guish between a Romantic concept of reality reproaches of the specialist for his lack of and that of, let us say, a classical concept. knowledge, of the critic for his emphasis on They do not explain the Romantic world history, and of the methodical analyst for epistomologically. They do not explain, for his impressionistic conclusions." example, the difference between a mythical and a metaphysical view of reality. At times, Somewhat paradoxically, it is in the notably when he claims that the "mind loves context of this quotation that Professor to have the feelings aroused," Professor Rafroidi's work may have its greatest value. Rafroidi seems ready to project such an Through the very audacity of his claim that explanation but does not. the politically undefined period (which included Edmund Burke) prior to the A second requirement is the application Emancipation is a prominent part of a of a literary theory which when applied to Romantic period which stressed national­ die period will reveal its essentially literary ism, he has established a goal at which other characteristics and its essentially period scholars of "Irish Literature in English" can characteristics, in this instance Romantic. take aim. Simultaneously, he offers the re­ Unfortunately, Professor Rafroidi does not sults of painstaking and sensitively intel­ assume any particular critical position but, ligent bibliographical work which should rather, moves among several: aesthetic provide those scholars with an excellent be­ (formal), moral, historical, sociological. ginning. These contributions are of great Therefore, we are not offered a consistent significance. measure by which we can determine the literary quality of the period. Ironically, Frank L. Ryan however, the multiplicity of positions works for Rafroidi, allowing him to include, surprisingly, such writers as novelists Wil­ liam Carleton and Maria Edgeworth and statesman-essayist Edmund Burke.

A third requirement is the presence of a sufficiently large and challenging body of JANE P. TOMPKINS, ED. literature to which the literary theory can be applied. Rafroidi struggles heroically Reader-Response Criticism: From here but his stress on Thomas Moore and Formalism to Post-Structuralism James Clarence Mangan almost forces him Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins to that apology often used by enthusiastic University Press, 1980. Pp. 275. defenders of Irish history and culture, namely, that one should not wonder at the $6.95. quantity of Irish literature but be awed that there should be any literature at all. In spite of his enthusiastic appraisal of the litera­ Given the current importance of ture of Ireland's Romantic period, Profes­ response-centered theory, Jane P. sor Rafroidi occasionally slips into state­ Tompkins's collection of essays by Walker ments which suggest that his enthusiasm is, Gibson, Gerald Prince, Michael Riffaterre, at times, forced. There is, for example, his Georges Poulet, Wolfgang Iser, Stanley E. tacit acceptance of Hippolyte Taine's now Fish, Jonathan Culler, Norman N. Holland, out-of-fashion theory of the relationship of David Bleich, and Walter Benn Michaels is, race and literature, implying that whatever indeed, timely and valuable. As Tompkins Ireland produced was in keeping with its points out, although all the essays focus on racial characteristics. In addition, he sees the reader and the reading process, they literature in Ireland as a product of its "represent a variety of theoretical orienta­ attempt to compensate for its impoverished tions: New Criticism, structuralism, political and economic life, an observation phenomenology, psychoanalysis, and de- which comes close to a Freudian view of construction." But despite different al­ literature as sublimation. These and other legiances, the essaysists "are united in one statements suggest that Professor Rafroidi's diing: their opposition to the belief that claims for Irish Romantic literature must be meaning inheres completely and exclu­ read in the context of a statement in the sively in the literary text." Tompkins also Preface, that there is much to be studied indicates that she has arranged the re­ which goes "beyond the scope of the printed material in "roughly chronological individual researcher who, ' in each and order," an arrangement which allows one every field may lay himself open to the to perceive "coherent progression" or "the

162 The International Fiction Review, 8, No. 2 ( 1981 ) drama of the reader's emergence into and its close relative, deconstructive criti­ critical prominence." Actually, Tompkins cism, is their failure to break out of the makes the progression seem a litde more mold into which critical writing was cast by systematic than publication dates allow the formalist identification of criticism with (first reprinted essay, 1950; second, 1973; explication. Interpretation reigns supreme third, 1966, and so on). Of course, all the both in teaching and in publication just as it material is not of equal value: since subjec­ did when New Criticism was in its heyday in tivism is now admissible, I suggest that the 1940s and 1950s." Why? The answer is Prince's "Introduction to the Study of the not as clear as one would like, but Tomp­ Narratee" is pedantic; Poulet's "Criticism kins suggests that "interpretation" has be­ and the Experience of Interiority," repeti­ come a part of the educational establish­ tious; and Bleich's "Epistemological As­ ment. But are all serious students of sumptions in the Study of Response," a literature, formalists or otherwise (for in­ review of scholarship, provokingly tedious. stance, Iser), as preoccupied with "interpre­ On the other hand, the essays by Iser, Fish tation" as Tompkins believes? Her conclud­ (both "Affective Stylistics," no model of ing paragraphs are in the prophetic mode: economy, and "Interpreting the Variorum"), ". . . if, as the post-structuralists claim, Culler, and Holland merit contemplation. reality itself is language-based," we may be Holland's "Unity Identity Text Self is returning to the ancient belief in "language especially readable. Though Iser's "The as a form of power." Reading Process: A Phenomenological Ap­ proach," the final chapter in The Implied In short, Reader-Response Criticism is a Reader (1972) and the chapter reprinted by Tompkins, is representative and does look considerably better-than-average anthol­ forward to Iser's The Act of Reading (1976), ogy- Tompkins's collection would have been a Daniel P. Deneau degree or two more valuable if she had managed to extract crucial sections from the later and, I assume, more influential work. But these are relatively minor de­ murrers.

Even for those already acquainted with the reprinted material, Reader-Response Criticism should be a welcome book. Tomp­ kins opens and closes with lucid essays and SIGBRIT SWAHN appends an excellent annotated bibliog­ Proust dans la Recherche littéraire. raphy (pp. 233-72), divided into "Theoreti­ cal" and "Applied" categories. In her "In­ Problèmes, méthodes, approches troduction to Reader-Response Criticism" nouvelles. she offers a helpful preview of the essays to Études romanes de Lund 27. come; and in "The Reader in History: The Lund: CWK Gleerup (Liber- Changing Shape of Literary Response" (pp. 201-32) she presents a survey of the Läromedel), 1979. Pp. 168. different effects that different ages have thought poetry to achieve (fiction is ig­ nored). In describing periods before the There are many positive things to be said transitional nineteenth century, Tompkins about this study. Sigbrit Swahn has had the uses such words as "power," "utility," "in­ commendable idea of taking an overall view struction," "influence," and "weapon." Her of Proust criticism, discerning the key concluding pages, a subsection entitled issues, diagnosing the differences of ap­ "Formalism and Beyond: The Triumph of proach, suggesting ways in which the dif­ Interpretation," are intensely interesting. ferences might be reconciled. The range of She reflects on the different ways New her reading, in general theory as well as Criticism and reader-response criticism within the field of Proust criticism, is have been or are related to language and impressive. Several of her insights are science, and she insists that, despite major sharp, and several of her individual points differences (objectivity vs. subjectivity), are very well taken. New Criticism and reader-response criti­ cism both "assume that to specify meaning One's enthusiasm is nevertheless tem­ is criticism's ultimate goal." "What is most pered by several factors. On the purely striking about reader-response criticism material level, the book is not very easy to

Brief Mentions 163