"Literary Theory in World Literature: the Case of Bioethics" extends "Literary Theory and Bioethics" for ES 477 E Readings in Literary Theory and Criticism course pursued under Saugata Bhaduri, Professor, Centre for English Studies, School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India:
Rajnandini Shaw
Saugata Bhaduri
ES477E Readings in Literary Theory & Criticism
14 January 2021
Literary Theory and Bioethics
Literature, as Literary Theory has taken an irreversible bioethical turn, that is only recognized in difficult times like these. While the world does not revolve backward, so is Literary Theory’s crossing the Rubicon, forward, into the outside of the Literature that has been the process and product of self-making- individual, social, cultural, local, regional, national, international, global, planetary and universal. The microcosmic can no longer be ignored for the pan-cosmic Literature, that is beyond the literary at stake. The politico-economic, socio-cultural-historic-religious turn is bioethical, that Literary Theory can no longer avoid. Literary Theory over the last three four decades have hinged on the cognitive-psychological slipping into the medical that Literature is bioethical. The Bioethical is Literary Theory.
Let’s start with Shakespeare- the cynosure of all things English and literary; if not all, then most, for his, or at least his personae’s association with “age”: epochality, canonicity, intertextuality, influence, and most importantly materiality in ethics, or morality: call what you may. For the sake of argument here, and lack of knowledge, better of Shakespeare, than worse for the argument, that ethics is material. It is over materiality that imagination imposes its hold, to control, dominate, manipulate, capture, own, possess, and command its access. The pound of flesh at stake in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, is a classic instance of this dichotomy between the material and the moral. In Antonio’s case, the material is corporeal, a piece of flesh that shall repay the debt he had taken on himself, in order to be able to help his friend Bassanio, the suitor of Portia, who comes to the rescue of Antonio’s life, and asks the courtroom for Mercy. Some basic questions to ask here is whose flesh did Shylock ask for in exchange for his lent money? Why did he ask for a piece of flesh, and not anything else? Why would Shylock ask for Antonio’s flesh, and not Bassanio’s for whom the money was initially borrowed by Antonio? What would keep Shylock away from asking for Antonio’s flesh so long? Why did he not ask for his flesh earlier, sooner, than he did? For Literary Theory and Bioethics, that we are dealing with today, without even realizing that we, just like most of us browsing pages on the internet, without knowing that our data might be visible to others, and our works might get jeopardised in such knowledge, the questions that the author of this paper asks for the bioethical of Literary Theory are: How has reification of Literary Theory rendered it bioethical? Whose ethics, rather, bioethics, are literary theoretical? What are some of the major questions that one can ask with the bioethical Literary Theory? How is the material, bioethical and vice versa in literary theoretical analyses of bioethical literature? How bioethical is literature? Is only literature, as we know it from the course, that is anything in print circulated, received and appealed to the imagination of the reader, as distinct from the audience, that Literature and Literary Theory can be said to be bioethical, and the bioethical, Literary Theory, and Literature, as we know it, that is the creative as well as critical engagement with life on the page, or the screen and the keyboard, during the pandemic?
