Deconstructive Criticism: An Advanced Introduction by Vincent B. Leitch (review)

Book Reviews 289 VINCENT B. LEITCH. Deconstructive Criticism: An Advanced Introduction . New York: Columbia University Press, 1983. 290 p. Of recent attempts at explaining deconstruction, Vincent Leitch's Deconstructive Criticism is clearly outstanding. Leitch goes far beyond the fashionable tag words ("trace," "oscillations of meaning," "aporia," etc.) as he seeks to recover the sources of deconstruction and to explore its lesser-known (mostly American) branches. Written from what he calls a "sympathetic stance," Leitch's book functions as description , critique, and example of the deconstructive project. But, for those of us in the profession who have grown less sympathetic to deconstruction, Leitch's book ultimately proves to be rather frustrating. The roller coaster ride of language is exhilarating, but where does it ultimately lead? Once we acknowledge that language is figurative and that the worst tendencies of the New Criticism are (and always were) untenable, where do we go? That question is, no doubt, overly simplistic, but it desperately needs to be answered. And though Leitch's book is a praiseworthy attempt at explaining what deconstruction is, he fails to speculate as to what the theory will mean as we read, write, and teach in the future. Let us begin, however, with one of the book's major strengths. Early in the work, Leitch acknowledges the great difficulty involved in writing a book on deconstruction , since that very theory relentlessly questions such notions as univocal meaning and stability; yet with considerable feistiness, he goes about that very task. Though this sort of fancy critical footwork may seem annoying at times, Leitch finally admits quite candidly that the language ofliterary criticism is no more stable than the language of literature. We, of course, do not need the entire critical apparatus of a Derrida or a de Man to make us aware of the various forms of blindness that can and do plague literary critics, but the "new new" critics never tire of reminding us of the various forms this interference might take. And that lesson is perhaps the most important thing we can learn from deconstruction. For Leitch, criticism is the "idolatry ofalluring language" (58); critical readings are "extravagant acts of fancy abetted by seductive displacements, substitutions, and differences" (59). But, characteristically, even as he reveals the faults and abuses of criticism, Leitch argues that the play of language in critical texts creates "interesting and energetic 'literary' works" (107). No longer content with being a handmaiden to literature, the critic becomes, like the author, a prophet — an interpreter of the world. Throughout his book, Leitch continues this examination ofthe relationship between text and critic. Unfortunately, in focusing on the text and critic, Leitch tends to devalue the role of the author. Accepting his own role as interpreter of deconstruction, Leitch attempts to explain the manner in which Derrida subverts the language theories of Saussure, Lacan, and Lévi-Strauss, and thereby reveals a radically different mode of reading. This analysis is quite good, even when Leitch indulgently portrays Derrida as a New Adam, suffering a self-expulsion from the Garden of Stable and Univocal Meaning . Though the very theory he is attempting to describe challenges our notion of origin, Leitch laments that deconstruction, a potent elixir in its Derridean form, has been drastically watered down — especially on the "American Exchange." Nevertheless, Leitch's description of the Derridean project is clear, thorough, and exuberant. Equally fine is the section on the "destructive criticism" of Paul Bové and William V. Spanos, two important theorists whose work is often overlooked in favor of other, more widely known critics. A final strength of the book is Leitch's treatment of the work of Joseph Riddel in an intriguing chapter that becomes a critique of the Yale deconstructors. 290Rocky Mountain Review Despite all of these very positive elements, the book is less than satisfying for those of us who have grown weary of deconstruction's endless questions. We are simply not content to frolic in a haze of indeterminacy. Perhaps the desire for results and practical applications is an unfashionable, inherently American affliction, but that is what many of us still long for — especially those of us in the classroom. Leitch, however, seems happy enough, admitting...