The literary and critical discourse about characters and characterization in Anglophone drama and fiction since the Renaissance shows a persistent but underrecognized presence of three idioms and vocabularies, two highly developed and one nascent, that either derive from the rhetoric of mathematics in classical antiquity or participate in its modern afterlife. Those discourses—which this article studies in detail—are, first, an explicitly Theophrastan one, in which taxonomies of character are constructed; second, an explicitly Euclidean one, in which characterization is discussed and (...) accomplished in relatively conventional or commonsensical geometric terms; and third, a non- or post-Euclidean one, in which characterization is discussed and inchoately accomplished in the terms of the “new geometries” that emerged during the nineteenth century. What taxonomy in the Aristotelian mode and geometry in the Euclidean mode have in common is that when their vocabularies are applied to characterization, they delimit characters in terms of established categories—whether of ideal shapes or statistically probable types—while discounting whatever features may be unique to individuals. An obliviousness to these three discourses can limit seriously what can be said about, and what can be said on behalf of, the literary and critical texts framed in their terms and also, most importantly, what can be said about the nature of literary characters. (shrink)

Mikhail Epstein's essay “Inventive Thinking in the Humanities,” also published in the January 2017 issue of Common Knowledge, argues that the humanities are in crisis because humanist academics have “turned away from human beings and focused on texts.” Expanding on this point while concentrating on a single humanities field, literary studies, this response to Epstein makes the case that fear and awe of the sciences have resulted in the exclusion of subjectivity from literary criticism, even though regarding the critic as (...) anything but a subjective human being responding to the creative work of other subjective human beings makes very limited sense. Avenues of resistance to impersonal criticism have emerged from time to time, and this essay explores several, including those of Susan Sontag, Stanley Fish, Jane Tompkins, Rivka Eifermann, Harold Bloom, and Stephen Greenblatt. None, however, is seen as having had a decisive impact on the academic mainstream. This essay concludes by examining the possibility that literary works are best responded to not in criticism but in other literary works. (shrink)