Coming back to Shakespeare, Portia’s speech on Mercy, in The Merchant of Venice, is to save a piece of flesh of Antonio’s body, that Shylock asks for in lieu of money that Shylock fails to pay back. In Act III, Scene V, Jessica, Shylock’s daughter, gives a glimpse of the contemporary, prevalent, politico-religious belief and practice for Jews, and their conversion into Christians, speaking of Launcelot to Lorenzo, her future husband:
Nay, you need not fear us, Lorenzo: Launcelot and I
are out. He tells me flatly, there is no mercy for
me in heaven, because I am a Jew's daughter: and he
says, you are no good member of the commonwealth,
for in converting Jews to Christians, you raise the
price of pork. (Shakespeare)
Jessica comes to know about the world’s belief- her world’s worldly belief- that her society does not have mercy for her community. Her patriarch, Shylock, her Jewish father does not wield influence in her society. She is a minor in the society, a subaltern, as is her father. Jessica refers to the Elizabethan Imperial expansion of the Commonwealth, which dislikes, because it means, perhaps, among other things, mobility of people, migration of members of the community, like hers, among whom, her father, finds himself a religious, numerical minority in Venice. This brings its own terror in the religious oppression of conversion to Christianity, to bring itself to unanswer its own tyranny of the bio-religious. Whether the price of pork is to metaphorical, literal or rhetorical, pork is meant for consumption, among those who consider it edible; in this instance, if pork was eaten by the Christians, more number of Christians, would entail, in earlier rate of supply, higher demand for pork. Besides this demand and supply in substance, the materiality of the ethical, of Jessica’s morality- what she believes to be right, and her right, more so, is in question here. She is talking in terms of the flesh, the corporeal, the physical which governs the imagination, the metaphysical, the abstract in the concrete, the materiality of ideas: ideas in the material, objectification, ethics, judgements, principles, therefore, practice, not to mention, that it is, if it is at all in Jessica’s time, place, context, milieu and society, after all, a thing for consumption. She is talking in terms of the gustatory, subsistence, perhaps her sustenance, in which case the question may be, how sustainable is such a practice? Whose sustainability? A few lines later in the play, in the conversation between Launcelot and Lorenzo, the question of Jessica’s worth is raised: is she more than what they take her to be? Or, is she less? Is Lorenzo doubting her value? Who is asking these questions is important, because Jessica is a maid, and her worth is always be in question in the patriarchy that Shakespeare sets her? Therefore, whose bioethics is at work is an important question in Literary Theory. If Literary Theory makes things happen, i.e., “praxis”, whose bioethics is at play? Why at all render Literary Theory, bioethical? What is the need? Why now?
Another instance of Bioethics in Literature, among all else likewise, would be “An Acre of Grass” by William Butler Yeats, may answer such questions of Bioethics in Literary Theory. The poem follows:
Picture and book remain,
An acre of green grass
For air and exercise,
Now strength of body goes;
Midnight, an old house
Where nothing stirs but a mouse.
My temptation is quiet.
Here at life's end
Neither loose imagination,
Nor the mill of the mind
Consuming its rag and bone,
Can make the truth known.
Grant me an old man's frenzy,
Myself must I remake
Till I am Timon and Lear
Or that William Blake
Who beat upon the wall
Till Truth obeyed his call;
A mind Michael Angelo knew
That can pierce the clouds,
Or inspired by frenzy
Shake the dead in their shrouds;
Forgotten else by mankind,
An old man's eagle mind. (Yeats)
While the speaker of, and in this poem, can be anybody, presumably, the speaker of the aforementioned is an old man, most probably, the author himself, writing towards the end of his life- beginning of bioethical concerns in the poem. Bioethics and the bioethical, which remains undefined in this essay on Literary Theory and Bioethics, as Literary Theory, Bioethics is contextual; it commands ethics on a particular kind of application on a particular kind of Being- subject or object, person or thing, abstract or concrete, as well as self-reflexive, which is to free Bioethics, of its dual distinctions. To carry on with the so far bioethical criticism, teasing out the bioethical in Literature with some instances, an excerpt from a play- Shakespeare’s play, a “Modern” poem, followed by some explicit medical elements in the following instances, the author of this paper highlights the possibility of Bioethics as Literary Theory, beyond criticism, i.e., bioethical criticism. Literary Theory has taken its bioethical turn in the pandemic: Literary Theory is Bioethics; Bioethics, Literary Theory, among others.
The speaker in Yeats’s poem, if an old man, raises important bio-ethical questions in the Literary. Literary that is anything and everything related to, coming of and returning to Literature, glanced at earlier in this essay, everything is Literature, so much so, that it is nothing. If Literature is so ubiquitous, can it be theorised? If so, is Literary Theory possible? As in this course, i.e., Readings in Literary Theory and Criticism, in Julian Wolfreys introduction to literary theories (1-17), Literary Theory as a single, unified whole remains uniquired for the acceptance, tacit or vocal, that Literary Theory involves feminisms, marxisms, poststructuralism, deconstruction etc.- some lenses to see Literature through, which all the more begs the question: Is there a Literary Theory? If so, what is it? Whose Literary Theory is it? Where is this Literary Theory? How does one make sense of Literary Theory?
