Journal of Literary Theory (JLT)

Piskorski, Rodolfo; Universität Würzburg

Of Zoogrammatology as a Positive Literary Theory [Abstract]

Butter, Michael

 1 
Michael Butter 
Short, but not always sweet 
 Mary Klages, Key Terms in Literary Theory. London: Continuum 2012. 132 pp. 
[Price: EUR 18,14]. ISBN: 978-0826442673. 
Mary Klages’s Key Terms in Literary Theory is intended as a companion piece to her Literary 
Theory: A Guide for the Perplexed (2006), both of which are geared at first- or second-year 
students coming into touch with literary theory for the very first time. As she explains in the 
introduction, guides like the earlier book »don’t yield information quickly or concisely; they 
are more like textbooks you read for detailed information.« The new book, by contrast, is sup-
posed to be »different. It is the one you pick up when you come across an unfamiliar term in 
another resource, and you want an understandable definition, or you encounter a name you 
don’t recognize« (1). And, indeed, Klages generally does a good job explaining complex con-
cepts to newcomers to literary theory in a brief and very down-to-earth manner. 
The book, which is only about 130 pages long, is divided into three parts. Moving from abjec-
tion to value, the longest part, »Key Terms and Concepts« (3–89), provides definitions of terms 
and concepts related to the most important literary theories of the twentieth and twenty-first 
centuries. As is to be expected of a book in English, there is a certain bias toward theories 
developed in the UK and the US, but continental approaches also figure prominently. The sec-
ond part, »Major Figures« (90–117), features short biographical sketches of prominent figures 
in the field, beginning with Adorno and ending with Ẑiẑek. The final part, »Important Works« 
(118–24), does not, as one might expect, list works of literary theory by these figures but pro-
vides an overview of introductory guides, anthologies and studies of individual theorists (whose 
works are listed in the second part anyway). 
Most of the definitions offered in part one are indeed short and precise. Seldom running longer 
than half a page, they offer students enough information to get a first understanding of the issues 
at stake while not burdening them with too much information. Moreover, Klages goes to great 
lengths to keep things as simple as possible. Sentences rarely run for more than three lines and 
are seldom as convoluted as they so often are in other books of the same type (especially those 
written in German). In fact, some of her explanations – for example, archaeology of knowledge, 
anxiety of influence, race, ethnicity or subaltern – are truly excellent, and I will definitely use 
them in introductory classes in the years to come. 
Other definitions, however, are less successful. The explanation of narratology, for example, 
begins with what I consider, in this context, unnecessary information on Aristotle’s theory of 
narrative and ends with »Post-structuralist narratologists, such as Mikhail Bakhtin« (56). Thus, 
Klages does not take any recent developments in narrative theory into account. Moreover, she 
buries the crucial distinction between story and discourse in the middle of the one paragraph 
devoted to the entry and falsely likens this distinction to that between langue and parole. Finally, 
if any reader now decided to look up Bakhtin’s theory of dialogicity, they would be fairly con-
fused because the entry on dialogic explicitly states that »Bakhtin was not a Marxist or a post-
structuralist« (23; my emphasis). 
 
