. .

2 A READER’S GUIDE TO CONTEMPORARY LITERARY THEORY

‘psychoanalytic structuralism’ of the French writer, Jacques Lacan. All of

which, he could say at the time, ‘only confirmed ingrained prejudices’. No

Introduction criticism of Raman, of course – indeed, that he could say this is to make
the very point – but such a conjuncture within ‘English’ or Literary Studies
now seems to belong irrevocably to the dim and distant past. As later pages
of the present introduction attest, over the last twenty years a seismic change
has taken place which has transformed the contours of ‘contemporary
literary theory’, and which has therefore required a reconfiguration of
A Reader’s Guide to match.
Nevertheless, we retain – along with, it is only fair to note, a good pro-
portion of what Raman originally wrote in the first editions of the book –
a commitment to many of his founding beliefs about the need for a
concise, clear, introductory guide to the field. We might add that the

I t is now twenty years since Raman Selden undertook the

daunting task of writing a brief introductory guide to contem-
porary literary theory, and it is salutary to consider how much has changed
constant fissurings and reformations of contemporary theory since seem to
reconfirm the continuing need for some basic mapping of this complex and
difficult terrain, and the Guide’s widespread adoption on degree courses
since the initial publication of A Reader’s Guide in 1985. In his Introduction throughout the English-speaking world also appears to bear this out.
to that first edition, it was still possible for Raman to note that, It goes without saying, of course, that ‘theory’ in the fullest generic sense
is not a unique product of the late twentieth century – as its Greek ety-
until recently ordinary readers of literature and even professional literary critics mology, if nothing else, clearly indicates. Nor, of course, is Literary or Critical
had no reason to trouble themselves about developments in literary theory.
Theory anything new, as those will confirm who studied Plato, Aristotle,
Theory seemed a rather rarefied specialism which concerned a few individuals
Longinus, Sidney, Dryden, Boileau, Pope, Burke, Coleridge and Arnold in
in literature departments who were, in effect, philosophers pretending to be
their (traditional) ‘Literary Theory’ courses. Indeed, one of Raman Selden’s
literary critics. . . . Most critics assumed, like Dr Johnson, that great literature
other (edited) books is entitled The Theory of Criticism from Plato to the Present:
was universal and expressed general truths about human life . . . [and] talked
comfortable good sense about the writer’s personal experience, the social and
A Reader (1988). Every age has its theoretical definitions of the nature of
historical background of the work, the human interest, imaginative ‘genius’ literature and its theorized principles on which critical approaches to the
and poetic beauty of great literature. analysis of literature are premised. But in the 1980s, Fredric Jameson made
a telling observation in his essay, ‘Postmodernism and Consumer Society’
For good or ill, no such generalizations about the field of literary criticism (in Kaplan (ed.), 1988: see ‘Further reading’ for Chapter 8); he wrote: ‘A
could be made now. Equally, in 1985 Raman would rightly point to the generation ago, there was still a technical discourse of professional philo-
end of the 1960s as the moment at which things began to change, and com- sophy . . . alongside which one could still distinguish that quite different dis-
ment that ‘during the past twenty years or so students of literature have course of the other academic disciplines – of political science, for example,
been troubled by a seemingly endless series of challenges to the consensus or sociology or literary criticism. Today, increasingly, we have a kind of writ-
of common sense, many of them deriving from European (and especially ing simply called “theory” which is all or none of these things at once.’
French and Russian) intellectual sources. To the Anglo-Saxon tradition, this This ‘theoretical discourse’, he goes on, has marked ‘the end of philosophy
was a particularly nasty shock.’ But he could also still present ‘Structural- as such’ and is ‘to be numbered among the manifestations of postmodernism’.
ism’ as a newly shocking ‘intruder in the bed of Dr Leavis’s alma mater’ The kinds of originary theoretical texts Jameson had in mind were those
(Cambridge), especially a structuralism with ‘a touch of Marxism about [it]’, from the 1960s and 1970s by, for example, Barthes, Derrida, Foucault, Lacan,
and note the even more outré fact that there was already ‘a poststructuralist Althusser, Kristeva, together with earlier ‘remobilized’ texts by, among others,
critique of structuralism’, one of the main influences on which was the Bakhtin, Saussure, Benjamin and the Russian Formalists. Through the
 . .

