The Penguin Dictionary of Critical Theory

I bought this book for my graduate-level course at college named Practical Criticism (renamed to Critical Theory this year actually) and it has been so useful. It has everything in it! Or almost. i could just sit down and read some of the things in this book just for fun. It is fascinating stuff. Purchase this book now! Used or New. W/e is cheaper.

The entries in this dictionary are great and informative, but it just seems like it could have had even more in it (plus, there are a few entries that probably didn't need to be in there such as Karl Popper, a great philosopher of science and all, but how much does he really affect critical theory?). Still, the smaller size does make it even more portable, which is kind of a plus, and for the amount of information that is in here it's totally worth the price.

For anyone interested in recent intellectual traditions Macey's book is worth keeping on the desktop. Spare minutes can profitably be spent browsing, or the history of a particular line of thought can be traced through multiple entries. Clearly written and wonderfully informative.

A DICTIONARY OF CRITICAL THEORY by David Macey is one of those books that ought to be held in one hand while the other holds another text on literary theory. It is no easy task to succinctly summarize let alone analyze an imposingly long list of terms, writers, movements, and schools of critical thought, but Macey has come close. Assume that a reader is about to try to plow his way through the denseness that is the thought of Lacan. As a preliminary, that reader would be wise first to read the general background to Lacanian thought before navigating a way between Lacan's distinctions between the Real and the Imaginary stages of infantile growth. Or perhaps that reader feels a lack of understanding of Freud's oedipal issues. Macey is where to begin. Macey's text is arranged alphabetically, as any proper dictionary should be, but this text is more encyclopedia than dictionary. Part of the not-so-obvious problem I have with Macey is the same that I have with any author who seeks to encapsulate all the knowledge of the world on one issue in one book. The question of authorial bias manifests itself not only in what is included or excluded, but also in the even-handedness of its treatment. Macey tends to smooth over any areas of political controversy that arise all too often in a discourse that is fraught with potential conflict. For example, as I was reading the entry on Noam Chomsky, the MIT linguist who has for years been an outspoken critic of both the United States and Israel, hardly anything was written that might cast an aspersion on Chomsky's own biases. What was presented was a rather technical explanation of Chomsky's linguistic theories, a matter of concern only to other linguists. I was surprised by Macey's omission of Frederick Jameson, one of the most outspoken Marxist critics of this century. Still, Macey's text is an indispensable tool for those who wish to learn how words affect ideas.

Yes and no. For some time, I have referred to the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. This I have found to be particularly helpful. I thought I might find the same with the Penguin Dictionary of Critical Theory. But first, what is critical theory? While there are several possible definitions, perhaps the following would make most sense. Scientific theory, in whatever field, uses "instrumental reason" for the purpose of "manipulating the external world". Critical theory might be said to be theory which examines the instrumental reason itself. The Dictionary of Critical Theory is strong from the point of view that it is broad in the information it provides. It sketches e.g. both the origins and the outcomes of metaphysics, or both the early and the late work of Jacques Derrida -- and it gives one a good feel for the mood among academics, and for caveats one should be aware of. It is strong from the point of view that it succeeds in reducing vast and complex subject matter to concise and manageable entries -- and it is generally up to date. It also has a very useful bibliography at the back (80 pages). I would consider it weak from the point of view that it is not as comprehensive as it might be. I looked up "systems theory". Nothing. I looked up "axioms", "coherentism", "Michael Polanyi". There was nothing -- where there might have been, at least, a single-line cross-reference. I would also consider it weak from the point of view that it sometimes seems too technical to be useful. For instance, I looked up "metalanguage". This, it says, is "a technical or second-order language used to describe and analyse a natural or first-order language". A dictionary, surely, is intended to be more explicatory than that. The book is useful -- and I would rather have it than not. This is the first impression in paperback, and hopefully future editions would overcome some of the present shortcomings.