Chapter 17 Literary Devices, Ideas and Terms: Key Concepts-I

In this chapter I will introduce you to certain influential scholars, theories and concepts in literature and culture studies. I know that you enjoy reading literature and must have read a number of texts. However, higher order literature embodies a distinct style and to approach it, you need to equip yourself with the knowledge of specific terms and theories. My attempt in this and the second part of this chapter !hapter "#$ %ey !oncepts & II' is to make literary theories and terminologies more accessible for you. (ou have been acquainted with some genres such as theatre' and phenomenon Modernism)*ostmodernism' in the preceding chapters$ and will become familiar with major literary and culture theories in the subsequent ones. I will start with a disclaimer. +lthough the topics are arranged alphabetically, the list is by no means exhaustive. ,ducation, as we all know, is an ongoing process, and I am sure that after getting comfortable with some of the literary terms, you will continue your journey as learners by reading by yourself.

Allegory +n allegory -reek, .agoria/0 .to speak otherwise/'is a narrative, in prose or verse', in which the agents and actions, and sometimes the setting are contrived by the author to make coherent sense on the primary level of signification, and at the same time to communicate a second, correlated order of signification. *lato uses the .cave/ allegory in The Republic 1234!' to exemplify the limits of human perception. +n allegory can be historical and political allegory, in which the characters and actions 5allegori6e,5 historical personages and events, for example, 7homas More8s Utopia "9"2' :ohn ;ryden8s Absalom and Achitophel "2#"' or be representative of ideas, in which the literal characters represent concepts and the plot allegori6es an abstract doctrine or thesis. <or instance, :ohn 4unyan8s The Pilgrims Progress "2=#'. >n a more popular level,+espo8s Fables 2"34!' allegori6e the human predicament in terms of animal narratives. Everyman is an allegory in the form of a morality play. 7he Pilgrim s Progress is a moral allegory$ ,dmund ?penser8s The Faerie Queene "9@3A@2' combines moral, religious, historical, and political allegory in a verse form$ :onathan ?wift8s Gullivers Travels "=B2' is an allegorical satire directed mainly against political, philosophical and scientific conditions. +llegory was a popular literary device in the Middle +ges in the fourteenth century. ;ante8s ivine !omedy "C=B', the <rench Roman de la Rose "B=3A#3'" !haucer8s #ouse o$ Fame "1=@A#3', and Dilliam Eangland8s Piers Plo%man "123F'

7he Marxist critic <redric :ameson uses the term to signify the relation of a literary text to its historical subtext, its 5political unconscious.5 7he stories and novels of <ran6 %afka for example in The !astle, "@B2'can be considered instances of implicit allegory, though it was devalued for a long period during the twentieth century. 7he renewed interest in allegory could be largely because of interest in the notion of representation and the .inexpressible./ -eorge >rwell8s &ineteen Eighty'Four "@C@' is a political allegory, while Eatin +merican writers such as 4orges too are known for successfully employing this device. ?alman Gushdie8s (idnights !hildren "@#3' and )hame "@#1 ' are modern day allegories of the partition of the Indian subcontinent. <or critical theories on the topic, I suggest you read *aul de Man8s Allegories o$ Reading "@=@' and Dalter 4enjamin8s Antinomies o$ Tradition "@@1'. +rtists like Gobert Gauchenberg and ?igma *olka are credited for visually exemplifying allegory.

