Reason, Rhetoric, Theory: Empson and de Man

Abstract

On the face of it William Empson and Paul de Man have little in common beyond their obvious concern with the complexities of literary language and the close-reading of texts. One’s sense of the contrast might be summarised in terms of R. P. Blackmur’s mythical opposites, the Prolific and the Devourer. 1 Empson is the ‘creative’ critic, one who opens up new and exciting possibilities of sense in texts worn smooth by habitual reading. This quality is seized upon by admirers and detractors alike. To the latter it is a species of misapplied imaginative licence, a habit of response which substitutes mere ingenuity for the discipline of trained judgment. To the former it is a liberating gesture which throws off the protocols of scholarly method and it puts criticism back in touch with the energizing sources of poetic creativity. Aside from such differences of viewpoint there is widespread agreement among the commentators that Empson is a critic of extraordinary zest, inventiveness and brilliance. In de Man’s case the usual impression is of a powerful but rigorously negative intelligence applied to the business of undoing, rather than creating, fresh possibilities of sense. The vulgarised image of deconstruction as a free-for-all interpretative romp is patently wide of the mark when set against de Man’s scrupulous practice. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 24 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.