Until relatively recently, in the English-speaking world at least, ordinary readers of literature and even professional literary critics had no reason to trouble themselves about developments in literary theory.Theory seemed a rather rarefied specialism which concerned a few individuals in literature departments who were, in effect, philosophers pretending to be literary critics. Discussions about literature, whether book reviews in the press, or in arts magazines on radio and television, were addressed to the ordinary reader. Most critics assumed, like Dr Johnson, that great literature was universal and expressed general truths about human life, and that therefore readers required no special knowledge or language. Critics talked comfortable good sense about the writer's personal experience, the social and historical background of the work, the human interest, imaginative 'genius', and poetic beauty of great literature. In other words, criticism spoke about literature without disturbing our picture of the world or of ourselves as readers. Then at the end of the 1960s, things began to change.

During the past twenty years or so students of literature have been troubled by a seemingly endless series of challenges to the consensus of common sense, many of them deriving from European (and especially French and Russian) intellectual sources. To the Anglo-Saxon tradition, this was a particularly nasty shock. 'Structuralism', for example, hit the headlines when Colin MacCabe failed to obtain a tenured appointment at Cambridge University in 1980. The protests of the structuralists and their allies at Cambridge alerted the quality papers to the existence of an intruder in the bed of Dr Leavis's alma mater. The Times Literary Supplement duly published a special number on the scandal and its intellectual background. Most general readers of the newspaper accounts must have emerged more confused about 'structuralism' than they were before the 'MacCabe affair' gave the theorists a chance to explain themselves to the public. To be told that there was a touch of Marxism about MacCabe's structuralism, that his approach to structuralism was really a poststructuralist critique of structuralism, and that the main influence on his work was the psychoanalytic structuralism of the French writer Jacques Lacan only confirmed ingrained prejudices.

Raman Selden decided to undertake the daunting task of writing a reader's guide to this subject mainly because he believed that the questions raised by modern literary theory were important enough to justify the effort of clarification. Many readers now feel that the conventional contemptuous dismissal of theory will not do. They would like to know exactly what they are being asked to reject. Inevitably any attempt to put together a brief summation of complex and contentious concepts will drain much of the blood from the body of a theory, and leave it even more vulnerable to the teeth of sceptics. However, we have assumed that the reader is interested and curious about the subject, and therefore ready to accept lightly seasoned fare as a preparation for the more authentic and pungent flavours of the original theories. We acknowledge that we have perpetrated some gross over-simplifications in an attempt to say much in little, and hope that the reader will not be seriously misled by such unavoidable compressions and sweeping generalisations. We provide at the end of each section graded 'further reading' to enable the reader to follow up particular approaches at various levels of difficulty.

Why should we trouble ourselves about literary theory? Can we not simply wait for the fuss to die down? The signs are that the graft of theory has taken rather well, and may remain intact for the foreseeable future. New journals have been launched, new courses established, conferences are devoted to theoretical questions, and it is already clearly apparent that this new critical self-awareness is manifesting itself in the newer generations of secondary and tertiary teachers of literature. How does all this affect our experience and understanding of reading and writing? First, an emphasis on theory tends to undermine reading as an innocent activity. If we ask ourselves questions about the construction of meaning in fiction or the presence of ideology in poetry, we can no longer naively accept the 'realism' of a novel or the 'sincerity' of a poem. Some readers may cherish their illusions and mourn the loss of innocence, but, if they are serious readers, they cannot ignore the deeper issues raised by the major literary theorists in recent years. Secondly, far from having a sterile effect on our reading, new ways of seeing literature can revitalise our engagement with texts. Of course, if one has no desire to reflect upon one's reading, literary criticism of any sort will have little to offer. Alternatively, readers may believe that theories and concepts will only deaden the spontaneity of their response to literary works. They may not realise that no discourse about literature is theory-free, that even apparently 'spontaneous' discussion of literary texts is dependent on the de facto (if less self-conscious) theorising of older generations. Their talk of 'feeling', 'imagination', 'genius', 'sincerity' and 'reality' is full of dead theory which is sanctified by time and has become part of the language of common sense. If we are to be adventurous and exploratory in our reading of literature, we must also be adventurous in our thinking about literature.