INTRODUCTION 3 4 A READER’S GUIDE TO CONTEMPORARY LITERARY THEORY

1980s and 1990s, this process seemed to compound itself in self-generating the latter precedes the former. This is because Russian Formalism, albeit mainly
fashion, with ‘Theory’ (now adorned by a tell-tale capital ‘T’) being put on produced in the second two decades of the twentieth century, did not have
the syllabus by a plethora of Readers, Guides and introductory handbooks. widespread impact until the late 1960s and the 1970s, when it was effect-
Certainly in ‘English’ – plunged into a permanent state of ‘crisis’ (but only, ively rediscovered, translated and given currency by Western intellectuals
it appeared, for those who did not want to countenance change) – ‘Theory’ who were themselves part of the newer Marxist and structuralist movements
courses became de rigueur, prompting one of the central and unresolved of that period. In this respect, the Russian Formalists ‘belong’ to that later
debates in that discipline at least: ‘How to Teach Theory’ (more on this later). moment of their reproduction and were mobilized by the new left critics in
This period (c.late 1960s to late 1990s), we may call ‘Theorsday’ – or, more their assault, precisely, on established literary criticism represented most cen-
recognizably, ‘The Moment of Theory’ – a historically and culturally spe- trally, in the Anglo-Saxon cultures, by New Criticism and Leavisism. Hence,
cific phenomenon coterminous with Poststructuralism, Postmodernism and we present the latter as anterior to Formalism in terms of critical theoret-
the sidelining of materialist politics, a period which, it now seems, has been ical ideology, because they represent the traditions of criticism, from the
superseded by one declared ‘post-Theory’ (see below and the Conclusion to outset and principally, with which contemporary critical theory had to
the present volume). engage. In any event, while the Reader’s Guide does not pretend to give a
But back in 1985, Raman Selden’s impetus in writing A Reader’s Guide comprehensive picture of its field, and cannot be anything other than select-
was because he believed that the questions raised by contemporary literary ive and partial (in both senses), what it does offer is a succinct overview of
theory were important enough to justify the effort of clarification, and because the most challenging and prominent trends within the theoretical debates
many readers by then felt that the conventional contemptuous dismissal of the last forty years.
of theory would no longer do. If nothing else, they wanted to know exactly But more generally, and leaving aside for the moment the fact that in
what they were being asked to reject. Like Raman, we too assume that the 2005, if not in 1985, the effects of these theoretical debates have so marked
reader is interested by and curious about this subject, and that s/he requires literary studies that it is unthinkable to ignore them, why should we
a sketch-map of it as a preliminary guide to traversing the difficult ground trouble ourselves about theory? How, after all, does it affect our experience
of the theories themselves. Apropos of this, we also firmly hold that the and understanding of reading literary texts? One answer would be that some
‘Selected Reading’ sections at the end of each chapter, with their lists of familiarity with theory tends to undermine reading as an innocent activity.
‘Basic Texts’ and ‘Further Reading’, are an integral part of our project to If we begin to ask ourselves questions about the construction of meaning
familiarize the reader with the thinking which has constructed their pre- in fiction, the presence of ideology in poetry, or how we measure the
sent field of study: the Guide, in the beginning and in the end, is no sub- value of a literary work, we can no longer naïvely accept the ‘realism’ of a
stitute for the original theories. novel, the ‘sincerity’ of a poem, or the ‘greatness’ of either. Some readers
Inevitably, any attempt to put together a brief summation of com- may cherish their illusions and mourn the loss of innocence, but if they
plex and contentious concepts, to say much in little, will result in over- are serious, they must confront the problematical issues raised about
simplifications, compressions, generalizations and omissions. For example, ‘Literature’ and its social relations by major theorists in recent years. Other
we made the decision when revising the fourth edition that approaches readers again may believe that theories and concepts will only deaden the
premised on pervasive linguistic and psychoanalytic theories were best dis- spontaneity of their response to literary works, but they will thereby fail
persed throughout the various chapters rather than having discrete sections to realize that no discourse about literature is theory-free, that even appar-
devoted to them. ‘Myth criticism’, which has a long and varied history and ently ‘spontaneous’ discussion of literary texts is dependent on the de facto
includes the work of Gilbert Murray, James Frazer, Carl Jung, Maud Bodkin (if less self-conscious) theorizing of older generations. Their talk of ‘feeling’,
and Northrop Frye, was omitted because it seemed to us that it had not ‘imagination’, ‘genius’, ‘sincerity’ and ‘reality’ is full of dead theory which
entered the mainstream of academic or popular culture, and had not is sanctified by time and has become part of the naturalized language of
challenged received ideas as vigorously as the theories we do examine. The common sense. A second answer might be, then, that far from having a
chapter on New Criticism and F. R. Leavis comes before the one on Russian sterile effect on our reading, new ways of seeing literature can revitalize our
Formalism when even a cursory glance will indicate that chronologically engagement with texts; that if we are to be adventurous and exploratory
 . .

