TIe Fuvsuil oJ Signs Seniolics, Lilevaluve, Beconslvuclion I JonalIan CuIIev

Beviev I CavoI BigoIol

TIe FvencI Beviev, VoI. 56, No. 5 |Apv., 1983), pp. 759-760
FuIIisIed I American Association of Teachers of French
SlaIIe UBL http://www.jstor.org/stable/390918 .
Accessed 17/05/2012 0515
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Association of Teachers of French is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The French Review.
http://www.jstor.org
THE FRENCH
REVIEW,
Vol. LVI, No. 5, April
1983 Printed in U.S.A. THE FRENCH
REVIEW,
Vol. LVI, No. 5, April
1983 Printed in U.S.A.
REVIEWS
Literary History
and Criticism
edited
by
G. Richard Danner
OSBURN,
CHARLES B. Research and Reference Guide to French Studies. 2nd ed.
Metuchen,
N.J.,
and London: The Scarecrow
Press, Inc.,
1981.
Pp.
xxxvii + 532. $31.50.
The first and most
important thing
to
say
about Osburn's new Guide is that it is a
very
useful and convenient list of books and
articles-nearly
6,000
in all-whose
bibliographical
apparatus will,
as the author
says
in his
Introduction,
"provide
a
starting point
for research
in French literature in a
relatively compact
format." It
may
well
also,
as he
hopes,
"stimulate
scholarly inquiry by suggesting
new areas for
investigation."
The
arrangement
and classi-
fication of items is
sensible,
and the indexes seem
adequate
to take care of those
problems
not
easily
solved
by
other means.
With
seemly modesty
and
realism,
Osburn
acknowledges
the
impossibility
of
satisfying
all users of his Guide
concerning
what to include and what to exclude-each scholar has
his
special
interests and
competence.
As constructive
criticism,
I would like to
suggest
improvements
in Osburn's
coverage
of
my
own
field,
the nineteenth
century (though
not
before
noting
the omission of
any
reference to
Perette
du Guillet in the section on the
sixteenth
century).
It is a little unfortunate that
space
is devoted to several dozen authors
unknown to
me,
whereas such
interesting figures
such as the Comtesse
d'Agoult, Aloysius
Bertrand, C6ard, Cousin, Custine, Dierx,
Esquiros, Forneret, Fourier,
the
Guerins,
Lacor-
daire, Murger, Proudhon,
and
Sully
Prudhomme are
entirely
omitted
(and
other dix-
neuviemistes will no doubt find additional
gaps).
Here and there one wonders
why
Osburn has failed to list an
important study
on a
given author,
e.g.,
Levaillant on Anatole France or
any
of the
Twayne books, many
of
which contain
very
useful
bibliographies. Still,
most of the
time,
he is
right
on
target.
The
right way
to
conclude, then,
is to thank the
compiler
for
producing
a
very handy
reference
tool and to
encourage
him to continue both his work of
compilation
and the refinement of
his
technique.
Vanderbilt
University
James S.
Patty
CULLER, JONATHAN.
The Pursuit of
Signs: Semiotics, Literature,
Deconstruction. Ithaca:
Cornell
University Press,
1981.
Pp.
xiii + 242. $15.00.
Jonathan
Culler is well known for
introducing
structuralism to the
English-speaking
public.
His Structuralist Poetics
(1975)
is a vademecum of literature students
today. Now,
in The Pursuit of
Signs,
he
again
demonstrates his
extraordinary capacity
to render
complex
topics comprehensible.
In this book he takes on the vast and sometimes
intimidating
world
of semiotics. With
clarity, intelligence, patience,
and
insight
he
explains
how and
why
semiotics became the vast field of
inquiry
it is
today.
He creates a framework in which the
current debates become
meaningful,
and he
analyzes
some of the
key figures
in the modern
critical arena:
Bloom,
De
Man, Derrida, Fish, Hartman, Hirsch, Jauss, Riffaterre, Ullmann,
and others. For all these reasons, The Pursuit of
Signs
is both a
guide
for the uninitiated
and a
compendium
for the well-versed.
759
REVIEWS
Literary History
and Criticism
edited
by
G. Richard Danner
OSBURN,
CHARLES B. Research and Reference Guide to French Studies. 2nd ed.
Metuchen,
N.J.,
and London: The Scarecrow
Press, Inc.,
1981.
Pp.
xxxvii + 532. $31.50.
The first and most
important thing
to
say
about Osburn's new Guide is that it is a
very
useful and convenient list of books and
articles-nearly
6,000
in all-whose
bibliographical
apparatus will,
as the author
says
in his
Introduction,
"provide
a
starting point
for research
in French literature in a
relatively compact
format." It
may
well
also,
as he
hopes,
"stimulate
scholarly inquiry by suggesting
new areas for
investigation."
The
arrangement
and classi-
fication of items is
sensible,
and the indexes seem
adequate
to take care of those
problems
not
easily
solved
by
other means.
With
seemly modesty
and
realism,
Osburn
acknowledges
the
impossibility
of
satisfying
all users of his Guide
concerning
what to include and what to exclude-each scholar has
his
special
interests and
competence.