One can think of the various literary theories as raising different questions about literature. Theories may ask questions from the particular point of view of the writer, of the work, of the reader, or of what we usually call 'reality', although most will, in effect, also involve aspects of the other approaches. The following diagram of linguistic communication, devised by Roman Jakobson, helps to distinguish the various viewpoints:

An addresser sends a message to an addressee; the message uses a code (usually a language familiar to both addresser and addressee); the message has a context (or 'referent') and is transmitted through a contact (a medium, such as live speech, a telephone, or writing). For the purposes of discussing literature, the 'contact' is usually now the printed word (except in drama or 'performance poetry'); and so we may restate the diagram thus:

If we adopt the addresser's viewpoint, we draw attention to the writer and his or her 'emotive' or 'expressive' use of language; if we focus on the 'context', we isolate the 'referential' use of language and invoke its historical dimension at the point of its production; if we are principally interested in the addressee, we study the reader's 'reception' of the 'message', hence introducing a different historical context (no longer the moment of a text's production but of its reproduction), and so on. The different literary theories also tend to place an emphasis upon one function rather than another. Taking some of the dominant theories of our time, we might place them diagrammatically as follows:

Romantic-humanist theories emphasise the writer's life and mind as expressed in his or her work; 'reader-criticism' (phenomenological criticism) centres itself on the reader's, or 'affective', experience; formalist theories concentrate on the nature of the writing itself in isolation; Marxist criticism regards the social and historical context as fundamental, though it must be added that Western Marxists do not hold a strictly referential view of language; and structuralist poetics draws attention to the codes we use to construct meaning. At their best none of the approaches totally ignores the other dimensions of literary communication. For example, in Marxist criticism, the writer, the audience, and the text are all included within a generally sociological perspective. Feminist criticism, it may significantly be noted, is not given a place in our diagram because its project by definition is to attempt a global reinterpretation and redeployment of all approaches as an aspect of a revolutionary sexual politics. And that word 'politics', which feminism has here foregrounded, is a key term in understanding theory in general and its specific present manifestations. We will return to it briefly in a moment.

(. . .)

Developments in critical theory and practice have diversified in geometric progression since Raman Selden was first brave enough to write this book. Revised editions, including the present one, have attempted to keep up with this profusion - witness here the separation out of a new chapter on 'Post- modernism' from the one on 'Poststructuralism' ; the inclusion of a preliminary section on postcolonial theory; and the extensive but still no doubt inadequate revision of the chapter on feminist criticism. But all such attempts are doomed to failure -because to some they will be partial (in both senses), tendentious, exclusive, wrong-headed or whatever. For example, it has already been pointed out to me that the book will inevitably be seen to be -indeed is -ethnocentric and homophobic, and the absences and naturalised prejudicial emphases are, I am afraid, readily apparent: little if anything on African-American, Asian, Caribbean or black British theory -especially in relation to feminism; nothing on queer theory or lesbian theory, and so on. Perhaps a still later edition will be able to overcome this one's inadequacy and accommodate these dynamic manifestations of postmodem theoretical fission.

But this is indeed the point which begins to emerge from the gap between the moment when Ray Selden began in 1985 and the moment of revision now: 'theory', even 'literary theory', can no longer be usefully regarded as a progressively emerging body of work, evolving through a series of definable phases or 'movements' - of delivery, critique, advancement, reformulation and so on. This appeared to be the case -no doubt it was never true -in the later 1970s and very early 1980s, when the 'moment of theory' seemed to have arrived and there was a danger even to those enthusiastically participating in it that a new academic subject, even a new scholasticism -radical and subversive, yes, but also potentially exclusive in its abstraction - was emerging. Books poured from the presses, conferences abounded, 'theory' courses on undergraduate degree pro- grammes became de rigeur, MAs proliferated, and residual notions of 'practice' and of 'the empirical' had to be defined and defended very carefully and exactly. To me, such a 'moment of theory' seems no longer to obtain -whether because it paradoxically coincided with the rise to power of the new right, whether because in a postmodern world it could not by definition survive in a more or less unitary state, or whether it contained, as itself a postmodern creature, the catalysing agents for its own dispersal, I could not confidently say. But a change has occurred -a change very different to that increasingly abstract and self-obsessed intellectual field the first edition of this book felt itself just about able to describe and contain. The moment of theory has instead spawned a hugely diverse tribe of praxes, or theorised practices, at once self-conscious about their project and representing forms of political action in the cultural domain at least. This is in particular the case with the various critical theories and practices which focus on gender and sexuality, and with those which seek to deconstruct ethno- and Eurocentricity. (. . .) 

