Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T09:05:30.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Conveniency to Nature”: Literary Art and Arbitrariness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Charles Eric Reeves
Charles Eric Reeves*
Affiliation:
Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite its prominence in many critical lexicons, the term “literary convention” rarely receives sustained theoretical scrutiny. Rather, it has served interpreters, and even theorists, as a kind of general-purpose catchall, loosely synonymous with “custom,” “habit,” “assumption,” “myth,” “cliché,” “fiction,” or the French convenance. I argue that a philosophically rigorous definition of social convention may work heuristically to clarify what literary convention means and how it functions within a larger poetics. In particular, an intelligible notion of literary convention will help clarify the dialectical relation of mimesis and semiosis—what derives from the “natural” world and what results from an internal economy of parts and whole.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 101 , Issue 5 , October 1986 , pp. 798 - 810
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Abrams, M. H. The Mirror and the Lamp. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1953.Google Scholar
Bradbrook, M. C. Themes and Conventions of Elizabethan Tragedy. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1952.Google Scholar
Burke, Kenneth. Counter-Statement. New York: Harcourt, 1931.Google Scholar
Cohen, Ralph. “Innovation and Variation: Literary Change and Georgic Poetry.” Literature and History. Los Angeles: Clark Memorial Library, 1974. 3–42.Google Scholar
Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1975.Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ermarth, Elizabeth. Realism and Consensus in the English Novel. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1983.Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley. “Interpreting the Variorum.” Is There a Text in This Class? Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1980. 147–73.Google Scholar
Fussell, Paul. Poetic Meter and Poetic Form. New York: Random, 1965.Google Scholar
Gombrich, E. H. Art and Illusion. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1960.Google Scholar
Hartman, Geoffrey. Saving the Text: Literature, Derrida, Philosophy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1981.Google Scholar
Hollander, John. “The Metrical Frame.” The Structure of Verse: Modern Essays in Prosody. New York: Ecco, 1979. 77–101.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. “Linguistics and Poetics.” Style in Language. Cambridge: MIT P, 1961. 350–77.Google Scholar
Levin, Richard. The Multiple Plot in English Renaissance Drama. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1971.Google Scholar
Levine, George. The Realistic Imagination. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1981.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. Convention: A Philosophical Study. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1969.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue. Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame P, 1981.Google Scholar
Mailloux, Steven. Interpretive Conventions: The Reader in the Study of American Fiction. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1982.Google Scholar
Parker, William R. Milton: A Biography. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1968.Google Scholar
Patey, Douglas. Probability and Literary Form: Philosophic Theory and Literary Practice in the Augustan Age. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984.Google Scholar
Peckham, Morse. Man's Rage for Chaos. New York: Schocken, 1967.Google Scholar
Reeves, Charles Eric. “A Voice of Unrest: Conrad's Rhetoric of the Unspeakable” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 27 (1985): 284–310.Google Scholar
Riffaterre, Michael. Semiotics of Poetry. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1978.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Eric. Systems of Order and Inquiry in Later Eighteenth-Century Fiction. Berkeley: U of California P, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shklovsky, Victor. “Art as Technique.” Russian Formalist Criticism. Ed. and trans. Lemon, Lee T. and Reis, Marion J. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1965. 3–24.Google Scholar
Sidney, Philip. An Apologie for Poetry. Ed. Shepherd, Geoffrey. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1965.Google Scholar
Slote, Michael. “The Theory of Important Criteria.” Journal of Philosophy 63 (1966): 211–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. On the Margins of Discourse. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1978.Google Scholar
Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. Poetic Closure. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1968.Google Scholar