"As teachers and literary critics we have to be able to read tea-leaves as well as texts, including the tea-leaves of the new 'A' Level Specifications. What I read there is a double message, a paradox of intent, if you like. On the one hand (says Paul Norgate of the OCR) 'teachers . . . must be aware of the developing scope of literary studies, and the new emphases which have resulted', while on the other 'the practice of close reading remains central to the study of literature at 'A' Level' (both quotations are from Appendix C to the OCR Specifications). There is a certain ambivalence about literary theory here, and that ambivalence is reflected in what follows."
Paraphrase:
Peter Barry is critical of the new requirements for the a-level literary courses. He thinks that the information given by the OCR is contradictory, in that it neglects the importance of literary theory while at the same time explicitly states that literary teachers must be aware of the up-to-date and shifting focus of such studies. Barry thus thinks there is a general confusion about the importance of literary theory, and in the remainder of his article he therefore tries to explain why it is, in fact, important.
"Firstly, I want to offer a check-list of the kind of operations we perform when we tackle textuality without any particular resort to theory. I will then ask what is missing, and suggest four areas which the traditional approach doesn't quite cover, using a Shakespeare sonnet by way of illustration. This is followed by a brief description of what is meant by deconstructive reading, and the final section an example of such reading is given, using Adrienne Rich's poem 'Transit'."
Paraphrase:
Barry explains that in his demonstration he will start by looking only at non-literary theory metholodgies, and -- considering what is missing -- propose the use of literary theory to fill the gap. He will do this by using a work of Shakespeare. After that, he will explain deconstructive reading, using a work by Adrienne Rich to exemplify.
"Literary theory often intensifies the difficulties of reading, and constantly throws up more problems than it is capable of solving. So why do it? Two reasons come at once to mind. Firstly, the complexities it gets itself knotted up in really are there. And secondly, trying to unravel them is enlightening, and sometimes even fun."
Paraphrase:
Barry acknowledges the complexities and difficulties of literary theory, but concludes with two reasons for using it nevertheless: problems exist that do require complex interpretations, and it can be both rewarding and entertaining.
2. The following passages could be quoted directly:
"Literary criticism can never grow out of them, and they can never be superseded. It's impossible to do English without them. It always was, and it always will be."
"Theory can help us especially in considering four major aspects of the relationship between literature and the world beyond, these being firstly, literature and history, secondly, literature and language, thirdly, literature and gender, and finally, literature and psychoanalysis..."
"the literal and the metaphorical begin to 'deconstruct' each other."
"Instead of being a free-standing literary jewel which we can hold up to the light and scrutinise with our ten principles of interpretation, this little poem suddenly seems to be deeply enmeshed in the history of its time."
"It isn't just a matter of acquiring knowledge: if the allusion is actually there, the it teaches us that we do not understand what the relationship is between literature and history, for if it is an allusion it is very difficult to know what it is doing in the poem: I mean this literally - not just how and why it got there, but what effect it has on the poem."
"Language seems to have a natural tendency to undermine and contradict itself, to be one thing on the surface and another beneath. When a teacher says to a child 'Is that your coat on the floor?' it isn't a question, it's a command: it means 'pick it up'. Reading literature well is often a matter of picking up these counter-currents, these points where language undermines itself, runs against its own grain, carries along its own opposite in its slipstream."
"Deconstructive reading is a kind of dowsing tool which is designed to pick up that counter-current that runs beneath the linguistic surface."
"This notion of the undercurrents and cross-currents of language, then, opens up another area where we seem to need theory; it is the area of the investigation of the relationship between literature and language, and the often strange characteristics of language itself."
"it enables us to think about deconstructive reading, which on the one hand has been a powerful tool in literary theory, but on the other has clear affinities with the kind of intensive close reading which we have always practised."
"The process of deconstructing a text often involves fixing on what looks like an incidental detail - such as a particular word, or a particular metaphor - and then bringing it in from the margin of the text to the centre. In this way the text is 'de-centred' by the reading process, and the overall effect is often perverse, obsessive, manic, or even apparently malevolent towards author and text, reader and literature."
"The close-reader aims to show a unity of purpose within the text: the text knows what it wants to do, and having directed all its means towards this end, it is at peace with itself. By contrast, the deconstructor aims to show that the text is at war with itself, and that it is characterised by disunity rather than unity."
"If we think of the text as a cat, then old-style close reading involves stroking the cat so that it purrs and curls in upon itself contentedly feeling good. Deconstructive reading is like stroking the cat the wrong way, against the grain of the textual fur, so that the cat bristles and hisses, and the whole situation becomes less predictable."
"Literary theory often intensifies the difficulties of reading, and constantly throws up more problems than it is capable of solving. So why do it? Two reasons come at once to mind. Firstly, the complexities it gets itself knotted up in really are there. And secondly, trying to unravel them is enlightening, and sometimes even fun."
3. The article is well-written (regarding both language and style) and it clearly shows the position and intent of the author. Even though the topic as such is quite "heavy", Peter Barry uses many humorous and straightforward examples to make it a pleasant read -- and an interesting and instructive one too! It could perhaps be argued that the main proposal -- that we really do need literary theory -- could be made even more explicit and should be stated from the start, rather than half-way through the essay (after a rather long discussion about close-reading metholodgies). It is nice that Barry reconnects his explanation of literary theory in general and "deconstructive reading" in particular to his initial presentation of "close reading", thus showing that his ideas are not just straggling away aimlessly. The conclusion efficiently sums up the arguments, and the final point -- that literary theory can be great fun -- adds a nice personal touch.