The lesson that has been learnt from the theoretical debates of the past twenty years, and learnt not only by radicals but also by some of those who wish to defend more conventional or traditionally humanistic positions and approaches, is that no literary-critical activity is not underpinned by theory; that the theory, whatever it may be, represents an ideological -if not expressly political- attitude; that it is more effective, if not more honest, to have a praxis which is explicitly theorised than to operate with naturalised and unexamined assumptions; that theoretical praxis may be tactical and strategic rather than seemingly philosophically absolute; that 'theory' is no longer awesome (although still 'difficult'); and that it is to be put to use rather than studied for its own sake.

The demystification of theory, then -which has resulted in the great plurality of theorised praxes for specific interests and purposes -allows us to be rather more self-questioning about it. How far is it appropriate to force the autonomous study of critical theory onto every undergraduate literature course? Is theory something which can, in fact, be studied as though it were a separate philosophical genre? Is there ever a universally applicable theory? Do we need to comprehend the informing philosophical history of a critical position or practice? How far is a 'theory' often no more than a technique? Are particular theories tied, in effect, to particular kinds of text or to particular periods - will the same theory be usefully applicable to Renaissance and to Romantic literature, to a poem and to a novel? How far and with what justification does a theoretical position 'rewrite' or transform its object of study? All such questions demand answers in particular contexts and are part of a properly pragmatic politics in the field of cultural study. (. . .)

GENERAL READING

Atkins, G. Douglas and Morrow, Laura (eds), Contemporary Literary Theory (Macmillan, Basingstoke and London, 1989).

Coyle, Martin, Garside, Peter, Kelsall, Malcolm and Peck, John (eds), Encyclopaedia of Literature and Criticism (Routledge, London, 1990). Among its 100 essays on 'English Literature' are many which introduce categories of criticism to be found in the present volume.

Eagleton, Terry, Literary Theory: An Infroduction (Blackwell, Oxford, 1983).

Hawthorn, Jeremy, Unlocking The Text: Fundamental Issues in Literary Theory (Arnold, London, 1987).

Hawthorn, Jeremy (ed.), A Glossary of Contemporary Literary Theory (Arnold, London, 1992). Also A Concise Glossary of Contemporary Literary Theory in paperback. Useful, dictionary-like reference books.

Jefferson, Ann and Robey, David (eds), Modern Literary Theory: A Comparative Introduction (Batsford, London, 2nd edn, 1986).

Newton, Ken (ed.), Theory into Practice: A Reader in Modern Criticism (MacmilIan, Basingstoke and London, 1992). A collection of practical 'applications' of critical theories. See also Newton's 'Reader' of theory below.

Selden, Raman, Practising Theory and Reading Literature: An Introduction, (Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, 1989).

Tallack, Douglas (ed.), Literary Theory at Work: Three Texts (Batsford, London, 1987). Theory applied to specific literary works.

Webster, Roger, Studying Literary Theory: An Introduction (Arnold, London, 1990). Has all the advantages and disadvantages of being a really short 'Introduction'..

Davis, Robert Con and SchIeifer, Ronald (eds), Contemporary Literary Criticism: Literary and Cultural Studies: 1900 to the Present (Longman, London and New York, 2nd edn, 1989).

Lambropoulos, v. and Miller, D. N. (eds), Twentieth-Century Literary Theory: An Introductory Anthology (State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, 1987). Concentrates on New Criticism and Russian and Czech Formalism.

Lodge, David (ed.), Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism (Longman, London and New York, 1972). Mainly pre-1960 material.

Lodge, David (ed.), Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader (Longman, London and New York, 1988). Authoritative on most post-1960 theories.

Newton, K. M. (ed.), Twentieth-Century Literary Theory (Macmillan, Basingstoke and London, 1988).

Rice, Philip and Waugh, Patricia (eds), Modern Literary Theory: A Reader (Arnold, London, 2nd edn, 1992). Helpful introductions to the sections and extracts.

Rylance, Rick (ed.), Debating Texts: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Literary Theory and Method (Open University, Milton Keynes, 1987).

Selden, Raman (ed.), The Theory of Criticism from Plato to the Present: A Reader (Longman, London and New York, 1988). Extracts from contemporary theories placed in historical context.

Walder, Dennis (ed.), Literature in the Modern World (Oxford University Press with the Open University, Oxford, 1990). Interestingly structured collection of 'documents' and critical essays ranging right across the field.