Advertisement

(Non-)Belief in Things: Affect Theory and a New Literary Materialism

  • Neil Vallelly
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Affect Theory and Literary Criticism book series (PSATLC)

Abstract

This chapter argues that contemporary literary criticism suffers from a reflexive faith in things, conceived broadly as static objects that reflect wider political, social, and cultural practices. Literature is re-imagined here as an open-ended event that demands an immanent materialism in which distinctions between literary objects and human bodies no longer stand up. By reflecting on the ambiguous “thingness” of Shakespeare, Vallelly draws attention to the elusive nature of things in theatrical spaces, and explores how this enigmatic materiality can be applied to literary experience more generally. To do so, he draws on Roberto’s Bolaño’s 2666, affect theory, and new materialism to construct a new literary materialism, one in which literary meaning is located neither in the human nor in the non-human world, but in the affective correspondence between these worlds. To illustrate this point, the chapter concludes with a discussion of the relationship between characters and stones in Shakespearean drama.

References

  1. Ahern, Stephen. 2017. Nothing More than Feelings? Affect Theory Reads the Age of Sensibility. The Eighteenth Century: Theory and Interpretation 58 (3): 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed, Sara. 2010. Happy Objects. In The Affect Theory Reader, eds. Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth, 29–51. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 2012. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, Jane. 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Benso, Silvia. 2000. The Face of Things: A Different Side of Ethics. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  6. Best, Stephen, and Sharon Marcus. 2009. Surface Reading: An Introduction. Representations 108 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolaño, Roberto. 2009. 2666. Trans. Natasha Wimmer. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  8. Braidotti, Rosi. 1994. Nomadic Subjects: Embodiment and Sexual Difference in Contemporary Feminist Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brennan, Teresa. 2004. The Transmission of Affect. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bryant, Levi R. 2011. The Democracy of Objects. Ann Arbor, MI: Open Humanities Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coole, Diana, and Samantha Frost, eds. 2010. New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Critchley, Simon. 2007. Infinitely Demanding: Ethics of Commitment, Politics of Resistance. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  13. DeLanda, Manuel. 1996. The Geology of Morals: A Neo-Materialist Interpretation. http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/geology.htm.
  14. ———. 2002. Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  15. Deleuze, Gilles. 1988. Spinoza: Practical Philosophy. Trans. Robert Hurley. San Francisco: City Light Books.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 1995. Negotiations. Trans. Martin Joughlin. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dolphijn, Rick, and Iris van der Tuin, eds. 2013. New Materialisms: Interviews & Cartographies. Ann Arbor, MI: Open Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  18. Edmeades, Lynley. 2016. Affect and the Musication of Language in John Cage’s “Empty Words”. Comparative Literature 68 (2): 218–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Einarsson, Charlotta P. 2017. A Theatre of Affect: The Corporeal Turn in Samuel Beckett’s Drama. Stuttgart: Ibidem-Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Eve, Martin Paul. 2016. Keep Writing: The Critique of the University in Roberto Bolaño’s 2666. Textual Practice 30 (5): 949–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Felski, Rita. 2015. The Limits of Critique. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Finkelstein, David, and Alistair McCleery, eds. 2006. The Book History Reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Fisher, Mark. 2012. Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? Winchester: Zero Books.Google Scholar
  24. Fox, Nick J., and Pam Alldred. 2017. Sociology and the New Materialism: Theory, Research, Action. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hardt, Michael. 2007. Foreword: What Affects Are Good For. In The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social, eds. Patricia Ticineto Clough and Jean Halley. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Harman, Graham. 2012. The Well-Wrought Broken Hammer: Object-Oriented Literary Criticism. New Literary History 43 (2): 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harris, Jonathan Gil. 2009. Untimely Matter in the Time of Shakespeare. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harris, Jonathan Gil, and Natasha Korda, eds. 2002. Staged Properties in Early Modern English Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hayles, N. Katherine. 2008. Electronic Literature: New Horizons for the Literary. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Heidegger, Martin. 2001. Poetry, Language, Thought. Trans. Albert Hofstadter. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  31. Hemmings, Claire. 2005. Invoking Affect: Cultural Theory and the Ontological Turn. Critical Studies 19 (5): 548–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ingold, Tim. 2011. Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge, and Description. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ———. 2015. The Life of Lines. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kirschenbaum, Matthew G. 2007. Mechanisms: New Media and the Forensic Imagination. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Knapp, James A. 2014. Beyond Materiality in Shakespeare Studies. Literature Compass 11 (10): 677–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leys, Ruth. 2011. The Turn to Affect: A Critique. Critical Inquiry 37: 434–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Massumi, Brian. 2002. Parables of the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  38. ———. 2011. Semblance and Event: Activist Philosophy and the Occurrent Arts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Morton, Timothy. 2013. Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology After the End of the World. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mussell, Simon. 2017. Critical Theory and Feeling: The Affective Politics of the Early Frankfurt School. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Noys, Benjamin. 2016. Matter Against Materialism: Bruno Latour and the Turn to Objects. In Theory Matters: The Place of Theory in Literary and Cultural Studies Today, eds. Martin Middeke and Christoph Reinfandt, 119–134. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. O’Sullivan, Simon. 2001. The Aesthetics of Affect: Thinking Art Beyond Representation. Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities 6 (3): 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paster, Gail Kern. 2004. Humoring the Body: Emotions and the Shakespearean Stage. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Richardson, Catherine. 2011. Shakespeare and Material Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 2003. Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shakespeare, William. 1997. The Norton Shakespeare. Eds. Stephen Greenblatt et al. London and New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  47. Sofer, Andrew. 2016. Getting on with Things: The Currency of Objects in Theatre and Performance Studies. Theatre Journal 68 (4): 673–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tribble, Evelyn B. 2017. Affective Contagion on the Early Modern Stage. In Affect Theory and Early Modern Texts: Politics, Ecologies, and Form, eds. Amanda Bailey and Mario DiGangi, 195–212. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vallelly, Neil. 2016. The Semblances of Roberto Bolaño. Alluvium 5 (2): n.p. May 31. https://www.alluvium-journal.org/2016/05/31/the-semblances-of-roberto-bolano/.
  50. Vermeulen, Pieter. 2014. Posthuman Affect. European Journal of English Studies 18 (2): 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. ———. 2015. Reading Alongside the Market: Affect and Mobility in Contemporary American Migrant Fiction. Textual Practice 29 (2): 273–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Watson, Janell. 1999. Literature and Material Culture from Balzac to Proust: The Collection and Consumption of Curiosities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Wetherell, Margaret. 2012. Affect and Emotion: A New Social Science Understanding. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Witmore, Michael. 2008. Shakespearean Metaphysics. London and New York: Continuum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. ———. 2013. Eventuality. In Early Modern Theatricality, ed. Henry S. Turner, 386–401. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Zerilli, Linda. 2015. The Turn to Affect and the Problem of Judgment. New Literary History 46 (2): 261–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neil Vallelly
    • 1
  1. 1.University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations