Rating: 
Summary: The Commisar's disenchantment with theory:
Review: After Theory by Terry Eagleton is a the typical product of a man who has set himself up a commissar of culture. Eagelton doesn't so much argue his points as pontificate. Theory didn't achieve the socialist revolution, he so badly wants, ergo theory must go. The book is a compendium of everything the Oxford Don hates: America, Jews, the free market, progress, the rule of law, middle class life and any one who doesn't share his warped Socialist view of the world.
Rating: 
Summary: Political theory in literature
Review: Eagleton is a very lucid and interesting writer for an intellectual/academic, whether you agree with the guy's central points or not, hence the three stars. This book, as already noted by other reviewers here, is nothing close to being a radical break from theory - it critiques anti-theory (sometimes quite well) and stays pretty much in line with Marxist theoretical lines. What I would like to know is where Terry gets off as acting the oppressed one in academia - in my final undergraduate year and having majored in literature, I can quite truthfully say that his Marxist position is all but canonical (I recommend Harold Bloom to read along side Eagleton...). One gets the impression, particularly since literature itself only makes occasional fleeting and vaguely embarrased appearances in the book (something like a very self-conscious gatecrasher at an exclusive millionaire's cocktail party), that Eagleton, like many other literary theorists, don't actually like literature. Literature as a study seems to be obsessed with proving just how fundamentaly awful literature is, so I would suggest to anyone who actually loves literature as an artform: avoid the study of literature and theory until the pendulum of aesthetic enquiry swings around again...
Rating:
Summary: Starts strong, loses steam
Review: Eagleton's analysis of theory's halcyon days is always interesting and at times provocative, but his decisive break with critical theory--most notably Deconstruction and Psychoanalysis--is little more than a rhetorical device. Past the first two chapters, his analysis proceeds largely on a loosely Marxist/socialist tack, leaving his cutting claims that theorists and scholars must radically re-evaluate their most basic theoretical positions seeming a bit hollow. It's worth reading, however, in the context of the critiques of Sokal, Graf, and others. With a vested interest in the cultural theory establishment but unafraid to ask that the academy move on, Eagleton is in the unique position of being able to outline the utility of the humanities in the face of mounting pressure to teach a strictly practical curriculum.
Rating: 
Summary: A timely and exciting work...
Review: Eagleton's _After Theory_ bears a striking resemblance, both in its tone as well as its rhetorical style, to Matthew Arnold's "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time," published in England in the mid-ninteenth century. There is one chapter, however, that stands completely on its own. Chapter eight, "Death, Evil and Non-being," is, at times, profound in its subtle treatment of complex philosophical ideas. Eagleton's call for a shift toward the "bigger" narrative is clearly directed towards much--I would even say most--of the practices of contemporary cultural theory as it appears in the university today. If this is your area of study, and maybe you felt a little unfulfilled after that last research paper you wrote on the epistemology of the polyester sweater, then _After Theory_ is the book for you.
Rating:
Summary: A timely and exciting work...
Review: Eagleton's _After Theory_ bears a striking resemblance, both in its tone as well as its rhetorical style, to Matthew Arnold's "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time," published in England in the mid-ninteenth century. There is one chapter, however, that stands completely on its own. Chapter eight, "Death, Evil and Non-being," is, at times, profound in its subtle treatment of complex philosophical ideas. Eagleton's call for a shift toward the "bigger" narrative is clearly directed towards much--I would even say most--of the practices of contemporary cultural theory as it appears in the university today. If this is your area of study, and maybe you felt a little unfulfilled after that last research paper you wrote on the epistemology of the polyester sweater, then _After Theory_ is the book for you.
