While much literary theory of todaynseems to imply a hermetic state, it’s clearnthat a large number of external factorsnaffect it. However, on their way to constructingntheories with “an artificialnlanguage,” which is basically composednof fragments seized from the sciences,nseveral theorists eschewed clarity andnadopted a style not unlike that used byneconomists or petrochemical engineers.nIndeed, graphs and charts are not uncommonnin literary essays. Literaryntheory has become cryptic; reading annessay is often like busting a code. Bmssnpointed out that contemporary literaturenfaces an “unprecedented crisis of audience.”nPeople are turning to othernmediums. Cable TV and home computersnare becoming increasingly accessiblenwhile much literature is becoming increasinglynopaque. Literary theory oncenacted as a means which could be used tonhelp clear things up. It still does, but it isngetting to the point where the readernneeds a guide to help him interpret theninterpretative model. Bmss thought thatnwhat is happening is that literary theorynis becoming a new form of literamre. Shenwrote:nto ‘be studied’—if, in a word, thenmajority of readers are now scholarsn(whether students or professionalnacademics)—then the claims of literaryntheory to be our representativenliterary genre became stronger still.nWhat better inspiration could a literaturenof theory have than an audiencencomposed of theorists and critics?nIf the audience is small, it’s gettingnsmaller as readers arc being alienated bynthe immensity of the strata of texts thatnmust be bored through to get ton”literature.” In Beautiful Theories Brussnuses Susan Sontag, William Gass,nHarold Bloom, and Roland Barthes asnrepresentatives of current theorists. Allnfour are intellectuals who should act tonfurther mankind’s understanding. Ifnthey were to limit themselves to whatnmany perceive as obfuscating theory—nwhich it isn’t, at least not entirely, andnwhich they don’t, as will be shown—nthen literamre would aspire to sterilitynand the audience would inevitably becomenexhausted.nOne of the problems that intellectualsnface in modern society, particularly thosenwho concentrate on matters like literaryntheory, as opposed to, say, politicalnscience or economics, is that they are isolated,neven if they work toward clarity.nWith this isolation comes a feeling thatnone’s influence on a macroscopic level isnmicroscopic. Literature is a publicngesture. Often, those who study thosengestures feel a need to make theii own.nOne option is to write fiction, whichnmany theorists and critics do with varyingndegrees of success. William Gass, for example,nhas penned fictions including Innthe Heart of the Heart of the Countrynand Omensetter’s Luck, and HaroldnBloom wrote a fantasy, The Flight tonLucifer. But both men are still considerednto be primarily theorists, andntheir fictional texts are correctly judged asnnothing more than a working out of theirntheoretical propositions. Thus the effectnof theii public gestures is diminished.nThe key, then, is to gain at least anmodicum of distance from the purelynliterary (or from what is conventionallynthought to be literary) and so achievenwider recognition.njTrederic Jameson, in The Prison-nHouse of Language, points out thatnRoland Barthes, although “primarilynthought of as a literary critic,” “pursuesnwhat is basically a sociological investigationnof the imaginary objects and culture-institutionsnof a civilization satutatednwith advertising and ideology.” Ann[I]f the reading public as a whole isnexamination of A Barthes Reader bearsnshrinking, if literature is increasinglynthis out. While the late M. Barthes isnrelegated to the schools as somethingngenerally considered to be the stmcmralistnliterary critic (Levi-Strauss is the one innanthropology, Foucault in history, etc.),nIn the MailnBarthes didn’t limit his examination ofnsigns to merely literary texts—though hisnA New Engagement: Evangelical Political Thought, 1966-1976 by Robert Booth Fowler;npieces on Gide, Baudelaire, Racine, andnWm. B. Eerdmans; Grand Rapids MI. Proponents of Christ meet Caesar.nothers are intriguing—but he looked atnthe world from which people draw theirnThe Southern Review (Winter 1983) coedited by Donald E. Stanford and Lewis P. Simpson; coordinates. Thus, he examined profes­nLouisiana State University; Baton Rouge. With essays on figures including Mallarme and Lyande Putti, one wonders: why Southern?nsional wrestling, he compared the facesnof Greta Garbo and Audrey HepburnnWho Owns America?: A New Declaration of Independence edited by Herbert Agar and Allen circa 1955 (“The face of Garbo is an Idea,nTate; University Press of America; Washington, DC. Do the fugitives and associates of 1936 that of Hepburn an Event”), he divinednhave meaning for 1,983? Could be: President Reagan was fond of bringing up RDR not long the “meaning” of the Eiffel Tower.nago.nSeveral pages in Empire of Signs, a textnLaurels (Pall 1982) edited by Vincent Milligan; American Society of the French Legion ofnabout a “system” he calls Japan, dealnHonor; New York. Essays on bandits, women and war, and hashish—if nothing else, an in­ with such quotidian subjects as food:nteresting combination.n”The harmony between Oriental foodnand chopsticks cannot be merely fianctional,ninstrumental; the foodstuffs arennnH H 1 5nApril 1983n