M. H. Abrams, in his book The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition, argues that the development of literary criticism has centered on four coordinates: the universe, the work, the artist, and the audience (Abrams 6). He argues that early critical theory focused on the relation of literature to the world, its tendency to imitate or "mimic" reality [mimesis] (Abrams 8). Through the influence of Aristotle and Christianity, criticism began to focus on the influence of literature on the audience, valuing literature which had a positive or "moral" impact on the reader/listener [pragmatism] (Abrams 14-16). By the 18th century, criticism had shifted to an emphasis on the creative impulses of the artist; literature was an "expression" of the artist's imagination and feelings [romanticism] (Abrams 22-25).

Twentieth century critical theory has grown out of the philosophies and physics of the day. Evolution dethroned man from the center of the universe; modern physics called in question objectivity and suggested that reality was "fuzzy," that matter and energy were more than just interchangeable but were two sides of the same reality. Although Einstein resisted quantum mechanics, saying "God does not play dice," the old Newtonian universe, a carefully tooled machine which scientists could qualify and describe, was replaced by a universe of indeterminacy and apparent randomness. Relativity and quantum mechanics suggested that absolute mathematical precision was impossible, that instead, the universe could best be described only by statistical trends. In the sub-atomic world, science could only make informed "guesses" about nature.

The same uncertainty plagued linguistics and anthropology. Examining the origins of language and meaning, these sciences questioned whether words had clearly defined meanings and limits. Sassure argued that signs develop meaning by their difference from other signs (Eagleton 96-7). That is, words only have meaning in relation to themselves. The letters 'd' 'o' 'g' do not mean dog. They are simply an agreed upon symbol that stand in for the meaning dog. In the same way, the word dog only has meaning in contrast to everything that is not-dog. The word/sign dog distinguishes what is meant by dog from everything that is not-dog.

Imagine a small boy from the city who has never seen farm animals. Looking out the car window, he sees a cow standing in a field and shouts, "Look, mommy, a dog!" "No dear," his mother answers, "that's a cow." A little farther down the road, the boy sees a horse. Less certain, he says, "Mommy, is that a dog or a cow?" "No dear," she answers, and so the boy's understanding of what is meant by the word dog grows.

Abrams suggests that modern criticism, in reaction to modernism, has placed at its center, the work (Abrams 27-8). But influenced by Sassure's process of difference, the idea that "meaning is always in some sense absent" (Eagleton 128), the meaning of text began to expand beyond the bounds of the work itself to encompass Abram's other coordinates of universe, artist, and audience.

Formalism ignored everything external to the text--author, culture, historical background--and was an attempt to reconcile the apparent indeterminacies in texts. Formalism, while emphasizing the primacy of the text, explored the "tensions and oppositions inherent in the text [but] in order to develop a unified meaning" (Kirszner and Mandell 1777). Formalists found word play and metaphor captivating but tried to find a single meaning within the apparent multiple meanings struggling within a text. For this reason, American formalism or "new criticism" stressed the importance of a "close reading" of the text. While there are few formalist critics left, because of their emphasis on the primacy of text, all other modern critical approaches begin with the techniques of close reading (Kirszner and Mandell 1777-8).

Structuralism redefines text, shifting attention away from the words of the text, the apparent "surface meaning" to the underlying patterns within the text, the "deep structures." These underlying patterns are believed to be common to literature, and the individual words in the text only have meaning in relation to these patterns (Eagleton 95-6). Myth criticism, combining structuralism with the work of Carl Jung, sees in the text the outworking of the "collective unconscious," myths of initiation, falling from grace, sacrifice, etc., which are common to all people and recognized by all peoples (Eagleton 92-4).

The problem for the post-structuralist is that if the meaning of any signifier is due to its difference from every other, that meaning is not inherent in the sign, but dependant on the total web of language, what the post-structuralist refers to as text (Eagleton 127-30). As post-structuralism reads between the lines for this underlying subtext, text is redefined, expanding beyond the work to include the contexts of world, artist, and audience.

This emphasis on difference and displaced meaning suggests subversive readings of the text. Deconstruction examines the way in which texts create their own ambiguities--revealing the manner in which one system of thought remains dependant on its opposite (Eagleton 132-4). The deconstructionist examines texts for the ways in which alternative structures interact and interfere with each other, allowing for a subversive and ambiguous interpretation of the text.

Sociological criticism redefines text to include the ideological world in which a text is found, examining the subversive influences of ideology on the artist and the ways in which cultural value systems manifest themselves in a text (Kirszner and Mandell 1782). Feminist criticism examines the textuality of gender relationships, exploding male-dominant myths and revealing alternative feminine textual modes and perceptions (Kirszner and Mandell 1783-4). Marxist criticism examines socio-political influences, society in conflict, revealing the interdependence of conflicting ideologies (Kirszner and Mandell 1785).

New historicism redefines the text to include the "historical and cultural contexts of the period in which [the text] was created and [the] periods in which [the text] was critically evaluated" (Kirszner and Mandell 1787). Literature does not mimic the external world. Instead the external world of history and culture is itself a fictional creation, sometimes enslaving readers [Althusser], sometimes defining "morality and truth" [Foucault], and sometimes revealing the "conflicting voices" that make up the discourse of any historical period or culture [Bakhtin] (Kirszner and Mandell 1787)

Psychoanalytic criticism expands the meaning of text to include the psyche of the author, seeing the text as the "expression in fictional form of the inner workings of the human mind" (Kirszner and Mandell 1789). Using the principles of psychotherapy worked out by Freud, psychoanalytic criticism interprets the symbols and metaphors, language and connotations of a text as the individual unconscious expressions of sexuality and mores, instinct and conscience (Kirszner and Mandell 1789-90).

Finally, reader-response criticism blurs the distinctions between audience and text, so that for Stanley Fish, there is no objective text at all: the unique response of reader to work is the "text" (Kirszner and Mandell 1789-1791).

However, while all of these modern theories expand the meaning of text to include the broader contexts of author, audience, and world, the work itself is still the motivating force. For that reason, any interpretation of a work must be supported by the work. The validity of any interpretation is based on how well it reveals the work and is supported by quotations from and paraphrase and summary of the work.

Modern critical theories provide students with tools to explore literature, allowing students to draw on their own unique experiences, cultures, perceptions, and reactions, but to be convincing, students' interpretations must be grounded in the elements of the work under study.