Rating:
Summary: a nice read, but no breakthrough
Review: I picked up this book after it had been mentioned on the Chicago NPR station as being hailed as 'critical bomb' being dropped on critical theory. This it was not. Eagleton's work--at least all that I have read--is always lucidly written and adorned with insights of wide-breadth and importance. This book is not an exception. It is, however, not a book that seems to me likely to be read for eternity. What I enjoyed most about was its fireside wisdom quality. In a sense, this book resembles a series a letters from your mentor about academic work, its potential, failings, and excesses, and some words about his view of life in general. Thus, the claimed philosophical importance of the work is an exaggeration attached for pushing the work forward for publishing. It is by no means a definitively new alternative course for critical theory. It is nevertheless an enjoyable book full of numerous worthwhile insights.
Rating:
Summary: a nice read, but no breakthrough
Review: I picked up this book after it had been mentioned on the Chicago NPR station as being hailed as 'critical bomb' being dropped on critical theory. This it was not. Eagleton's work--at least all that I have read--is always lucidly written and adorned with insights of wide-breadth and importance. This book is not an exception. It is, however, not a book that seems to me likely to be read for eternity. What I enjoyed most about was its fireside wisdom quality. In a sense, this book resembles a series a letters from your mentor about academic work, its potential, failings, and excesses, and some words about his view of life in general. Thus, the claimed philosophical importance of the work is an exaggeration attached for pushing the work forward for publishing. It is by no means a definitively new alternative course for critical theory. It is nevertheless an enjoyable book full of numerous worthwhile insights.
Rating: 
Summary: Eagleton could have done a lot more
Review: Out with postmodernism's "anything goes"; in with "objective" morality. Eagleton argues that postmodernism and cultural theory fail to provide much help in moving society toward the good. He argues, contra pomo and cultural theory, that a "grand narrative"--if carefully crafted and based on morality--can help promote progressive societal change. Eagleton's guide for this task is Aristotle (and neo-Aristotleans such as Alasdair MacIntyre). He wants to argue that a human essence exists, that a notion of a human essence need not imply naturalism and oppression of some by others, and that socialism is the best way for people to fulfill their human essence. I think he is right. Unfortunately, this book fails to make a very strong case for this. I was disappointed in this book not because of Eagleton's goals (I fancy myself an Aristotlean and a socialist) but because he could have done so much more in this book than he did. I wish that he had substituted more hard thinking for the plentiful superficial cleaverness found in this book. Often the the book seemed written in haste and without much care. Many points are repeatedly restated and Eagleton often fails to provide good arguments for his points. Often I found it hard to even tell exactly what he was arguing. Too often Eagleton relies on quips rather than arguments to make his points. And most of these quips are, at best, mildly funny. Eagleton seemingly is unaware of much relevant philosophical literature and, so, I'm afraid that his book with contribute little to the forging of a solid post-postmodernist theory. As far as I can tell, much of his argument presumes the existance of a "fact/value dichotomy." But for decades much interesting work has been written that shows acceptance of this dichotomy leads to uninteresting results and needless conclusions. As far as I can tell, his argument in favor of "objective" morals is, basically, "I think they are important." He is silent about how exactly we are going to come up with a list of what characteristics make up the human essence. He is vague when he talks about the possibility of different cultures having different notions of a human essence.
Rating:
Summary: Havn't read it; a book I will read. Had star to post review
Review: Subject matter provocative and challenging to make one think, reflect and ponder. Also it seems readable, honest and unafraid to revise one's thinking. Sophisticated academcic jargon did not bind or drown him. And too, he seems to have maintained a sense of humor, and humanness, maybe even humbleness. I'll see. As far as I can perceive anyway.