INTRODUCTION 5 6 A READER’S GUIDE TO CONTEMPORARY LITERARY THEORY

in our reading of literature, we must also be adventurous in our thinking course, none of these approaches totally ignores the other dimensions of
about literature. literary communication: for example, Western Marxist criticism does not
One simple way of demonstrating the effect of theorizing literature is hold a strictly referential view of language, and the writer, the audience
to see how different theories raise different questions about it from differ- and the text are all included within the overall sociological perspective.
ent foci of interest. The following diagram of linguistic communication, However, it is noteworthy in what we have outlined above that none
devised by Roman Jakobson, helps to distinguish some possible starting-points: of the examples is taken from the more contemporary theoretical fields of
feminism, poststructuralism, postmodernism, postcolonialism and gay, les-
CONTEXT
bian or queer theory. This is because all of these, in their different ways,
ADDRESSER > MESSAGE > ADDRESSEE
disturb and disrupt the relations between the terms in the original diagram,
CONTACT
and it is these movements which account for the disproportionate scale of
CODE
the twenty-year gap between the moment when Raman Selden began the
An addresser sends a message to an addressee; the message uses a code book and the moment of its revision now.
(usually a language familiar to both addresser and addressee); the message Developments in critical theory and practice have diversified in geometric
has a context (or ‘referent’) and is transmitted through a contact (a medium progression since 1985, and the shape and composition of the present ver-
such as live speech, the telephone or writing). For the purposes of discussing sion of A Reader’s Guide attempt to take account of this and are witness to
literature, the ‘contact’ is usually now the printed word (except, say, in drama it. Although not overtly structured to indicate such a change, the book is
or performance-poetry); and so we may restate the diagram thus: now in two distinct halves. Those theories which comprised the entirety of
the earlier editions have been reduced and pressed back into Chapters 1–6,
CONTEXT
or just about half of the whole volume. It is clear that these are now part
WRITER > WRITING > READER
of the history of contemporary literary theory, but are not accurately
CODE
described as ‘contemporary literary theory’ themselves. This is not to say
If we adopt the addresser’s viewpoint, we draw attention to the writer, and that they are now redundant, sterile or irrelevant – their premises, metho-
his or her ‘emotive’ or ‘expressive’ use of language; if we focus on the ‘con- dologies and perceptions remain enlightening, and may yet be the source
text’, we isolate the ‘referential’ use of language and invoke its historical of still more innovative departures in theorizing literature – but in so far
dimension at the point of the work’s production; if we are principally inter- as they were the pace-makers for the new leaders of the field, they have
ested in the addressee, we study the reader’s reception of the ‘message’, hence dropped back and are out of the current race. A difficult decision in this
introducing a different historical context (no longer the moment of a text’s context was how to deal with the chapter on feminist theories. In earlier
production but of its reproduction), and so on. Different literary theories also editions, this had concluded the book – signalling that this was where
tend to place the emphasis upon one function rather than another; so we the action was; but the chronology of the chapter, often paralleling other
might represent some major earlier ones diagrammatically thus: theories of the 1960s and 1970s, came to make it look like a gestural
afterthought: ‘and then there is feminism’. In the fourth edition, there-
MARXIST
fore, we returned the chapter comprising that time-frame, with its largely
ROMANTIC > FORMALIST > READER-
‘white’ Anglo-American and French focus, to its more appropriate place
HUMANIST STRUCTURALIST ORIENTED
at the end of the ‘historical’ half of the book, and dispersed accounts of
Romantic-humanist theories emphasize the writer’s life and mind as the newer feminisms, taking account especially of their pivotal non-
expressed in his or her work; ‘reader’ theories (phenomenological criticism) Eurocentric energies, throughout the later ‘contemporary’ chapters. The long
centre themselves on the reader’s, or ‘affective’, experience; formalist theor- chapter on poststructuralism now contains rather more on psychoanalytic
ies concentrate on the nature of the writing itself; Marxist criticism regards theories and an updating of the treatment of New Historicism and Cultural
the social and historical context as fundamental; and structuralist poetics Materialism. A previous single chapter on postmodernism and postcolon-
draws attention to the codes we use to construct meaning. At their best, of ialism was split in the fourth edition into two separate chapters, with new
 . .

