Jeffery Williams: If You Write a Twenty Page Outline for an Anthology, the Publishers Will Come

Jeffery Williams’ article was by far the least interesting of the five. I don’t find any fault with his argument, mostly because I am almost completely unfamiliar with the works he is citing as appropriate for the “Grand Anthology.” However, I will attempt to draw water from the rock and describe the two points that did slightly draw my attention. I enjoyed Williams’ description of how theory is codified into accepted doctrine, and he is the first writer from these articles to mention the monetary side of new literary and composition theory.

Williams begins his piece by highlighting the discrepancy in time between the introductory dialogues involving new theory and the publication of anthologies based solely on each new theory. It is Williams’ claim that the publication of new theory-based anthologies “mark[ed] a kind of closure of theory: theory is no longer a contested domain, a model vying for prominence, but has arrived as a fully licensed paradigm” (283). I find this interesting because his statement appears to broadcast the possibility that can be altered based upon a large enough audience. In other words, to borrow Williams’ overused transition, a theorist, much like a Biblical prophet, could change the face of modern theory if he or she could convince enough well-placed readers in the literary world to become “believers.” As I wrote above, this is not the most mind blowing of concepts, but it did make me stop and think about the nature of those who shape the theoretical lens I am suppose to apply in my classroom.

The notion that new theory acts as an economic stimulus was also moderately intriguing. I think the most interesting aspect of Williams’ even broaching the subject is the fact that he does so with the overt advertisement that he is not trying to malign any one school of thought by saying the publishers consecrated their theory through publication just to make a buck. Perhaps Williams’ own words would be more appropriate: “In short theory sells. and it has been largely responsible for the commercial viability of recent publishing programs…Without being overly cynical, I would say that theory has served to retool literary studies and work in a profound way” (284). I’m not convinced that Williams is not “being overly cynical;” if he was not considering the possibility of the publishing houses helping new theory as a way to help their bottom line, I don’t think the possibility would appear in this article.