Introduction to Literary Analysis

A Complete Methodology

Louis Hébert

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2022
• Print ISBN: 9781032017273
• eBook ISBN: 9781000589702
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: Literary Criticism
• Index: Literature

This book provides a complete guide to analyzing literary works, from an introduction of basic principles to the finer details.

Separated into three sections, the book covers:

• Principles—this looks at what literary analysis is, its three main components, and the various possible objects of analysis.

• Main components—introduces nearly 30 aspects of text analysis, such as style, themes, social aspects, and context, and then goes on to introduce nearly 50 approaches, such as literary history, ecocriticism, narratology, and sociology.

• The process of analysis—details the general structure of the analytical text, the structure of a pedagogical essay, the analysis of a theoretical element, possible "plans" for the analytical text, methods of argumentation, statements of opinion, hypotheses, the structure of paragraphs, and the use of citations.

This book is a synthesis of established scholarship with new, original insights, making it an ideal introduction to the study of literature as well as a valuable companion throughout further study.

Part IPrinciples

1Definition of analysis

DOI: 10.4324/9781003179795-3

Broadly speaking, any phenomenon is either an entity (e.g., a human), a characteristic (e.g., this human is tall), a relation (e.g., he is the brother of such and such a person), or an operation (e.g., this human eats). An analysis is an operation that assigns one or more characteristics to an entity (the object) and this characteristic is related to the object (because the object possesses the characteristic).

To analyze any object (e.g., a text, a group of texts, a textual genre, an image) is thus to characterize it, that is, to stipulate that it possesses one or more specific properties (or characteristics). In logical terms, the object is then a subject, while the characteristic is a predicate that is assigned to the subject; the two together make up a proposition (in the logical sense of the term). A proposition is assigned a truth value, which will broadly be one of the following: true, false, or undecidable (when one cannot decide between true and false). The proposition with its assigned truth value is associated with a particular instance, an observing subject, who assumes responsibility for its content.

In the proposition “Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius,” in the context of a scientific article: the subject is water; the predicate is the fact that it boils at 100 degrees Celsius; the truth value is true; and the instance that produces and assumes this proposition is the author of the article. The same principles apply to literary propositions such as “Macbeth is a monster,” “Macbeth is not a monster,” “Hamlet truly loves Ophelia,” and “Hamlet does not truly love Ophelia.”

Analysis is a cognitive operation, but the term “analysis” is also used to refer to a given text belonging to a textual genre that is closely focused on the operation of analysis, that is, the operation of characterization. A given analysis necessarily uses a method, which may be either more or less conscious, explicit, rigorous, relevant, and respected over the course of its application. A method is based on a theory, which may again be either more or less conscious, explicit, rigorous, relevant, and respected. Furthermore, a theory provides an image of the potential methods that can be derived from it, and a method provides an image of the potential applications that can be produced with it.

NOTE: OTHER PRESUPPOSITIONS

A method presupposes a theory. A theory presupposes an epistemology, a conception or theory of scientific knowledge, or at least of rational knowledge. An epistemology presupposes a gnosology, a conception or theory of knowledge in general. Finally, a gnosology presupposes a consciousology, a conception or theory of consciousness (since any knowledge of something presupposes being conscious of this thing). In summary, the chain of presuppositions is as follows: application → method → theory → epistemology → gnosology → theory of consciousness.

The art of analysis consists not only in producing a precise and appropriate characterization, but also in convincing the reader that the characterization is in fact precise and adequate. To assess the value of an analysis, we can ask the questions: what do we know now that we did not know before the analysis, and better still, what do we know now that we could not have known without this particular analysis? In answering this question—especially in cases where the argument is powerful and clear—we should be aware of the hindsight effect, by which we come to believe that a point is so obvious that we did not need this particular analysis to arrive at that conclusion. Furthermore, even if another method (or a different analysis with the same method) could have led to the same result, the fact is that this analysis did so first.

2Components of analysis

DOI: 10.4324/9781003179795-4

2.1 Introduction

I will mainly focus here on the analysis of literary texts, and more specifically on that of literary works (e.g., novels, poems), but my comments may be suitable, either with or without modification, for other forms of literary analysis (the analysis of literary forms, the lives of authors, a text devoted to theory, method, or an application of method, etc.). For a typology of possible objects for a literary analysis, see Chapter 3.

The analysis of semiotic products (e.g., written texts) is achieved through the combination and interaction of the following main components: (1) one or more corpora, (2) one or more approaches, (3) one or more aspects, (4) one or more configurations, and (5) one or more propositions.

