Remarks on Henry James.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

It will, however, be clear that this structural arrangement of elements (semes) and basic oppositions is more analytical and microscopic than the terms of the levels,which turn out to be the various syntheses or combinations produced by the basic oppositions here. So in a sense the semiotic square comes after the positing of the allegorical levels and serves to explain or at least to explicate it. It also presupposesan interaction between the terms that is absent from the rather static schema of thelevels, in which each interpretive level is distinct from the others and lies parallel tothem. The proposal is meant to be suggestive rather than “definitive” (whatever thatmight mean), methodological rather than genuinely interpretative. But as these fine papers set out to deal with my own work as well as that of James, these concluding speculations may serve, for good or ill, to indicate the directions my current readings are tending to follow (and have for some time, I guess).
Original languageEnglish
Article number11
Pages (from-to)296
Number of pages306
JournalHenry James Review
Volumev.36
Issue numberno.3
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Henry James
Speculation
Arrangement
Semiotic Square
Interaction

Cite this

Jameson, F. (2015). Remarks on Henry James. Henry James Review, v.36(no.3), 296. [11].

Remarks on Henry James. / Jameson, Fredric.

In: Henry James Review, Vol. v.36, No. no.3, 11, 2015, p. 296.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jameson, F 2015, 'Remarks on Henry James.', Henry James Review, vol. v.36, no. no.3, 11, pp. 296.
Jameson, Fredric. / Remarks on Henry James. In: Henry James Review. 2015 ; Vol. v.36, No. no.3. pp. 296.
@article{c4f21c863c104297b4519f18ca267a37,
title = "Remarks on Henry James.",
abstract = "It will, however, be clear that this structural arrangement of elements (semes) and basic oppositions is more analytical and microscopic than the terms of the levels,which turn out to be the various syntheses or combinations produced by the basic oppositions here. So in a sense the semiotic square comes after the positing of the allegorical levels and serves to explain or at least to explicate it. It also presupposesan interaction between the terms that is absent from the rather static schema of thelevels, in which each interpretive level is distinct from the others and lies parallel tothem. The proposal is meant to be suggestive rather than “definitive” (whatever thatmight mean), methodological rather than genuinely interpretative. But as these fine papers set out to deal with my own work as well as that of James, these concluding speculations may serve, for good or ill, to indicate the directions my current readings are tending to follow (and have for some time, I guess).",
author = "Fredric Jameson",
year = "2015",
language = "English",
volume = "v.36",
pages = "296",
journal = "Henry James Review",
issn = "0273-0340",
publisher = "Johns Hopkins University Press",
number = "no.3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Remarks on Henry James.

AU - Jameson, Fredric

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - It will, however, be clear that this structural arrangement of elements (semes) and basic oppositions is more analytical and microscopic than the terms of the levels,which turn out to be the various syntheses or combinations produced by the basic oppositions here. So in a sense the semiotic square comes after the positing of the allegorical levels and serves to explain or at least to explicate it. It also presupposesan interaction between the terms that is absent from the rather static schema of thelevels, in which each interpretive level is distinct from the others and lies parallel tothem. The proposal is meant to be suggestive rather than “definitive” (whatever thatmight mean), methodological rather than genuinely interpretative. But as these fine papers set out to deal with my own work as well as that of James, these concluding speculations may serve, for good or ill, to indicate the directions my current readings are tending to follow (and have for some time, I guess).

AB - It will, however, be clear that this structural arrangement of elements (semes) and basic oppositions is more analytical and microscopic than the terms of the levels,which turn out to be the various syntheses or combinations produced by the basic oppositions here. So in a sense the semiotic square comes after the positing of the allegorical levels and serves to explain or at least to explicate it. It also presupposesan interaction between the terms that is absent from the rather static schema of thelevels, in which each interpretive level is distinct from the others and lies parallel tothem. The proposal is meant to be suggestive rather than “definitive” (whatever thatmight mean), methodological rather than genuinely interpretative. But as these fine papers set out to deal with my own work as well as that of James, these concluding speculations may serve, for good or ill, to indicate the directions my current readings are tending to follow (and have for some time, I guess).

M3 - Article

VL - v.36

SP - 296

JO - Henry James Review

JF - Henry James Review

SN - 0273-0340

IS - no.3

M1 - 11

ER -