INTRODUCTION 7 8 A READER’S GUIDE TO CONTEMPORARY LITERARY THEORY

sections which introduced both theorists who had only more recently devolved rapidly into ‘theories’ – often overlapping and mutually generat-
begun to make a major mark on the field and the impact of work around ive, but also in productive contestation. The ‘Moment of Theory’, in other
gender, sexuality, race and ethnicity. In addition, there was an entirely words, has spawned a hugely diverse tribe of praxes, or theorized practices,
new chapter on gay, lesbian and queer theories, which brought the book’s at once self-conscious about their projects and representing radical forms
coverage of the most dynamic areas of activity up-to-date. Most of the above of political action, at least in the cultural domain. This has been particu-
has been retained in the present fifth edition, although revised and refined larly the case with critical theories and practices which focus on gender
where necessary. The most significant addition here, however, is the con- and sexuality and with those which seek to deconstruct Euro- and ethno-
cluding chapter on ‘Post-Theory’, which takes stock of the various emer- centricity. Second, given the postmodern theoretical fission we have sug-
gent tendencies and debates regarding aesthetics and politics which are gested above, there has been a turn in some quarters to ostensibly more
occurring under its banner. Finally, the ‘Selected Reading’ sections have traditional positions and priorities. The verdict here is that ‘Theory Has Failed’:
again been recast to make them more accessible and up-to-date. One that, in an ironic postmodern twist, the ‘End of Theory’ is now with us.
notable change in these is the inclusion (in square brackets) of dates of This is by no means the Lazarus-like spasms of the old guard come back
first publication for many of the founding texts of contemporary literary from the dead, but the view of younger academics who have gone through
theory in order to indicate how much earlier they often are than the the theory mill and who wish to challenge the dominance of theoretical
modern editions by which they subsequently made their impact. Equally, discourse in literary studies on behalf of literature itself – to find a way of
the date of translation into English of seminal European texts is included talking about literary texts, about the experience of reading and evaluating
for the same reason. them. As the concluding chapter in the present edition makes clear, this
So what has been the turbulence between 1985 and 2005 in the field of aspect of ‘post-theory’ is most perceptible in the tendency towards a so-called
‘contemporary literary theory’; what is the context which explains the con- ‘New Aesthetics’. The question of ‘practice’ in the present theoretical con-
tinuous need to revise A Reader’s Guide? For a start, ‘Theory’, even ‘literary text we will return to briefly below.
theory’, can no longer usefully be regarded as a progressively emerging body Other related effects of developments in contemporary theory over the
of work, evolving through a series of definable phases or ‘movements’ – of past decades may be adduced as follows. Perhaps the most notable has been
delivery, critique, advancement, reformulation, and so on. This appeared the deconstruction of notions of a given literary canon – of an agreed selec-
to be the case in the later 1970s and early 1980s – although no doubt it tion of ‘great works’ which are the benchmark for the discrimination of
was never entirely true – when the ‘Moment of Theory’ seemed to have ‘literary value’, and without exposure to which no literary education can
arrived and there was an anxiety, even to those enthusiastically participat- be complete. The theoretical challenging of the criteria on which the
ing in it, that a new academic subject, worse a new scholasticism – radical canon is established, together with the arrival on the agenda of many more
and subversive, yes, but also potentially exclusive in its abstraction – was marginal kinds of literary and other cultural production hitherto excluded
coming into being. Books poured from the presses, conferences abounded, from it, has at once caused a withering of the old verities and an explosion
‘Theory’ courses at undergraduate and postgraduate level proliferated, and of new materials for serious study. While the canon retains some prestigious
any residual notions of ‘practice’ and of ‘the empirical’ became fearsomely defenders (for example, Harold Bloom and George Steiner), the more per-
problematical. Such a ‘Moment of Theory’ no longer obtains – whether, para- vasive tendency has been to push literary studies towards forms of cultural
doxically, because it coincided with the rise to political power of the new studies, where a much larger and uncanonized range of cultural production
right, whether because, by definition in a postmodern world, it could not is under analysis. Indeed, it might more accurately be said that this tend-
survive in a more or less unitary state, or whether it contained, as itself a ency represents a form of feedback, since it was precisely the earlier ini-
postmodern creature, the catalysing agents for its own dispersal, are beyond tiatives of Cultural Studies proper which were among the agents that
confident assertion. But a change has occurred – a change producing a situ- helped to subvert naturalized notions of ‘Literature’ and literary criticism
ation very different to that of the increasingly abstract and self-obsessed in the first place. In the context of contemporary literary theory, however,
intellectual field which the original edition of this book felt itself just about the more telling recent shift has been to the development of ‘Cultural Theory’
able to describe and contain. First, the singular and capitalized ‘Theory’ has as the umbrella term for the whole field of enquiry. Most of the significant
 . .

