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

Ratio 22 (4):464-485 (2009)
Max De Gaynesford
University of Reading
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). 1.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9329.2009.00445.x
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 35,830
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total downloads
41 ( #156,952 of 2,293,669 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #410,256 of 2,293,669 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature