot;http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR23503.shtml&quot;&gt;online&lt;/a&gt;]
		&lt;li&gt;&quot;More Conjectures&quot;, &lt;cite&gt;NLR&lt;/cite&gt; &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt;
(2003): 73--81 [&lt;a
href=&quot;http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR25402.shtml&quot;&gt;online&lt;/a&gt;]
		&lt;li&gt;&quot;Markets of the Mind&quot;, &lt;cite&gt;NLR&lt;/cite&gt; &lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt;
(2003): 111--115
		&lt;li&gt;&quot;MoMA 2000: The
Capitulation&quot;, &lt;citE&gt;NLR&lt;/cite&gt; &lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; (2000): 98--102
		&lt;li&gt;&quot;New York Times Obituaries&quot;, &lt;cite&gt;NLR&lt;/cite&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; (2000): 104--108
		&lt;li&gt;&quot;Planet Hollywood&quot;, &lt;cite&gt;NLR&lt;/cite&gt; &lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt;
(2001): 90--101
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;The Way of the World&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;/ul&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Franco Moretti (ed.), &lt;cite&gt;The Novel&lt;/cite&gt; [Multi-volume survey:
five volumes in the Italian original, but we're only getting a two-volume
selection in English
translation.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/8150.html&quot;&gt;Blurb and
samples for volume
1&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/8151.html&quot;&gt;for volume 2&lt;/a&gt;]
	&lt;li&gt;William Paulson, &lt;cite&gt;Literary Culture in a World Transformed: A
Future for the Humanities&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;John Press, &lt;cite&gt;The Chequer'd Shade: Reflections on Obscurity in
Poetry&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Kenneth Quinn, &lt;cite&gt;How Literature Works&lt;/cite&gt; [modest, ain't
he?]
	&lt;li&gt;Phil Roberts, &lt;cite&gt;How Poetry Works&lt;/cite&gt; [ditto]
	&lt;li&gt;William Elford Rogers, &lt;cite&gt;Interpreting Interpretation: Textual
Hermeneutics as an Ascetic Discipline&lt;/citE&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Shawn James Rosenheim, &lt;cite&gt;The Cryptographic Imagination&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Edward Said, &lt;cite&gt;Orientalism&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Gordon E. Slethaug, &lt;cite&gt;Beautiful Chaos: Chaos Theory and
Metachaotics in Recent American Fiction&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;George Steiner [James Wood's marvellous polemic against Steiner,
&quot;Toppling the Monument&quot; (&lt;cite&gt;Prospect&lt;/cite&gt;, no. 14, December 1996) is sadly
no longer available on-line.  But it's dead on.]
		&lt;ul&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;No Passion Spent&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Errata: An Examined Life&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;/ul&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Peter Steiner, &lt;cite&gt;Russian Formalism: A Metapoetics&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Peter Stockwell
		&lt;ul&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;The Poetics of Science Fiction&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;/ul&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Robert Storey, &lt;cite&gt;Mimesis and the Human Animal: On the
Biogenetic Foundations of Literary Representation&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Peter Swirski, &lt;cite&gt;Between Literature and Science: Poe, Lem, and
Explorations of Aesthetics, Cognitive Science, and Literary Knowledge&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Tzvetan Todorov, &lt;cite&gt;Literature and Its Theorists&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Mark Turner
		&lt;ul&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;The Literary Mind&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Reading Minds&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;/ul&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Ren&amp;eacute; Wellek, &lt;cite&gt;Discriminations&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Edmund Wilson
		&lt;ul&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Classics and Commercials&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;A Piece of My Mind&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;The American Earthquake: A Chronicle of the
Roaring Twenties, the Great Depression, and the Dawn of the New Deal&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;/ul&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Martha Woodmansee, &lt;cite&gt;The Author, Art and the Market: Rereading
the History of Aesthetics&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Virginia Woolf
		&lt;ul&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;The Common Reader&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;li&gt;&lt;cite&gt;The Second Common Reader&lt;/cite&gt;
		&lt;/ul&gt;
	&lt;/ul&gt;
</description>
  </item>
  </channel>
</rss>