 2 
Admittedly, though, the entry on narratology is not typical since most definitions are stronger 
and problems usually occur in those texts where Klages devotes more than one paragraph to a 
concept. As a general tendency, the more space Klages assigns a concept (most entries are less 
than a page long but some run up to three pages), the less precise her definitions become because 
she then provides too much unnecessary information and often loses focus. Compare, for exam-
ple, the entry on deconstruction (3 pages) and the immediately following one on desire (half a 
page). The first opens with the sentence, »Deconstruction begins when Jacques Derrida ob-
serves, in »Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences« (1966), that there 
is a ‘scandal’ in Lévi-Strauss’ analysis of the structure of myth and culture in The Raw and the 
Cooked« (18). Lots of information follows but never a precise definition of the concept, let 
alone an explanation of what words were blended in the term deconstruction and for what rea-
sons. By contrast, the entry on desire begins with a far more abstract sentence – »Desire is a 
complex term in literary and cultural history, referring to specific concepts in psychoanalysis 
that have been adopted and modified by a number of post-structuralist theories« (21) – and then 
goes on to provide the original definition and the transformations in the sentences that follow. 
Another problem is that some concepts are explained several times because the explanations 
are needed for related concepts. While this surely could not be completely avoided, cross-refer-
ences (which are entirely lacking) might have eased the problem, enabling Klages to shorten 
definitions in one place or to define terms together. For instance, the definition of monologia is 
repeated in its entirety, albeit in slightly different words, in the entry on dialogic. Shifting the 
definition of the former entry to the latter and indicating this accordingly would have avoided 
the repetition and freed some space for entries on concepts that are unfortunately missing. While 
various aspects of Marxist theory are explained in entries of their own, the concept of class as 
the most central one is not. 
Other concepts that, to my mind at least, would have deserved an entry are space, femininity, 
masculinity, repressive state apparatuses (mentioned in the entry on ideological state apparat-
uses, though) and knowledge (only discussed in the entry power/knowledge with no reference 
to it under »K«). Including them would have been possible if some of the longer entries had 
been abridged, if some repetitions had been eliminated and if some very specialized entries such 
as Henry Louis Gates’s concept of signifyin’, which is probably only relevant for scholars in 
African American Studies, would have been left out. The same goes for some concepts from 
structuralist linguistics such as langue or parole. They are of course important in accounts of 
the historical development of literary theory, but I seriously doubt that students come across 
them frequently in works of literary criticism these days and thus feel the need to look them up. 
I will keep my remarks on the other two parts of the book short, as the first part is surely its 
centerpiece. The part that lists introductory guides and characterizes them in a sentence or two 
is quite useful especially for undergraduates. But the part that contains biographical information 
appears superfluous to me, especially because most entries are less than ten lines long and only 
list dates of birth (and death) and the most important works without explaining what they are 
about. There are a couple of entries that are much longer which once again creates a certain 
imbalance particularly since it is not explained why these figures were singled out to receive 
heightened attention. At a time when even Wikipedia (at least the English version) features 
quite decent articles on Derrida, Foucault and other thinkers, the available space could have 
been used better, for instance, for more definitions. In sum, then, the book has certain weak-
nesses but since it is quite cheap and since many entries are really helpful it is a useful addition 
to any university library. 
 3 
Michael Butter 
University of Tübingen 
American Studies 
2015-06-05 
JLTonline ISSN 1862-8990 
Copyright © by the author. All rights reserved. 
This work may be copied for non-profit educational use if proper credit is given to the author 
and JLTonline. 
For other permission, please contact JLTonline. 
How to cite this item: 
Michael Butter, Short, but not always sweet. (Review of: Mary Klages, Key Terms in Literary Theory, London: 
Continuum 2012.) 
In: JLTonline (05.06.2015)  
Persistent Identifier: urn:nbn:de:0222-002856  
Link: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0222-002856 
 


Short but not always sweet [Mary Klages, Key Terms in Literary Theory, 2012.]

Fortmann, Patrick; Universität Würzburg

Did Early German Romanticism Impact Systems Theory? [Abstract]

Borgards, Roland; Universität Würzburg

Introduction: Cultural and Literary Animal Studies [Abstract]

Lamarque, Peter; Universität Würzburg

About [Abstract]

Abrantes, Ana Margarida; Universität Würzburg

Culture, Text, and Mind: Bridging the Gap between Cognition and History in the Study of Literature [Mark J. Bruhn/Donald R. Wehrs (ed.), Cognition, Literature, and History, 2014]

Preuss, Matthias; Universität Würzburg

Schönbeck, Sebastian

Bêtes Studies: Flaubert’s and Balzac’s Lessons in Natural History [Abstract]

Klauk, Tobias; Universität Würzburg

Zalta on Encoding Fictional Properties [Abstract]

Heine, Philipp David; Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

Das Versprechen einer theoretischen (Neu-)Fundierung der Literaturgeschichtsschreibung [Literaturgeschichte. Theorien – Modelle – Praktiken. Berlin/Boston, 2014.]

Contents, Table of; Universität Würzburg

Not a member yet