As constructive
criticism,
I would like to
suggest
improvements
in Osburn's
coverage
of
my
own
field,
the nineteenth
century (though
not
before
noting
the omission of
any
reference to
Perette
du Guillet in the section on the
sixteenth
century).
It is a little unfortunate that
space
is devoted to several dozen authors
unknown to
me,
whereas such
interesting figures
such as the Comtesse
d'Agoult, Aloysius
Bertrand, C6ard, Cousin, Custine, Dierx,
Esquiros, Forneret, Fourier,
the
Guerins,
Lacor-
daire, Murger, Proudhon,
and
Sully
Prudhomme are
entirely
omitted
(and
other dix-
neuviemistes will no doubt find additional
gaps).
Here and there one wonders
why
Osburn has failed to list an
important study
on a
given author,
e.g.,
Levaillant on Anatole France or
any
of the
Twayne books, many
of
which contain
very
useful
bibliographies. Still,
most of the
time,
he is
right
on
target.
The
right way
to
conclude, then,
is to thank the
compiler
for
producing
a
very handy
reference
tool and to
encourage
him to continue both his work of
compilation
and the refinement of
his
technique.
Vanderbilt
University
James S.
Patty
CULLER, JONATHAN.
The Pursuit of
Signs: Semiotics, Literature,
Deconstruction. Ithaca:
Cornell
University Press,
1981.
Pp.
xiii + 242. $15.00.
Jonathan
Culler is well known for
introducing
structuralism to the
English-speaking
public.
His Structuralist Poetics
(1975)
is a vademecum of literature students
today. Now,
in The Pursuit of
Signs,
he
again
demonstrates his
extraordinary capacity
to render
complex
topics comprehensible.
In this book he takes on the vast and sometimes
intimidating
world
of semiotics. With
clarity, intelligence, patience,
and
insight
he
explains
how and
why
semiotics became the vast field of
inquiry
it is
today.
He creates a framework in which the
current debates become
meaningful,
and he
analyzes
some of the
key figures
in the modern
critical arena:
Bloom,
De
Man, Derrida, Fish, Hartman, Hirsch, Jauss, Riffaterre, Ullmann,
and others. For all these reasons, The Pursuit of
Signs
is both a
guide
for the uninitiated
and a
compendium
for the well-versed.
759
In Part 1 Culler
maps
out the
terrain;
introduces
Saussure, Peirce,
and
Levi-Strauss; and,
as he had done in Structuralist
Poetics, explains
some
key concepts (langue/parole,
synchronic/diachronic, paradigmatic/syntagmatic).
In this section he also deals with Der-
ridean deconstruction and with the
question
of
interpretation.
One of the
important
distinctions Culler makes is between a
critic,
who seeks to
interpret
texts,
and a
semiotician,
who studies the nature of the codes that make
literary
communication
possible.
In Part 2 Culler studies two other
issues, intertextuality
and
reader-response,
and
confronts
specific
critics-Riffaterre and
Fish-identifying
what he sees as contradictions
in their theories. Culler
reproaches
Riffaterre for
attempting
two irreconcilable
enterprises.
As a
semiotician,
Riffaterre sees literature as
open-ended
and
investigates
the
processes by
which readers
interpret poems.
At the same
time, however,
he succumbs
(in
Culler's
view)
to the
temptation
to
interpret, scrutinizing
works as if
they
were
puzzles, waiting
to be
solved
by uncovering
the
key,
the matrix. Culler also finds contradiction in
Stanley
Fish,
who maintains that the
meaning
of a work lies in the interaction between reader and text
but fails to
study
the
complexities
of the act of
reading.
Part 3 consists of five rather
separate, previously published essays.
One,
on
story
and
discourse in the
novel,
is useful for
situating
current ideas on
narratology.
Others deal with
apostrophe, metaphor,
and the mirror
stage.
Culler's
concluding chapter
addresses the
question
of how best to teach
literary theory
in Ph.D.
programs. Underlying
this
chapter,
and indeed the entire
book,
is an effort to debunk what Culler
perceives
as the insidious
legacy
of New Criticism, i.e., "the
widespread
and
unquestioning acceptance
of the notion
that the critic's
job
is to
interpret literary
works." Culler's is an
explicitly
tendentious
position,
best
expressed
in his own words: "while the
experience
of literature
may
be an
experience
of
interpreting works,
in fact the
interpretation
of individual works is
only
tangentially
related to the
understanding
of literature. To
engage
in the
study
of literature
is not to
produce yet
another
interpretation
of
King
Lear but to advance one's
understanding
of the conventions and
operations
of an
institution,
a mode of discourse." One
recognizes
here some of the
key
presuppositions
of
structuralism, namely,
that
by describing literary
phenomena
and
refraining
from
interpretation
one can
develop
a model for
"objective"
criticism. This
presupposition
also informs Culler's
conception
of
pedagogy. According
to
him, professors
should teach the
relationship
between literature and other forms of
discourse
(philosophical, psychological, mythical, historical, autobiographical)
as a
way
of
showing literary
works not as "monuments of a
specialized high
culture but as
powerful,
elegant, self-conscious,
or
perhaps self-indulgent
manifestations of common
patterns
of
sense-making."