Canon !anon >xford +,E;0 + generally accepted rule, standard or principle by which sth is judged$ a list of the books or other works that are generally accepted as the genuine work of a particular writer or as being important' became an important term in !hristian theological discourse in +; @3 with the establishment of the Hebrew biblical canon. 7he canon of scripture are those texts which are regarded as authentically 4iblical, whereas those discarded are termed as .apocryphal./ In "#th century ?amuel :ohnson included 9B writers who constitute the canon of ,nglish verse in *ives o$ the (ost Eminent Poets. +nthologies proclaiming ."3" -reatest 4ooks/ or ."333 4ooks (ou Must Gead/ are nothing but attempts to canoni6e, to confer greatness on particular kind of books and certain kind of writers. It is therefore inconceivable for any collection)anthology)list to omit ?hakespeare or Homer or 7olstoy or ;ickens. 7hese writers are our canonical writers. Eikewise you can be sure that any .+llAtime !lassics/ will feature Remembrance o$ Things Past "@"1', ivine !omedy "C=B ', Paradise *ost "22=', and Moby ;ick "#9" '. +nthologies such as Palgraves Golden Treasury o$ English )ongs and *yrics "#2"' and &orton or +,$ord Anthology o$ *iterature are yet another effort to canoni6e. !anons are interesting to analy6e as they dictate what we must read and teach. Harold 4loom in his The -estern !anon "@@9' begins, .7he book studies twentyAsix writers, necessarily with a certain nostalgia, since I seek to isolate the qualities that made these authors canonical, that is, authoritative in our culture/ "@@CH "'. +s he defends and explains his concept of .the anxiety of influence/ he also claims to enjoy .the ?chool of Gesentment8s repeated insistence that such a notion applies only to ;ead Dhite ,uropean Males, and not to women and to what we quaintly term .multiculturalists./ p.='. <or a deeper understanding of the .!anon Dar/ , I recommend +llen 4loom8s The !losing o$ the American (ind. +lso see its critiqueH httpH))www.insidehighered.com)views)B33=)3@)"#)la6ere +ccording to Mikhail 4akhtin "#@9A"@=9 ' all literary genres have a tendency towards canoni6ation and thus norms and conventions become hardened into universal ones. <or a critique of Harold 4loom8s the anxiety of influence, visit httpH))www.nytimes.com)books)@#)"")3")specials)bloomAinfluence.html'.

Irony Irony -reek0 .dissimulation/' is a device which critics)writers find useful to inject subversion, satire or skepticism. *lato8s Republic makes a reference to the term, to suggest a sly) underhand way of getting one8s way around. In the *latonic dialogues, ?ocrates plays the role of a .dodger/. (ou must be familiar with ?hakespeare8s use of verbal and dramatic irony in plays such as Romeo and .uliet and +thello. In ?ophocles8 +edipus 9thc4! ' , >edipus promises the citi6ens to punish the murderer of the previous king, not knowing that it is he, in fact, who is the murderer. Irony has gained a high stature as a literary device over the last few centuries. :onathan ?wift8s .+ Modest *roposal/ "=B@' is regarded as the most brilliantly written ironic text. In "#@C, 7homas Hardy published the collection of short stories, *i$es *ittle /ronies. De can find an oblique quality or tone of irony in the works of ;ryden, *ope, ?wift, Ioltaire, <laubert, 7olstoy, :ane +usten, ?amuel 4utler, 7homas Mann, %afka, ,velyn Daugh, :ames :oyce and Henry :ames for their dry observation of human beings and life. Irony thus draws attention to one8s foibles and shortcomings, and aims to purify, reform and refine. <or a more theoretical discussion, you must go through %ierkegaard8s The !oncept o$ /rony "#C"' and Dayne 4ooth8s The Rhetoric o$ /rony "@=C'.

Mimesis 7he idea of mimesis was first introduced by +ristotle in The Poetics 11B4!' where he defended the concept of mimesis as integral to art and literature. 7his was a response to *lato, who in 7he Gepublic 1#34! ' decreed that poets should go into wilderness since their creations are mere imitations , or superficial and subjective. +ccording to *lato, poetry was the mere shadow of reality. In "9#", ?ir *hilip ?idney seconded +ristotle in his The e$ence o$ Poetry. Dalter 4enjamin8s .7he Dork of +rt in the +ge of Mechanical Geproduction/ "@12' is a Marxist take on the idea of mimesis see !hapter B" for details' , and ,rich +uberbach8s (imesis0 The Representation o$ Reality in -estern *iterature "@C2' is an influential text which further develops the idea.

eception Theory .Geception 7heory/ is mainly associated with the works of Hans Gobert Hauss, Dolfgang Iser and %arlhein6 ?tierle. (ou will learn more about Iser later in this chapter'. 7he upshot of this theory is that a literary text should be viewed as partially open, and that a text also constitutes the response of its readers. :auss8 To%ards an Aesthetics o$ Reception "@#B' and Iser8s The Act o$ Reading "@=2' had a farAreaching influence on the readerA response theory and how we as consumers of texts, receive and respond to them. Iser8s Prospecting0 From Reader Response to *iterary Anthropology "@#@' was another worthy addition to the corpus of reception studies. In the concluding lines of Italo !alvino8s /$ +n a -inters &ight a Traveller "@=@', the reader of the novel , who is the protagonist, weds Eudmilla yet another reader'H .Jow you are man an wife, Geader and Geader. + great double bed receives your parallel readings. Eudmilla closes her book, turns off her light, puts her head back against the pillow, and says, .7urn off your light, too. +ren8t you tired of readingF/ p. B39'. 7he reader thus becomes one with the text.