To come back to Yeats’s poem, the bioethical in this poem is Literary in the sense that an old man’s creation on the page stems from the material, transposed in the material, and captures the imagination in material. The poem begins with the speaker’s situation, in the moment, or how it has been for some time, i.e., it remains, in the material, in the objects, in things, tangible, physical, perishable, corporeal, like the old man if so, himself. Picture, book, an acre of grass, air, exercise, strength of the body, midnight, old house, nothing, the action of movement in “stir”, and the mouse, in the first stanza. In the second stanza, the speaker’s “temptation” is “quiet”, as opposed loud, in terms of voice, the material mediated through the air, physical, material and fleshly. The speaker’s imagination meditates on itself in the material, the page that the poet is writing in, referring to the “mill of the mind”- another concretization of the abstraction of mind. Whose mind? The speaker’s that cannot go waste even in old age. The speaker is after the truth, whose Truth? What kind of truth and what is its relation to the speaker? Why is the speaker after the Truth? Is dialectical thinking at play here? The speaker’s search for Truth does not end with the Truth, but until “Truth obeyed his call”. The last stanza emphasizes the sharpness of the speaker’s old man’s mind. Why does the old man want sharpness of the mind? A possible answer might be to a spider bugged. For a young person, a spider bug turns him into a spiderman, whose bioethical responsibility is to save those in danger, mostly terminal danger. Both the speaker and his imagination, i.e., the speaker in Yeats’s poem, and the spiderman are material, therefore, command ethics, bioethics, precisely.
Literary Theory is anything, for the time being, treated through the lenses in the course, all of which have been rendered bioethical in the pandemic. Since Literature is anything that can be read, written, thereby, read about, being written about, Literary is anything and everything that is written, thereby, read. Culture is Literary in that it is both tangible and intangible. It is ideological, therefore the question, whose ideology is at work? Whose power gets wielded in this daily turn of the universe? Is that ideological? Is that cultural? Is that Literary? Yes, because the Universe has been written about. Therefore, the Universe, as known, and written about, is Literary. Whether it is cultural, is a possibility in the Anthropos. Is it Bioethics? Yes, because Bioethics involves a living being and application of ethics to bring itself to deliver morality to itself.
To limit the periphery of the discourse here, a University may serve the purpose. A University is a replica of the Universe, in that it allows the minds therein, to imagine possibilities, fail in a safe space, and continue persevering for the best of the best. If among others, a University imposes disciplinary destitution on some, while granting access to certain infrastructure, service, mobility and movement to others based on their choices of disciplines-practical or theoretical, or both- is the best of best in a learning environment possible? Is access to laboratories, granted with access to the Mess Facility all that a university needs to thrive becoming one of the best in the country, while holding books, in-presence at the bay? Have we forgotten that in the pandemic, people, stranded or sheltered turned to the Arts, time and again, in respite from the unbearable standstill? Is all of this that has been written about so far in this paragraph Literary? Yes. Is this bioethical? Yes, indeed, because although material conditions such as food have been resumed, officially with a one-and-a-half-line diktat, another one, among the many issued by the author & co., the water running in the toilets have been turned off, and the only destitute behind, alone, solely receives the strategic ire of the system, i.e., patriarchy. Miraculously, among the four, one of the toilets had been closed, with a red bucket and a red mug, over the last two days, and opened today. A sanitation worker, when asked, informed that a complaint has been made to the Caretaker for no water in the morning, while no water runs in the afternoon, still. Is this Literary? Yes. Is this bioethical? Yes. Because more toilets open would require more energy to wash them; more work would entail more energy consumption. More energy would require more food, in a skewed academic, disciplinary regime where food becomes a disciplinary privilege for the disciplinary destitute, while others waste them, if inedible, in an urban region, in a rural malnourished, urban obese population; no to mention the waste of more water in cleaning the toilet- the extra one, for only three on the floor, two of whom ware unlike the one thinking, Literary destitute, whose name was earlier asked by the Caretaker, while inquiring if the Mess Bill has started, and was asked “aapka Mess Bill kyun start hoga?”. Therefore, the question: Whose morality is at work here? Is such application of one’s morality justified? On what grounds? Who decides such application of such a morality? Why is one among the many at the receiving end of such bioethics? Whose bioethics?
