Incense and insensibility: Austin on the 'non-seriousness' of poetry

Full text not archived in this repository.

Please see our End User Agreement.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

De Gaynesford, M. orcid id iconORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2715-6342 (2009) Incense and insensibility: Austin on the 'non-seriousness' of poetry. Ratio, 22 (4). pp. 464-485. ISSN 1467-9329 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9329.2009.00445.x

Abstract/Summary

What is at stake when J. L. Austin calls poetry ‘non-serious’, and sidelines it in his speech act theory? (I). Standard explanations polarize sharply along party lines: poets (e.g. Geoffrey Hill) and critics (e.g. Christopher Ricks) are incensed, while philosophers (e.g. P. F. Strawson; John Searle) deny cause (II). Neither line is consistent with Austin's remarks, whose allusions to Plato, Aristotle and Frege are insufficiently noted (III). What Austin thinks is at stake is confusion, which he corrects apparently to the advantage of poets (IV). But what is actually at stake is the possibility of commitment and poetic integrity. We should reject what Austin offers (V).

Altmetric Badge

Item Type Article
URI https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/26193
Identification Number/DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9329.2009.00445.x
Refereed Yes
Divisions Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Humanities > Philosophy
Publisher Wiley
Download/View statistics View download statistics for this item

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Search Google Scholar