+n important part of reception of books is the way books are published, marketed, distributed, sold, reviewed and make it on the list of .4estAselling/ and .+llAtime -reats/ lists, and receive awards . Gelated to the reception theory is the +merican scholar ?tanley <ish8s concept of InterpretKatLive !ommunity , which says that the text is itself constituted by the preAexisting conventions of the interpretKatLive community. In <rance Goland 4arthes "@"9A#3', gives us the binary distinctions between texts that are lisible or readerly and scriptible or writerly. 7he writerly text is open &ended for example, the works of +lain GobbeA-rillet and the authors of the roman nouveau'$ the readerly texts insist on being understood in only one way. ead oland !arthes" Death of the Author : httpH))evansAexperientialism.freewebspace.com)barthes32.htm

#emiology 7he term literally means .sign./ 7he idea of .semiotics/ was first discussed in :ohn Eocke8s Essay !oncerning #uman Understanding "2@3'. Much of the credit for laying the theoretical principles of semiology is given to the ?wiss linguist, <erdinand de ?aussure and the lectures he delivered "@32A"1', and later published as A General !ourse in *inguistics. 7he term .semiotics/ however, was coined by the +merican philosopher !harles ?anders *eirce who in "#23s was involved in the investigation of the logic of semiotics and signArelations. <or ?aussure, a sign may be a word or some other form. + linguistic sign comprises a soundAimage$ for example, the letters dAoAg spoken or written the signifier' and the object or concept associated with the sound &image the signified'. + structuralist approach therefore focuses on the relationship of individual parts to the larger whole, that is, the structure, within which significance is made possible. ?aussure argues that the sign is essentially relational, and that the relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary. 7his means that any signifier can possibly represent any signified. 7he fact that .dog/ is an animal in ,nglish and its <rench equivalent is .chien/ points out that there is no relationship between the letters dAoAg and a particular animal. ?ince signs are arbitrary, the meaning of any particular sign is determined in terms of similarity and difference in relation to other signs. ?aussure8s binary accounts go as followsH ?ynchronic)diachronicH 7here are two ways of looking at language, historically or ahistoricallyAAAa distinction crucial to the development of structuralism. Eangue)paroleH Eangue denotes the system or totality of language shared by a collective$ parole is the actual use which individuals make of the resources of language. >ne can generate any number of paroles, still langue will never be exhausted. I suggest you read Joam !homsky8s observations on .competence/ and .performance/ for an understanding of a similar dichotomy'. ?ignifier)signifiedH ,ach sign in language is a union of signifier a sound image or its graphic equivalent' and a signified the referent, the concept referred to'. 7he association of signifier and signified is the product of linguistic convention and not of any natural link. ?aussure8s characteri6ation of language as a system of difference is an important element in the field of structuralism and poststructuralism. Iarious areas of inquiry, such as literature, theatre studies and film studies have benefitted from it. )12 "@=3', 4arthes8s structuralist)poststructuralist analysis of Honore de 4al6ac8s

.?arrasine/, and conveys that texts never convey a single meaning but are always subject to multiple meanings and interpretations. Dords are unstable because they have meaning only in relationship to other words, as well as the presence of several intertexts. Iladimir *ropp8s Morphology "@B#' is also indebted to the idea of system of signs$ ?aussure is therefore a major influence on Gussian <ormalism and the *rague ?chool. <or a critique of ?aussure8s ideas on the arbitrariness of the language and its system read Michael Moriarity8s .7he Eongest !ultural :ourneyH Gaymond Dilliams and <rench 7heory./ )ocial Te,t 13 "@@B'H 9=A==.

The following is an excerpt from Jonathan Cullers The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction $1%&1': ?emiotics begins as a critique of the logocentric assumption that concepts exist prior to and independently of their expression. In analy6ing signification ?aussure and his later followers insist that forms and concepts do not exist independently of one another but that the sign consists of the union of a signifier and signifiedMboth signifiers and signifieds are purely relational entities, products of a system of difference. 7o speak of the concept of Nbrown8, for example, is, according to semiotics, a way of referring to a complex network of opposition which articulates the spectrum of colors on the one hand and the spectrum of sound on the other. 7he meaning of brown is not a representation in my mind at the moment of utterance but a space in a complex network of differences. ?emiotics thus takes up the problems of the sign, on which logocentric notions of signification have been based, and gives it a relational or differential interpretation which seems to not only make possible a new type of explanationAAAAstructural explanation in terms of underlying systems of relationAAAAbut also to displace logocentrism. However, as ;errida has shown,M.semiotics does not escape logocentrismH though the source of meanings is no longer a consciousness in which they exist prior to their expression, their source becomes a system of differences which semiotics treats as the necessary condition of any act of signification. !uller, :onathan. The Pursuit o$ )igns, pp. C3AC"'. Disc(ssion 4ased on your own understanding of sign, signfieds, signification and logocentrism, discuss if an escape from logocentrism is possible or not.