INTRODUCTION 9 10 A READER’S GUIDE TO CONTEMPORARY LITERARY THEORY

work outlined in the later chapters of this Reader’s Guide, it is important to we might call ‘Metaphysics’, the second ‘New Criticism’ – and we have been
note – on postmodernism, postcolonialism, gay, lesbian and queer theor- there before. In reality, of course, there is no crossroads: theory shadows
ies, in particular – is always more than literary in orientation. Such theor- criticism as a questioning and interiorized companion, and the conversa-
ies promote a global reinterpretation and redeployment of all forms of tion between them goes on, whatever their apparent separation. The func-
discourse as part of a radical cultural politics, among which ‘the literary’ tion of literary/critical theory is to reveal and debate the assumptions of
may be merely one more or less significant form of representation. The literary form and identity and to disclose the interleaved criteria of aesthetic,
present volume recognizes this, but in turn and given its brief, it attempts moral and social values on which critical modes depend and which their
to retain a literary focus within the broad and constantly mutating processes procedures enact and confirm. No justification should be needed, therefore,
of cultural history. to encourage this conversation further, to make criticism’s theoretical
Despite the complexity and diversity of the field as we have presented assumptions explicit, to assess one theory by another, to ask how a theor-
it, however, there are a number of fundamental lessons that the theoret- etical framework influences the interpretation of literary texts. But perhaps
ical debates of the past thirty years have thrown up – ones learnt not only the most insistent fallacy is the judgement that the ‘radical’ Theory of the
by radicals but also by those who wish to defend more conventional or tra- post-1960s period failed to produce a criticism which matched its radical-
ditionally humanistic positions and approaches. They are: that all literary- izing intentions; that instead of a theoretically aware, interventionist and
critical activity is always underpinned by theory; that the theory, whatever socially purposive criticism which could be deployed in the empirical ana-
it may be, represents an ideological – if not expressly political – position; lysis of texts came work of wayward or leaden abstraction and of self-
that it is more effective, if not more honest, to have a praxis which is promoting dogma. Now we would be the first to admit that the academic
explicitly theorized than to operate with naturalized and unexamined world has supped full of the ritualistic trotting-out of major theorists’
assumptions; that such a praxis may be tactical and strategic rather than names and theoretical clichés; of wooden Foucauldian or Bakhtinian ‘read-
seemingly philosophically absolute; that ‘Theory’ is no longer apparently ings’ of this, that or the other; of formulaic gesturing towards the ‘theor-