1. A corpus, in the broad sense, is made up of one or more semiotic products (e.g., written texts), or parts of these products, chosen either based on the analyst’s personal preference (a self-selected corpus) or based on “objective” criteria (a constructed corpus), which are the object of an analysis. In the narrower sense, it is made up of a complete semiotic product (not only extracts), or group of such products, selected for the desired analysis on the basis of objective, conscious, explicit, rigorous, relevant, and consistently respected criteria (see Chapter 6).

2. The approach is the general method—often already fully constituted (e.g., traditional thematic analysis, narratology)—with which the object of study is viewed. The method, in the broad sense, includes both the particular approach that is adopted and the particular use that is made of it for the analysis of a given object of study (including elements of general methodology in literary analysis). This particular use may modify the approach (by addition, omission, etc.), in its theoretical and/or methodological aspects. The approach—including both the general method associated with it and the other elements of method that are used—thus constitutes the “how” of analysis.

A given discipline may correspond to a general approach (e.g., linguistics, semiotics) and/or to specific approaches (e.g., for linguistics: the syntactic approach, the semantic approach; within semantics: the referential approach, the semic approach; and within semic semantics: Rastier’s approach, Greimas’s approach, etc.). However, a given discipline does not necessarily have a corresponding approach at all (and not necessarily one that can be applied to literary objects of analysis, such as for nuclear engineering), and a given approach does not necessarily have a corresponding discipline (e.g., thematic analysis, deconstruction).

The concept of an “approach” differs from that of a “theory” in that a theory is not necessarily intended for direct application, and not every analysis is necessarily the conscious, explicit, and sustained implementation of a theory. However, as we have seen, every application presupposes a method (even if it is rudimentary, implicit, and not consciously recognized), and every method presupposes a theory (even if it is rudimentary, implicit, and not consciously recognized). For example, in literary studies, a traditional thematic analysis is not strictly speaking based on an explicit theory, and the implicit theory that it uses is itself rudimentary. In short, an approach is a mixture, in varying proportions, of theory and method. Generally, in a given application, one can distinguish between, on the one hand, the approach as a general model and, on the other hand, the adjustments that have been made to adapt it to the analysis of a particular object (e.g., for a given application, one might propose certain adjustments to the traditional thematic approach).

The abstract systematic description of an aspect of the text that has not yet been addressed directly or at any length by an institutionalized approach produces a proto-approach, that is, an approach that is not institutionalized but which may become so (compare narratology in its early days—when it was not yet institutionalized—and narratology today). Note that there are varying degrees of autonomy and institutionalization along the journey from being a proto-approach to being an approach. For example, as an approach, linguistics possesses a high degree of autonomy and institutionalization, with its own linguistic discipline, teaching programs, teaching posts, etc. In contrast, “rhythmology” does not enjoy the same autonomy and institutionalization. Those proto-approaches that do not attain full autonomy are then either subordinated, whether de facto or de jure, to an encompassing approach (e.g., literary rhythmic analysis is de jure part of poetics) and/or dispersed among several approaches (e.g., literary rhythmic analysis within the studies of versification, rhetoric, style, etc.). For a list and summary of possible approaches, see Chapter 5.

3. The aspect is the particular facet of the object of study that is being analyzed. To take a simple example, it is traditionally considered that a text can be divided without remainder (and in principle without overlap, but this is not actually the case) into two parts or two aspects: the content (the themes, in a broad sense) and the form (the way in which the content is presented). An aspect can be broken down into sub-aspects and sub-sub-aspects, etc. This is the case for aspects of content—which can be broken down into topoi (in the sense of conventional stereotypes of content, without any pejorative sense of being over-used, e.g., the topoi of impossible love, peaceful death) and general, non-stereotyped (i.e., unlike topoi) themes (e.g., love, death, freedom)—and also for aspects of form—which can be broken down into tone, rhythm, etc. A given aspect may be treated by only one approach (e.g., the unconscious of the text can be treated only by the psychoanalytic approach) or by several approaches (e.g., wordplay may be treated by stylistics, rhetoric, linguistics, etc.). For a list and summary of possible aspects, see Chapter 4.

4. What I call a “configuration” is the particular element, belonging to the chosen aspect, that is to be targeted for analysis (e.g., “love” is a particular configuration belonging to the thematic aspect of a text). Aspects and configurations are therefore the “what” of the analysis. We must distinguish between configurations and sub-aspects. For example, if we consider that thematic analysis concerns either ordinary themes or topoi (stereotyped themes), then ordinary themes and topoi are sub-aspects of the thematic aspect, but not configurations. On the other hand, the particular topos of the scorned woman as it is deployed in Hamlet is a configuration.