As an introduction, a
commentary,
and a
provocation,
The Pursuit of
Signs
is an
eminently sense-making
book.
Princeton
University
Carol
Rigolot
ROUSEET, JEAN. Leurs
yeux
se recontrerent: La Scene de
premiere
vue dans le roman. Paris:
Jos6 Corti,
1981.
Pp.
217.
De
l'esprit
d'un vaste
periode
a un
simple
"motif"
romanesque
en
passant par
des
structures
poly- puis monogeneriques,
c'est
pourtant
faussement
que
l'attention
critique
de Jean Rousset semble
peu
a
peu
retrecir son
champ.
En
effet,
si la scene de
premiere
vue
est un detail, elle est aussi centrale au roman occidental
que
le
pinceau
leve l'est aux
Menines de
Velasquez.
Nous sommes d'ailleurs invites a un
voyage,
mieux, a
de
multiples
va-et-vient dans le
temps qui
nous
menent,
avec la
grace
de la curiosit6 et celle de
In Part 1 Culler
maps
out the
terrain;
introduces
Saussure, Peirce,
and
Levi-Strauss; and,
as he had done in Structuralist
Poetics, explains
some
key concepts (langue/parole,
synchronic/diachronic, paradigmatic/syntagmatic).
In this section he also deals with Der-
ridean deconstruction and with the
question
of
interpretation.
One of the
important
distinctions Culler makes is between a
critic,
who seeks to
interpret
texts,
and a
semiotician,
who studies the nature of the codes that make
literary
communication
possible.
In Part 2 Culler studies two other
issues, intertextuality
and
reader-response,
and
confronts
specific
critics-Riffaterre and
Fish-identifying
what he sees as contradictions
in their theories. Culler
reproaches
Riffaterre for
attempting
two irreconcilable
enterprises.
As a
semiotician,
Riffaterre sees literature as
open-ended
and
investigates
the
processes by
which readers
interpret poems.
At the same
time, however,
he succumbs
(in
Culler's
view)
to the
temptation
to
interpret, scrutinizing
works as if
they
were
puzzles, waiting
to be
solved
by uncovering
the
key,
the matrix. Culler also finds contradiction in
Stanley
Fish,
who maintains that the
meaning
of a work lies in the interaction between reader and text
but fails to
study
the
complexities
of the act of
reading.
Part 3 consists of five rather
separate, previously published essays.
One,
on
story
and
discourse in the
novel,
is useful for
situating
current ideas on
narratology.
Others deal with
apostrophe, metaphor,
and the mirror
stage.
Culler's
concluding chapter
addresses the
question
of how best to teach
literary theory
in Ph.D.
programs. Underlying
this
chapter,
and indeed the entire
book,
is an effort to debunk what Culler
perceives
as the insidious
legacy
of New Criticism, i.e., "the
widespread
and
unquestioning acceptance
of the notion
that the critic's
job
is to
interpret literary
works." Culler's is an
explicitly
tendentious
position,
best
expressed
in his own words: "while the
experience
of literature
may
be an
experience
of
interpreting works,
in fact the
interpretation
of individual works is
only
tangentially
related to the
understanding
of literature. To
engage
in the
study
of literature
is not to
produce yet
another
interpretation
of
King
Lear but to advance one's
understanding
of the conventions and
operations
of an
institution,
a mode of discourse." One
recognizes
here some of the
key
presuppositions
of
structuralism, namely,
that
by describing literary
phenomena
and
refraining
from
interpretation
one can
develop
a model for
"objective"
criticism. This
presupposition
also informs Culler's
conception
of
pedagogy. According
to
him, professors
should teach the
relationship
between literature and other forms of
discourse
(philosophical, psychological, mythical, historical, autobiographical)
as a
way
of
showing literary
works not as "monuments of a
specialized high
culture but as
powerful,
elegant, self-conscious,
or
perhaps self-indulgent
manifestations of common
patterns
of
sense-making."
As an introduction, a
commentary,
and a
provocation,
The Pursuit of
Signs
is an
eminently sense-making
book.
Princeton
University
Carol
Rigolot
ROUSEET, JEAN. Leurs
yeux
se recontrerent: La Scene de
premiere
vue dans le roman. Paris:
Jos6 Corti,
1981.
Pp.
217.
De
l'esprit
d'un vaste
periode
a un
simple
"motif"
romanesque
en
passant par
des
structures
poly- puis monogeneriques,
c'est
pourtant
faussement
que
l'attention
critique
de Jean Rousset semble
peu
a
peu
retrecir son
champ.
En
effet,
si la scene de
premiere
vue
est un detail, elle est aussi centrale au roman occidental
que
le
pinceau
leve l'est aux
Menines de
Velasquez.
Nous sommes d'ailleurs invites a un
voyage,
mieux, a
de
multiples
va-et-vient dans le
temps qui
nous
menent,
avec la
grace
de la curiosit6 et celle de
FRENCH REVIEW FRENCH REVIEW 760 760