Abstract
This paper explores how valuation in theory-driven literary interpretation tends to shift from literature to theory. It starts out by considering the etymology of the term interpret and makes the point that, as its Latin root pretium suggests, at least an attenuated sense of value is part and parcel of interpreting. The paper briefly touches on the drawbacks of current theories of literary value – the institutional view (e. g. by Peter Lamarque and Stein Haugom Olsen), the ideal-critic view (e. g. by Alan Goldman) and the value-maximizing theory (by Stephen Davies) – and finds them all problematic in one way or another. One point that none of them deals with is the move by literary theorists, especially when theory was spelled with a capital ›T‹, to shift valuation from literature to theory, so that literature becomes mere fodder for expounding particular theoretical views.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