The question drawn from this instance is: Can Bioethics be Literary Theory? Is Bioethics, Literary Theory? Yes, if Literary Theory is “doing” Literature that is a cultural, critical, creative product of a person’s imagination and materiality at work, Bioethics is Literary Theory; Theory drawing from the Greek “theoria” which suggests a religious practice, as well as philosophical contemplation (“Theoria”). Whose philosophical contemplation can be said to be “Theory” proper, in this instance, “Literary Theory” proper? Wolfreys’ bias is with those who teach, therefore, practice literature in higher education (“Introduction” 1), as if those who learn, and write about and on Literary Theory, in a paper such as this, towards the partial fulfilment of a course requirement for evaluation, in order to earn a degree, that shall further enable, materiality, therefore, morality, do not count. One may safely argue that perhaps the target audience is the author’s colleagues and not those at the receiving, which is equally valid; or perhaps supporting the practice of “literary theory” among those teaching in the higher education, as opposed to receiving higher education: valid. Let’s take another instance: a live, real instance. A person who teaches “Literature” walks into a classroom with a kind of dress on, which is prohibited for those who shall be seeing that person, lecturing on “Literature”, on a hot sultry, stuffy temperate, humid day in a plain, close to the coast city. Is this “Literary”? Is this cultural? Is this bioethical? Whose Literature? Whose culture? Whose bioethics? Whose morality? Whose materiality? Whose sexuality? Whose system? Eagleton asserts sexuality, perhaps its assertion in expression, as a means of expressing solidarity in the patriarchal system (Eagleton 172). Whose sartoriality? What happens to those contemplating during the lecture?
This paper, tried to be written with dried eyes to the screen, may run into a danger as “unacceptable” in Literary Theory, yet. This is what it is guarding against: morality, bioethics, erudition to be imposed on simplicity, un-complex-yet, as it is a foray into the unknown, unthought of, unimagined, un-dynamic, un-complex and un-practiced-yet. A more erudite version of this paper surpasses evaluation, the best kind of application of Literature, as the pandemic- education of a Lifetime. Then, the question is: what has to Bioethics as Literary Theory after the pandemic? Whose pandemic? Whose Bioethics? Whose Literary Theory? The relational ethicality of Bioethics as Literary Theory shall perpetuate such a discourse. The bioethical as literary theoretical shall rule the roost, as Capitalism, with exceptions.
Bibliography
ALTIERI, CHARLES. “The Fallacy of ‘Fallacy’ and Its Implications for Contemporary Literary Theory.” Representations, no. 140, 2017, pp. 175–193. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26420627. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Kornbluh, Anna. “Present Tense Futures of the Past.” Victorian Studies, vol. 59, no. 1, 2016, pp. 98–101. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/victorianstudies.59.1.07. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Aquilina, Mario. “The Work of the Literary Critic in the Age of Big Data.” Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, vol. 19, no. 4, 2017, pp. 493–516. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/intelitestud.19.4.0493. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary Theory and Cultural Theory. Third Edition. 2017.
BASSARD, KATHERINE CLAY. “The Significance of Signifying: Vernacular Theory and the Creation of Early African American Literary Study.” Early American Literature, vol. 50, no. 3, 2015, pp. 849–854. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43946705. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Bell, Alice. “Schema Theory, Hypertext Fiction and Links.” Style, vol. 48, no. 2, 2014, pp. 140–161. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.48.2.140. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Bode, Katherine. “Abstraction, Singularity, Textuality: The Equivalence of ‘Close’ and ‘Distant’ Reading.” A World of Fiction: Digital Collections and the Future of Literary History, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 2018, pp. 17–36. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvdtpj1d.5. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Bowyer, Lynne. “Autonomy and Why You Can “Never Let Me Go”. Bioethical Inquiry (2014) 11:139–149. DOI 10.1007/s11673-014-9533-4.