monolithic and awesome (although still ‘difficult’); and that it is to be put etical underpinnings’ of this or that thesis – often seriously disjunct from
to use and critiqued rather than studied in the abstract and for its own sake. what are, in effect, conventional literary-critical analyses. In the present con-
It is at this point, then, that we might reflect for a moment on the notion text, then, we might want to recast ‘post-theory’ as ‘post-Theoreticism’, where
that ‘Theory Has Failed’ and that an age of ‘post-theory’ has dawned (to be ‘-eticism’ is shorthand for an arcane, hermetic scholasticism, but ‘theory’
revisited more substantively in our Conclusion). What is meant by ‘The Failure properly remains the evolving matrix in which new critical practices are
of Theory’? In Literary Studies, the crucial issue seems to be the relation shaped. In a sense, as the introduction to a collection of essays on the sub-
between Theory and Criticism. But what, after all, is Theory in this con- ject suggests, ‘post-theory’ is to flag no more than ‘theory “yet to come”’
text? What distinguishes it from ‘practice’, and how then does it impact on (McQuillan et al. (eds), 1999: see ‘References’ for Conclusion).
‘empirical’ textual analysis? The answers lie in a number of fallacies which In the event, the demystification of theory, which has resulted in the
traverse the notion of the failure of theory. First, it implies that theory has great plurality of theorized praxes for specific interests and purposes,
a privileged role in a hierarchy of conceptual, creative and critical discourses, should allow us to be rather more self-questioning and critical about it. For
rather than recognizing the dialectical relationship between theory and prac- example, in the context of ‘post-theory’, is one implication that we would
tice in which they test and transform each other. Second, it assumes that no longer have to face that overwhelming question which has haunted our
theory somehow exists outside the kinds of assumptions and ideologies profession since the 1970s: ‘How to Teach Theory’? Would grateful stud-
it discloses, that it is not itself a socio-cultural practice (Terry Eagleton ents no longer have to ‘do Theory’? The answer must surely be No; but a
once put the converse: ‘just as all social life is theoretical, so all theory is principal anxiety about the term ‘post-theory’ is that it might seem to legit-
a real social practice’ (Eagleton, 1990)). Third, as a consequence, it seems imate such ‘end of Theory’ fantasies. To restate the obvious, occupying a
to set up a stark choice at a specious crossroads between a cul-de-sac of theory-free zone is a fundamental impossibility, and to allow our students
autonomous and impenetrable theory and a through-road of critical prac- to think that it is not would be a dereliction of intellectual duty. But if we
tice, accessible language and direct encounter with literary texts. The first do continue to teach theory, familiar questions abound. Given that ‘the
 . .

