Brooks, Todorov, Foucalt: Literary Debates & Dialogues

Cleanth Brooks, ‘The Heresy of Paraphrase’: Why does Brooks think that paraphrase is problematic in terms of analysing literature? 

Literature, according to Brooks, has become vulnerable to the effects of paraphrase. As part of the 20th century movement of new criticism, this theorist observed literary texts being subjected to a conversion from the effects of paraphrase. This conversion lost sight of literature's centrality or in Brook’s terms the ‘organic unity’ specifically within poetry. The ‘heresy’ in which Brooks infers, relates to the separation of modern literary paraphrases and form. His appreciation of the intricacies of literature cannot be fulfilled by paraphrased work as it loses the original form/meaning despite its intentions to only alter the content. As a formalist critic, Brooks’ principle of the ‘organic unity’ conveys the literary text as a whole including its style, structure, tone and most significantly its ability to transcend culture and time. Brooks’ ‘The Well-Wrought Urn’ closely captures the timelessness from the poetry of Shakespeare, Keats etc. Analysing these numerous literary texts identified that poetry was far greater and complex when relying on the form rather than its content; the form of the text has the ability to convey meaning when paraphrase is disregarded. Within the content, determining the meaning through prose is ineffective, if not involving the inter-connection of imagery, tone and other formal elements. Paraphrased content is distracted by maintaining statements, it ignores the core meaning of the poem. Brooks identifies that ‘the “prose sense” of the poem is not a rack on which the stuff of the poem is hung: that it does not represent the “inner” structure or the “essential” […] “real” structure of the poem’. (p.182). Here, there is a clear impossibility with obtaining the poetic truth through prose, only through linking form can there be clarity, yet paraphrase threatens the essentialism of form. Expanding on the idea of ‘organic unity’, the harmonious literary work as a whole is the only open source for meaning and interpretation. The reader will only identify the core of the text upon completing their own initial read, rather than a revised statement/summary. ‘In other words, since they refuse to rank poems by their messages, he assumes that they are compelled to rank them on their formal embellishments’. (p.180). The summaries Brooks refers to ignore the form and focus on the content to present a clear view of the literary work however, the lack of complexity fails to distinguish what the text is truly about.

Tzvetan Todorov, ‘Structural Analysis of Narrative’: What does Todorov mean by ‘the structure and operation of […] literary discourse’ (p. 71) and how does his analysis of the Decameron illustrate this?

Todorov’s analysis aims to unify the whole of the literary discourse under one structural narrative device. Structure within literature follows alternative routes and methods, yet Todorov examines a singular aspect of the narrative structure which is present within each literary form through his study of the Decameron. This collection of 14th century Italian stories, though different in terms of the content, each share structural similarities indicating the clear link of all forms of literature. Despite cultural, philosophical, social and ethical differences across the literary discourse, Todorov’s narrative theory works universally across all media, acknowledging the plots inevitable shifts in equilibriums. Beyond Todorov’s most distinguished theory, other categories of plot were manifested in terms of examining the plot and its devices which include concepts of sentence structure, clauses and sequences. Unlike Brooks, Todorov is interested in producing a dignified, scientific formulation to determine similarities in plots and links to certain devices. Todorov focuses on identifying the meaning behind the use of certain plots through a schematic formula which questions Brooks’ ideas that the literary discourse should not be unlocked by algebraic methods or subjected to a calculated concept. However, Todorov observes a wide array of texts, finding comparisons that assist with the examination of the narrative structure. This is the operation of the literary discourse. The dynamics of the thought/point hierarchies are fundamentally reliant on the point (content) of the discourse. ‘It is rather a question of establishing a hierarchy: literature must be understood in its specificity, as literature, before we seek to determine its relation with anything else’. (p.71). So, the text itself and its structural aspects must be understood before the overall thoughts involving cultural and social impacts are analysed.

Yet, it remains significant that the ‘virtual’ aspect of literature - the hidden meanings behind the literary discourse - are also important in connecting all texts rather than specifically interpreting individual texts. The Decameron depicts the shifts in culture, society in some stories and then religion, nature and the individual self in others; Todorov’s claims of finding these connections can be raised against the whole of the literary discourse therefore enough similar plot or character elements demonstrate the ‘virtual’ literature; its underlying form.

Michel Foucault, ‘What is an Author?’: What does Foucault mean by ‘the “author” as a function of discourse’ (p. 124)? 

Foucalt’s ‘author function’ relates to the relationship between the discourse and the writer. The author is embedded into their literary work despite usually being outside of the world of the piece; the author ‘remains at the contours of the text’. (p.123). Foucalt’s study embellishes this purpose within a text, bring the authors presence at the forefront of all literary discourse. This post-structuralist critic associates the author with four main principles to regard its function. The first principle of the function relies on a system of social control – the author takes ownership of their words and therefore, held accountable for unrefined writing. Criticism controls this; a bad writer will be subjected to social transgressions, allowing the discourse to be punished. Foucalt also mentions the prevention of copyrighted discourse with the author - he states that there is a ‘legal codification’ – the author consciously is aware of the legal system beyond what they write, essentially, what they own. An author’s literary discourse acts as property, meaning the author functions within a social system. Another function of the author according to Foucalt is the verification of the author. Depending on the content of discourse, the reliability, appreciation and status of the author alters. Different discourses determine the way the author is validated by a particular subject or culture. Foucalt acknowledges cultures dismissal of the authors identity in earlier stages of literature ‘Their anonymity was ignored because their real or supposed age was a sufficient guarantee of their authenticity’. (p.125). As a modern critique, Foucalt realises ‘in our day, literary works are totally dominated by the sovereignty of the author’. (p.126). The third principle of the function involves modern literary criticisms effect on the author. It’s an immensely complex process that doesn’t necessarily derive from the author once they’ve formed literary discourse in a spontaneous way. Through aspects clearly refining expression where the thoughts of the author are valid, the discourse undergoes a formation. Conclusively, the function is never spontaneous or automatic, the author constructs itself with creative power. The final quality significant to the author function is Foucalt’s approach to the ‘second self’. The voice of the text having stemmed from the author into the world of the text. Often, the speaker, of poetry in particular, can be anonymous yet still presenting first person pronouns – Foucalt’s infers that this is ‘characterized by the plurality of egos’. (p.130). The author contains multiple selves in subjected positions throughout the process of discourse.

Bibliography
Todorov, Tzvetan, ‘Structural Analysis of Narrative’, Novel: A Forum on Fiction, 3.1 (1969), <https://www.jstor.org/stable/1345003> [accessed 15 October 2019] pp. 70-76
Brooks, Cleanth, ‘The Well Wrought Urn’ (Dennis Dobson, 1949) pp.176-196
Foucalt, Michel, ‘What is an Author?’, Language counter-memory practice: selected essays and interviews, (N.Y: Cornell University Press), pp.113-138