Miall, “Necessity” (2000).

  1. resistance of literary scholars to empirical research
  2. what is literary reading decided by theorist (Culler); real readers not worth attention
  3. empirical studies will acquire a central place, as alchemy was replaced by chemistry
  4. will arbitrate theoretical claims
  5. will modify the eloquence or effrontery of literary theorists
  6. will challenge the current hermeneutics of suspicion
  7. literary text challenges reader, calls her attitudes into question
  8. has overlooked most important question: why do people read
  9. the status of empirical studies; not paradigmatic yet
  10. claim that status of literary work conferred institutionally
  11. and other postmodern claims: Ibsch on their being immunized from criticism
  12. problems of empirical study, as stated by Graesser et al.
  13. on the canon: works that repeatedly gain new interpretations
  14. reinterpretation a sign of the inexhaustible vigour of the canonical texts
  15. working class readers outside any institution were reading canonical texts
  16. power of literary reading shown by “Changing Lives through Literature”
  17. response to literary texts: role of vivid imagery, emotion
  18. Dehabituation.  Literary reading offline rehearsal of situations
  19. studied in Vipond & Hunt’s evaluations; in studies of foregrounding
  20. validity of “literariness”: perhaps only as a process
  21. notion of background, supported by Frey on word familiarity
  22. Decentering. Through entering world of other characters
  23. studies of personal meaning through literary texts, Halász, Sielman & Larsen
  24. status of fictionality: signalled by omniscient narrator, by free indirect discourse
  25. Conclusion. Re-establishing concept of literariness, support of empirical studies


Literariness: see webpage attached to Jan 17

return to course page

Document created, December 10th 2011