INTRODUCTION 11 12 A READER’S GUIDE TO CONTEMPORARY LITERARY THEORY

Theory course’ is usually taught independently of those on the familiar making the plethora of theoretical positions now available accessible to
literary genres, and so becomes boxed off from what are still seen as the students. The fundamental belief behind the book is that to be in a posi-
central components of a literature degree, we might want to ask: whether tion to understand and mobililize theory – to be able to theorize one’s own
it is indeed appropriate to place the autonomous study of literary/critical practice – is to enfranchise oneself in the cultural politics of the contem-
theory on every undergraduate literature degree; whether such theory is some- porary period.
thing which can be usefully studied as though it were a separate philosophical
genre; where historically such a theory course might start, and wherever it
does, how far the student needs to comprehend the informing philosoph- Selected reading
ical antecedents of any critical position or practice before taking it up (must
Anthologies of literary theory
you know Marx to engage with marxist critical theory)? Should students be
introduced to theory via abstruse, perplexing and intimidating theoretical Brooker, Peter and Widdowson, Peter (eds), A Practical Reader in
essays which are conceptually and stylistically far removed from their own Contemporary Literary Theory (Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf,
experience of studying literature? Can students engage in meaningful sem- Hemel Hempstead, 1996).
inar discussion when they have limited grasp of the debates the theory is
Davis, Robert Con and Schleifer, Ronald (eds), Contemporary Literary
addressing and scant knowledge of the literary texts to which it may do no
Criticism: Literary and Cultural Studies: 1900 to the Present (4th edn,
more than allude in passing? Are particular theories actually tied to particu-
Longman, London and New York, 1998).
lar kinds of text or to particular periods (is the same theory usefully applied,
for example, to a novel and to a poem, to Renaissance and to Romantic Lodge, David (ed.), Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism: A Reader
literature); how far and with what justification does a theoretical position (Longman, London and New York, 1977).
‘rewrite’ its object of study? Is there any meaningful use, finally, in simply Lodge, David and Wood, Nigel (eds), Modern Criticism and Theory:
lecturing on theory? All such questions are, in effect, a reflex of the press- A Reader (2nd edn, Pearson Education, Harlow, 1999).
ing central questions: how to get beyond a passive engagement with the-
Newton, K. M. (ed.), Twentieth-Century Literary Theory: A Reader (2nd edn,
ory or, conversely, a loose pluralism in which students shop around for those
Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1997).
theories which most appeal to them (i.e. the ones they find easiest to grasp),
Rice, Philip and Waugh, Patricia (eds), Modern Literary Theory: A Reader
and what, crucially, is theory’s relation to critical practice?
(4th edn, Arnold, London, 2001).
These questions are at the heart of a pragmatic and strategic politics in
the general field of cultural study in the early 2000s, and they urgently de- Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Michael (eds), Literary Theory: An Anthology
mand answers if theory is not to be seen by students as yet another example (2nd edn, Blackwell, Oxford, 2004).
of arid scholasticism (some such answers are more or less convincingly Rylance, Rick (ed.), Debating Texts: A Reader in Twentieth-Century
proposed by the ‘post-theory’ texts surveyed in our concluding chapter). Literary Theory and Method (Open University Press, Milton Keynes,
Students need to be able to make informed and engaged choices about 1987).
the theories they encounter, to take a critical stance towards them, and to
Selden, Raman (ed.), The Theory of Criticism from Plato to the Present: A
deploy the resulting insights in their own critical practice. Perhaps, as Mikko
Reader (Longman, London and New York, 1988).
Lehtonen argued in 2001, since there can be no such thing as ‘“untheor-
etical” criticism versus “theoretical” theory’, since ‘teaching literature is always Tallack, Douglas (ed.), Critical Theory: A Reader (Prentice Hall/Harvester
already teaching theory’, and since students ‘are always already inside Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, 1995).
theory’, ‘Theory can be taught best as theorising’. Without in any sense Walder, Dennis (ed.), Literature in the Modern World: Critical Essays and
denying the importance of ingesting the theoretical work itself or appear- Documents (2nd edn, Oxford University Press with the Open
ing to promote once more a simplistic empiricism, this new edition of University, Oxford, 2003).
A Reader’s Guide seeks to facilitate the process of becoming theorized by