)ol*gang Iser Dolfgang Iser "@B2AB33=' through his works .7he Geading *rocessH + *henomenological +pproach/ contained in The /mplied Reader "@=B' and The Act o$ Reading "@=2' has made immense contribution towards the readerAresponse theory. He was a student of the -erman scholar HansA-eorg -adamer, and together with Hans Gobert :auss, Iser became a leading member of the %onstan6 ?chool. Iser8s article for the journal &e% *iterary #istory called .7he Geading *rocessH + *henomenological +pproach/ "@=B' calls for a shift of focus from the text itself to the text plus the actions involved in responding to the text. 7he implied reader is not the actual reader, but instead is a textual construct. 7he real reader is supposed to approximate to the implied reader. <or Iser, reading is a creative process, which fills in .gaps/ in the text and illuminates it from different angles. %ey concepts in Iser areH the readerAresponse theory and indeterminacy.

+m,erto -co Italian semiotician, critic, novelist Omberto ,co "###A"@29' is particularly noted for his interest in a range of topics and his depth of knowledge. His field of investigation includes works from the medieval to the modern period. His works include commentaries on both .high/ as well as .low/ culture. ,co8s seminal works areH A Theory o$ )emiotics "@=2', The Role o$ the Reader "@=@', )emiotics and the Philosophy o$ *anguage "@#C', The *imits o$ /nterpretation "@@3', +n 3eauty B33C' +n Ugliness B33=', just to mention a few. His essay .7owards a ?emiotic Inquiry into the 7elevision Message/ "@=B' is an important study of how viewers actually read and understand what they see. ,co8s contribution towards theory is his approach towards the explanation of codes and sign system at work in cultural productions. <or the title of his celebrated The &ame o$ the Rose "@#1' ,co draws on the wellAknown verse by -ertrude stein, .+ rose is a rose is a rose./ 7his seemingly simple sentence however can be analy6ed at several levels, bringing out the inherent ambiguities in the word .rose./ Interestingly, the title of ,co8s novel too is a misnomer, a sign pointing nowhere. His contribution towards the readerAresponse theory is contained in The Role o$ the Reader which asserts that every reception of a work of art is both an interpretation and a performance of it, which means that in every reception the work invites a fresh perspective on it though these interpretations are infinite'. ,co also uses the term .model reader/ which means that the author and the reader share and understand the same codes. + model reader for ,co is inscribed in the text and is not, strictly speaking, external to the text.

Rea the following extract from !cos The "ame of the Rose # $%&'( which is a seminal wor) of semiotics an a *est+selling fictionH >n a page where the holy -ospel of the apostle Mark began, I was struck by the image of a lion. I was certain it was a lion, even though I had never seen one in the flesh, and the artist had reproduced its features faithfully, inspired perhaps by the sight of the lions of Hibernia, land of monstrous creatures, and I was convinced that this animal, as for that matter the Physiologus says, concentrates in itself all the characteristics of the things at once most horrible and most regal. ?o that image suggested to me both the image of the ,nemy and that of !hrist our Eord, nor did I know by what symbolic key I was to read it, and I was trembling all over, out of fear and also because of the wind coming through the fissures in the walls. 7he lion I saw had a mouth bristling with teeth, and a finely armored head like a serpent8s$ the immense body was supported by four paws with sharp, fierce claws, and its coat resembled one of those rugs that later I saw brought from the >rient, with red and emerald scales on which were drawn, yellow as the plague, horrible and sturdy armatures of bone. +lso yellow was the tail, which twisted from the rump to the head, ending in a fine scroll of black and white turfs. I was already quite awed by the lion and more than once I had looked around as if I expected to see a animal of that description suddenly appear' when I decided to look at other pages and my eye fell, at the opening of the -ospel of Matthew, on the image of a man. I do not know why, but it frightened me more than the lionH the face was a man8s, but this man was sheathed in a kind of stiff chasuble that covered him to his feet, and this chasuble, or cuirass, was encrusted with red and yellow semiprecious stones. 7he head, which emerged

enigmatically from a castle of rubies and topa6es, seemed how blasphemous terror made meP' that of the mysterious murderer whose impalpable trail we were following. +nd then I reali6ed why I linked the animal and the armored man so closely with the labyrinthH both illustrations, like all in that book, emerged from a pattern of interlocking labyrinths, whose lines of onyx and emerald, threads of chrysoprase, ribbons of beryl seemed all to refer to the tangle of rooms and corridors where I was. pp. BC3ABC"'.