Broqua, Vincent. “Practice-Based Literary Research as Activated Inquiry.” Artistic Research and Literature, edited by Corina Caduff and Tan Wälchli, Brill, Boston, 2019, pp. 113–124. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctvrxk2rm.13. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Caracciolo, Marco. “Interpretation for the Bodies: Bridging the Gap.” Style, vol. 48, no. 3, 2014, pp. 385–403. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.48.3.385. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Kropp, Colleen M.. “Finding Your Own Detours as a Means for Good Reading: Good Read Hunting.” Journal of Modern Literature, vol. 39, no. 3, 2016, pp. 114–116. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/jmodelite.39.3.08. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Chew, Dalglish. “Feeling Utopian: Demystification and the Management of Affect.” Cultural Critique, vol. 97, 2017, pp. 24–56. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/culturalcritique.97.2017.0024. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Hack, Daniel. “Fictional Character: Response.” Victorian Studies, vol. 59, no. 3, 2017, pp. 419–425. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/victorianstudies.59.3.05. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Eagleton, Terry. After Theory. Basic Books. New York. 2003.
FELSKI, RITA. “Latour and Literary Studies.” PMLA, vol. 130, no. 3, 2015, pp. 737–742., www.jstor.org/stable/44015761. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Fischer, Rachel K., and Aimee Graham. “Postmodernism.” Reference & User Services Quarterly, vol. 54, no. 1, 2014, pp. 29–33. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/refuseserq.54.1.29. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Gillett, Grant & Lynne Bowyer. “Bioethics and Literature: An Exciting Overlap”. Bioethical Inquiry (2014) 11:135–136. DOI 10.1007/s11673-014-9538-z.
Gillett, Grant & Robin Hankey. “Duties to Kin Through a Tragi-Comic Lens”. Bioethical Inquiry (2014) 11:173–180. DOI 10.1007/s11673-014-9513-8.
GOLDSTONE, ANDREW. “Teaching Quantitative Methods: What Makes It Hard (in Literary Studies).” Debates in the Digital Humanities 2019, edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis; London, 2019, pp. 209–223. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctvg251hk.22. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Hansen, John. “The New American Scholar.” The Pluralist, vol. 9, no. 1, 2014, pp. 97–103. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/pluralist.9.1.0097. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
HOLDEN, PHILIP. “LITERARY BIOGRAPHY AS A CRITICAL FORM.” Biography, vol. 37, no. 4, 2014, pp. 917–934., www.jstor.org/stable/24570315. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Huang, Flora & Grant Gillett. “Bao-yu: A Mental Disorder or a Cultural Icon?” Bioethical Inquiry (2014) 11:183–189. DOI 10.1007/s11673-014-9511-x.
Ives, Lucy. “After the Afterlife of Theory: The Remains of a Discourse, from the Liberal Academy to the Authoritarian Right.” The Baffler, no. 39, 2018, pp. 94–103. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26477345. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Jaaware, Aniket. Practicing Caste: On Touching and Not Touching. 2018.
