Deconstruction and Criticis HAROLD BLOOM - PAUL DE MAN JACQUES DERRIDA. GEOFFREY H. HARTMAN J. HILLIS MILLER Routledge & Kegan Paul LONDON AND HENLEY8201739 Ficst published in Great Britain in 1979 by Routledge & Kegan Paul Lee 39 Seore Sree, London WCIE 7DD and Broadway House, Newrown Rosd, Henley-on-Thames, (Oxon RG9 1EN Printed in the United States of America Copyright © 1979 by The Seabury Pres, Inc No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, excepe for the quotation of brief sages in criticism [British Library Cataloguing in Publication Daca Deconstruction and criticism, 1, English lierature — History and criticism — Addresses, essays, lectures 1. Bloom, Harold 820.9 PRIS ISBN 0 7100 0436 2 Contents PREFACE 1 THE BREAKING OF FORM Harold Bloom 2. SHELLEY DISFIGURED 39 Paul de Man 3 LIVING ON + BORDER LINES Jacques Derrida 4 WORDS, WISH, WORTH: WORDSWORTH Geoffrey H. Hartman S THE CRITIC AS HOST 217 J. Hillis Miller CONTRIBUTORS 255Preface This is neither a polemical book nor a manifesto in the ordinary sense. If it wants to “manifest” anything, by means of essays that retain the style and character of each writer, it is a shared set of problems. These problems center on two issues that affect literary criticism today. One is the situation of criticism ieself, what kind of maturer function it may claim—a function beyond the ob- viously academic or pedagogical. While teaching, criticizing, and presenting the great texts of our culture are essential tasks, to in- sist on the importance of literature should not entail assigning to licerary criticism only a service function. Criticism is part of the world of leters, and has its own mixed philosophical and literary, reflective and figural strength. The second shared problem is pre. Cisely chae of the importance—or force—of literature. What does that force consist in, how does it show ieself? Can a theory be de- veloped that is descriptive and explanatory enough to illuminate rather than pester works of art? There are many ways of describing the force of literature. The Prioriey of language to meaning is only one of these, but it plays 4 crucial role in these essays. It expresses what we all feel about figurative language, its excess over any assigned meaning, of, put more generally, the strength of the signifier visvi-vis a signified (he “meaning”) ehac tries to enclose it. Deconstruction, as it has come t0 be called, refuses to identify the force of literature with any concept of embodied meaning and shows how deeply such logocentric or incarnationist perspectives have influenced the way wwe think about art, We assume that, by the miracle of art, the