Rating:
Summary: Amusing, Well Argued and Important
Review: Terry Eagleton's After Theory was hailed as philosophically serious and important on arrival and is destined to be far more popular that anything he has written before. It's not the first book to be titled After Theory, but it is the first book to take on the pretentions of 'high theory', especially as articulated through postmodernism and cultural studies, explain its claims, evaluate them and offer alternative ideas and projects in plain language and with lots of excellent humour. With three or four stand alone one-liners on most pages and ideas concretized with examples from popular culture (as well as Aristotle, the Book of Isaiah, Shakespeare and Marx) and ordinary life, it is a rollicking good read and a welcome corrective to the laborious Derridean obscurantism that some still mistake for wisdom. Eagleton is happy to concede that high theory has entrenched some useful if not original insights such as the ideas that human beings are about desire and fantasy as much as reason, that ordinary life is an important focus of critical attention and that seriousness and pleasure are not necessarily separate. But he also argues that it has a disabling tendency towards the valorisation of the experiences of elites and the disregard for the experiences of ordinary people. He is deeply skeptical about, say, an Indian academic moving between Oxford and Harvard who celebrates cosmopolitanism and hybridity as the vanguard of post-coloniality while saying nothing about the children sewing Nike shoes in Delhi. He is equally skeptical about academics who reject the idea of progress without rejecting dental anesthetics. And he shows that post-modern arguments are very easily deployed by overtly reactionary agendas. He explores the attraction of postmodern arguments about liminality and diversity to reactionary Ulster academics. Some reactionary Afrikaaner academics have made very similar use of postmodernism. But the essence of Eagleton's critique goes deeper and is more interesting than his attacks on the pompous narcissism of Theory. He argues that postmodernism is a symptom of capitalism and not, as it claims, critical theory. Postmodernism celebrates the non-normative and sees redemption in diversity and transgression. Eagleton's point is that 'the non-normative has become the norm...the norm is now money'. 'Money', he notes, 'is utterly promiscuous' and infinitely adaptive without any opinions of its own. Body piercing and Kwanza and sado-masochism are all just niche markets. They pose no threat to capital. And while capitalism has invented or exacerbated social divisions and exclusions when alliances with local elites are to its advantage it is, in principle, 'an impeccably inclusive creed, it really doesn't care who it exploits...Most of the time it is eager to mix together as many diverse cultures as possible, so that it can peddle its commodities to them all...It thrives on bursting bounds and slaying sacred cows. Its desire is unslakeable and its space infinite. Its law is the flouting of all limits.' Eagleton argues that the rise of the global anti-capitalist movements has shown that thinking globally is not the same as being totalitarian and develops a range of arguments against the postmodern critique of its own caricature of radical politics. For example he observes that conviction is not the same as authoritarianism and truth is not the same as dogmatism. One can be passionately democratic and committed to the truth that experiences differ. He argues for a radicalism that gives ontological priority to experience of the poor and seeks to enable collective action to sub-ordinate the market to democratic control. Once one has learnt the jargon of high theory it is quite easy to prick its wildly over inflated balloons. But Eagleton goes further and shows that it is entirely possible to return to questions that matter. He develops stimulating and important meditations on virtue, suffering, death, politics and revolution. But his consideration of these questions is primarily ethical with the result that the hard political questions about strategy are not taken on. Omissions are inevitable, but the book does have one obvious failing. Eagleton makes much of Hardt and Negri's argument that the poor have an ontological privilege when it comes to rebellion because they incarnate the failure of the system and so have less delusions about it and less of a stake in the system. But he ignores Hardt and Negri's warnings about anti-Americanism. Eagleton's scathing contempt for American consumerism and fundamentalism is persuasive and his argument that these are two, mutually dependent, consequences of the same ethical and political failure to respect the dignity of ordinary people is very interesting. But he completely ignores the radical America that Howard Zinn's history records and takes no account of the genuine popularity of radicals like John Steinbeck, Woody Guthrie and, in the current era, Bruce Springsteen. This omission gives Eagleton's account of America something of the feeling of a very English caricature. After Theory is not written for a non-specialist audience. Slavoj Zizek and Frank Kermode are wildly enthusiastic about it. But it will be particularly appreciated by people whose encounters with 'high theory' have been intimidating rather than enlightening. It proves the validity of Nietzsche's dictum that "Those who know they are profound strive for clarity: those who would like to seem profound...strive for obscurity." Hopefully, After Theory will prove to be one of many new books that seek to explore important philosophical questions in a spirit vastly more democratic than the narcissistic obscuratism of high theory.
| 