Harris, Jacob. “Modernism and the Challenge of Aurality.” Journal of Modern Literature, vol. 40, no. 3, 2017, pp. 56–65. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/jmodelite.40.3.05. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Phelan, James. “Project Narrative: A Brief Story of Origin and Evolution.” Narrative Culture, vol. 4, no. 1, 2017, pp. 1–14. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.13110/narrcult.4.1.0001. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Levin, Janina. “Productive Dialogues across Disciplines: Literature and Empathy Studies.” Journal of Modern Literature, vol. 39, no. 4, 2016, pp. 187–193. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/jmodelite.39.4.14. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Leo, Jeffrey R. Di. “Can Theory Save the Planet?” Symplokē, vol. 21, no. 1-2, 2013, pp. 27–36. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5250/symploke.21.1-2.0027. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Kramnick, Jonathan. “Against Literary Darwinism.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 37, no. 2, 2011, pp. 315–347. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/657295. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Kuzmičová, Anežka. “Literary Narrative and Mental Imagery: A View from Embodied Cognition.” Style, vol. 48, no. 3, 2014, pp. 275–293. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.48.3.275. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Lecercle, Jean-Jacques. “Three Accounts of Literary Style.” CR: The New Centennial Review, vol. 16, no. 3, 2016, pp. 151–172. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/crnewcentrevi.16.3.0151. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Leopold, J. “Philo’s Knowledge of Rhetorical Theory.” Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: A Commentary on De Gigantibus and Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis, by David Winston and John Dillon, Brown Judaic Studies, 2020, pp. 129–136. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvzpv4qr.9. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Literature., National Reference Center for Bioethics. "Basic Resources in Bioethics: 1996-1999." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, vol. 10 no. 1, 2000, p. 81-102. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/18641.
Literature., National Reference Center for Bioethics. "Bioethics Resources on the Web." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, vol. 10 no. 2, 2000, p. 175-188. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/ken.2000.0015.
MacKenzie, Gina Masucci. “Drama and Bloom's Canon.” Symplokē, vol. 28, no. 1-2, 2020, pp. 455–460. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5250/symploke.28.1-2.0455. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Figlerowicz, Marta et al. “Object Emotions.” Symplokē, vol. 24, no. 1-2, 2016, pp. 155–170. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5250/symploke.24.1-2.0155. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Mullins, Matthew. “How Should We Read Now?” Symplokē, vol. 25, no. 1-2, 2017, pp. 485–491. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5250/symploke.25.1-2.0485. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Miller, Daniel. Materiality. Duke UP. Durham and London. 2005.
Nelson, James Lindemann. “Odd Complaints and Doubtful Conditions: Norms of Hypochondria in Jane Austen and Catherine Belling”. Bioethical Inquiry (2014) 11:193–200. DOI 10.1007/s11673-014-9522-7.
NICHOLSON, NIGEL. “Introduction: Literary Theory and Graduate and Undergraduate Classics Curricula.” The Classical World, vol. 108, no. 2, 2015, pp. 157–163., www.jstor.org/stable/24699957. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Nielsen, Jakob Gaardbo. “Literary Form and Limited Liability: It-Narratives and the Context of Corporate Law in the British Public Sphere, 1860-1880.” Context in Literary and Cultural Studies, edited by Jakob Gaardbo Nielsen and Jakob Ladegaard, UCL Press, London, 2019, pp. 96–114. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvfrxrhb.12. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Nyberg, Fredrik. “The Writing and the Doing—about Artistic Research through a Writing Practice.” Artistic Research and Literature, edited by Corina Caduff and Tan Wälchli, Brill, Boston, 2019, pp. 23–34. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctvrxk2rm.6. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Parker, Malcolm. “Senility”. Bioethical Inquiry (2014) 11:151. DOI 10.1007/s11673-014-9529-0.
Parker, Malcolm. “The Propaganda of Cells”. Bioethical Inquiry (2014) 11:171. DOI 10.1007/s11673-014-9530-7.
Parker, Malcolm. “Vaccination Day”. Bioethical Inquiry (2014) 11:161. DOI 10.1007/s11673-014-9531-6.
Parker, Malcolm. An Anonymous Death. Bioethical Inquiry (2014) 11:181. DOI 10.1007/s11673-014-9532-5.
Parker, Malcom. “Monday 7 a.m.” Bioethical Inquiry (2014) 11:137. DOI 10.1007/s11673-014-9523-6.