Case st(dy +m,erto -co"s ,ntertextual ,ron- an Le.els of Rea ing: Gead the following essay by ,co and understand what is meant by intertextual ironyH The &ame o$ the Rose begins by telling how the author came across an ancient manuscript. De are in full citationism here, since the topos of the rediscovered manuscript is of venerable antiquity, and as a direct consequence we immediately enter the area of double codingH if the reader wants to get access to the story as it is told, he has to accept some quite learned observations as well as a metanarrative technique raised to the nth degree, because not only is the author inventing out of the blue a text that he can dialogue with, but he is presenting it as a nineteenthAcentury, neoA-othic version of the original manuscript, which went back to the end of the fourteenth century. 7he .popular/ reader cannot enjoy the narrative that follows unless he has agreed to this game of !hinese boxes of sources, which confers on the story n aura of ambiguity stemming from the fact that the source is uncertain. 4ut, if you remember, the title on the page that talks about the manuscript is .Jaturally, a Manuscript./ 7hat .Jaturally/ has various resonances, because on the one hand it is intended to stress that we are dealing with a literary topos, and on the other it lays bare an .anxiety of influence,/ since the reference is intended to be at least for an Italian reader' to Man6oni, who begins his novel with a seventeenthAcentury manuscript. How many readers will have grasped or could grasp the various ironic resonances in that .Jaturally/F +nd supposing they have not grasped them, will they still have access to the rest of the story without losing much of its flavorF "ow attempt to answer the following /uestionsH i. Dho is a .popular/ reader in the above contextF

ii. Dhat does .anxiety of influence/ mean hereF iii. Dhat do you understand by the term .intertextual irony/ in the titleF ,co, Omberto. +n *iterature, pp. B"=A"#'.

.+I/
1. 0atch the followingH

i ii ii i

Dolfgang Iser Harold 4loom Goland 4arthes

a The An,iety o$ /n$luence b The Pursuit o$ )igns c To%ard an Aesthetic o$ Reception d The Act o$ Reading e )12

iv Hans Gobert :auss8 v :onathan !uller

B. 1ill in the *lan)sH i. Everyman is an example of anMMMMM ii. Harold 4loom8s MMMMis a study of B2 writers who are authoritative in our culture. iii. MMMM. is wellAknown for his interpretations of popular culture, especially film and television, and has worked on 7he >prah Dinfrey ?how.

Ans0er 1ey "H iAd$ iiAa $ iiiAe $ ivAc $ vAb BH iAallegory$ iiAThe -estern !anon $ iiiA?lavoj Qi6ek

#(ggested readingsH

4elsey, !atherine. Poststructuralism0 A 4ery )hort /ntroduction. >xfordH >O*, B33B. 4loom, Harold. The -estern !anon0 The 3oo5s and )chools o$ the Ages. EondonH MacMillan, "@@9. !alvino, Italo. /$ +n a -inters &ight a Traveller. <loridaH Harcourt *ress, "@#". !uller, :onathan. The Pursuit o$ )igns0 )emiotics" *iterature" %egan *aul, "@#". ,co, Omberto. The &ame o$ the Rose. EondonH Minerva , "@#1. AAAAAAAAAAAAAA+n *iterature. EondonH Iintage, B332. AAAAAAAAA. )emiotics and the Philosophy o$ *anguage. Eondon and 4asingstokeH Macmillan, "@#C. econstruction . Eondon R HenleyH Goutledge R

2o(rnal )ocial Te,t, ;uke Oniversity *ress.

#(ggested 0e,sites:

httpH))www.aber.ac.uk)media);ocuments)?C4)sem3".html httpH))en.wikipedia.org)wiki)GeceptionStheory httpH))www.librarything.com)author)todorovt6vetan httpH))en.wikipedia.org)wiki)7heS+nxietySofSInfluence httpH))muse.jhu.edu)journals)pmc)v3"1)"1.Btofts.html httpH))www.jstor.org)stable)"=="#@2