5. What I call a “proposition” is the particular form that the configuration takes in the object of study according to the analyst, a proposition that the analysis must either validate or invalidate. The proposition is the particular “what” that the analysis sets out to prove. For example, “Hamlet is not truly in love with Ophelia” is a proposition pertaining to the configuration of love, which belongs to the aspect of themes. An analysis contains several propositions. The propositions may relate to a single configuration (e.g., the propositions “Hamlet is not truly in love with Ophelia” and “Hamlet would like to truly love Ophelia” relate to the same configuration). The proposition can be stated at the beginning of the analysis, or it can be temporarily delayed by presenting a question (“Is Hamlet truly in love with Ophelia?”) or a matter to be verified (“whether Hamlet is truly in love with Ophelia or not”). In these cases where the proposition is delayed, however, the answer is really already known to the analyst. If one of these propositions is central to the analysis, it can be elevated to the status of a global hypothesis. A proposition is necessarily an answer to a research question or the outcome of the descriptive aims of the analysis. For example: “Does Hamlet love Ophelia?”: yes; “How is the theme of love treated in Hamlet?”: Hamlet loves Ophelia, Claudius loves Gertrude, etc.; “What is the thematic structure of Hamlet?”: love is treated in such and such a way …, death is treated in such and such a way …, etc.

The proposition can therefore be described as “what is said about the ‘what’” (in technical and logical terms, the “what” is the subject and “what is said about it” is the predicate). The proposition is supported by argumentation, which is made up of arguments of varying nature and quantity. Broadly speaking, the text encompasses the aspect, which encompasses the configuration, which encompasses the proposition.

We can distinguish at least 30 major aspects of the text and at least 50 major approaches. There are indefinite, if not infinite, numbers of possible corpora, configurations, and propositions.

2.2 Further information

Let us assume that any object of analysis, including the literary text, can be broken down into aspects (parts, components, facets, levels, dimensions, etc.) and that the various approaches used to analyze this object (analytical grids, models, devices, critical methods, etc.) largely differ from each other according to the aspect that they are aimed at. For example, the psychoanalytic approach, which focuses on the “psychoanalytic” aspect of the text (e.g., the unconscious, defense mechanisms), is very different from the stylistic approach, which analyses the “stylistic” aspect of the text (e.g., stylistic rhetorical figures, deviations and norms). However, two different approaches may focus on precisely or roughly the same aspect (such as traditional thematic analysis and semiotic thematic analysis). Some aspects are not applicable to all literary works and genres (e.g., versification does not apply, with very few exceptions, to the novel or to prose poetry).

It often happens that something that is a sub-aspect in relation to an aspect is also considered an aspect in its own right. For example, since a sign is made up of a signifier (e.g., the letters of a word) and a signified (the semantic content of that word), the signified is considered a sub-aspect in relation to the aspect that is the sign; at the same time, the signified can be seen as an aspect in itself (e.g., it is addressed as an object in its own right by thematic and semantic approaches). Sometimes, an aspect can encompass and exceed another aspect. For example, the analysis of contents encompasses and exceeds that of themes, since not all contents are themes, at least in the traditional sense of the word (e.g., grammatical contents such as singulars and plurals are not usually considered themes).

A given element of a text can be connected to several aspects. For example, the use of capital letters, which is a feature of the graphic and grammatical aspects of the text, can also be connected to semantic and rhetorical phenomena and aspects of the text, such as when the capital letter provides emphasis or serves to personify an entity (which also relates to the symbolic aspect).

A given approach may be valid for only one aspect. Such an approach may claim to be the only one that is able to address that particular aspect, or to be the one that is best suited to doing so. For example, narratology, in principle, aims to address only the narratological dimension of the text; stylistics, in principle, aims to address only the stylistic dimension of the text, for which, in principle, it is the most suitable approach. If the aspects overlap, at least in part, then several approaches may be capable of describing them. For example, we can broadly say that rhetoric is stylistics plus argumentation; it therefore follows that the rhetorical and stylistic approaches can be used to describe the same phenomena (bringing their own perspectives to bear).

Conversely, sometimes a single approach can be used to study several aspects of the text. However, in this case, these distinct aspects can generally be viewed as sub-aspects, encompassed by a single more global aspect. Thus, semiotics, the discipline that, broadly speaking, describes signs, applies both to signifieds (the contents of signs) and to signifiers (the forms that convey those contents), but these two parts constitute sub-aspects of the sign, which ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of contributors
• Introduction
• Part I Principles
• Part II Components of analysis
• Part III Components of the analytical text
• Works cited
• Index