Whitmarsh, Patrick. “‘Imagine You're a Machine’: Narrative Systems in Peter Watts's Blindsight and Echopraxia.” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 43, no. 2, 2016, pp. 237–259. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5621/sciefictstud.43.2.0237. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Pickering, Neil. “A Random Blend: The Self in Philip Larkin’s Poems “Ambulances” and “The Building””. Bioethical Inquiry (2014) 11:163–170. DOI 10.1007/s11673-014-9521-8.
RASMUSSEN, IRINA D. “Riffing on Shakespeare: James Joyce, Stephen Dedalus, and the Avant-Garde Theory of Literary Creation.” Joyce Studies Annual, 2019, pp. 33–73. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26862950. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Volpicelli, Robert. “The Varieties of Impersonal Experience.” Journal of Modern Literature, vol. 39, no. 4, 2016, pp. 180–186. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/jmodelite.39.4.13. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Wiegman, Robyn. “Sex and Negativity; or, What Queer Theory Has for You.” Cultural Critique, vol. 95, 2017, pp. 219–243. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/culturalcritique.95.2017.0219. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Rutherford, Ian. “Theoria.” Wiley Online Library, American Cancer Society, 26 Oct. 2012, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17449.
Shakespeare, William. The Merchant of Venice. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. http://shakespeare.mit.edu/merchant/full.html. Accessed 23 Jan. 2021.
Sommer, Roy. “Unnatural Fallacy? The Logic of Unnatural Narrative Theory.” Style, vol. 50, no. 4, 2016, pp. 405–409. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.50.4.0405. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Sugiyama, Michelle Scalise. “From Theory to Practice: Foundations of An Evolutionary Literary Curriculum.” Style, vol. 46, no. 3-4, 2012, pp. 317–337. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.46.3-4.317. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Workman, Travis. “The Perils of Comparison in Subaltern Studies and Its Critique.” Cultural Critique, vol. 94, 2016, pp. 156–172., www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/culturalcritique.94.2016.0156. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Vaerenewyck, Van and Leah M. “Aesthetic Readings of Diverse Global Literary Narratives for Social Justice.” The English Journal, vol. 107, no. 1, 2017, pp. 61–65. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26359519. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Karhulahti, Veli-Matti. “An Ontological Theory of Narrative Works: Storygame as Postclassical Literature.” Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, 2015, pp. 39–73. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5250/storyworlds.7.1.0039. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Bruyere, Vincent. “Of a Survivalist Tone Adopted in Literary Studies.” Symplokē, vol. 22, no. 1-2, 2014, pp. 167–179. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5250/symploke.22.1-2.0167. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Wahab, Abdurrahman A. “Literary Theory and Teaching Democracy in a Post-Dictatorial Era.” The Radical Teacher, no. 94, 2012, pp. 48–57. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/radicalteacher.94.0048. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Walker, Simon Thomas. Spinoza, Styron, and the Ethics of Healing. Bioethical Inquiry (2014) 11:153–160. DOI 10.1007/s11673-014-9526-3.
Waugh, Patricia. Literary Theory and Criticism. Oxford University Press. 2006.
Spanos, William V. “Against Distant Reading: Retrieving Close Reading in the Interregnum.” Symplokē, vol. 25, no. 1-2, 2017, pp. 247–260. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5250/symploke.25.1-2.0247. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Wilson, Beth. “Teach the How: Critical Lenses and Critical Literacy.” The English Journal, vol. 103, no. 4, 2014, pp. 68–75. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24484223. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.
Wolfreys, Julian. Introducing Criticism at the 21st Century. Edinburgh University Press. 2002.
Wolfreys, Julian. Introducing Literary Theories: A Guide and Glossary. Edinburgh University Press. 2001.
Yeats, William Butler. “‘An Acre of Grass.’” The Complete Poems of W. B. Yeats: "An Acre of Grass" to "The Collar-Bone of a Hare", www.ricorso.net/rx/library/authors/classic/Yeats_WB/poems/acre_grass.htm.
Zhang, Yehong, and Gerhard Lauer. “Introduction: Cross-Cultural Reading.” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 54, no. 4, 2017, pp. 693–701. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/complitstudies.54.4.0693. Accessed 14 Jan. 2021.