[Eliot, T. S. 2011 [1917]. The Waste Land and Other Poems. New York, NY: Broadway View Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Barthes, Roland. 1970. S/Z. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bauerlein, Mark. 2007. Review of Theory’s Empire. In John Holbo (ed.), Framing Theory’s Empire, 1–6. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Birns, Nicholas. 2010. Theory after theory: An intellectual history of literary theory from 1950 to the early 21st century. Peterborough, Ont. & Buffalo, NY: Broadview Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bové, Paul. 1992. In the wake of theory. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Chandler, Daniel. 1995. Semiotics for beginners. https://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/S4B/ (accessed 1 January 2019).]Search in Google Scholar
[Conway, Christopher. 2007. Essentializing theory: A testimonial. In John Holbo (ed.) Framing theory’s empire, 111–113. West Lafayette, IN.: Parlor Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Culler, Jonathan D. 1975. Structuralist poetics: Structuralism, linguistics and the study of literature. London: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[Culler, Jonathan D. 1981. The pursuit of signs: Semiotics, literature, deconstruction. New York, NY: Cornell University Press.10.2307/3684090]Search in Google Scholar
[Culler, Jonathan D. 2007. The literary in theory. Stanford: Stanford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Cunningham, Valentine. 2002. Reading after theory. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.]Search in Google Scholar
[Davis, Colin. 2004. After post-structuralism: Reading, stories and theory. London & New York, NY: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[Docherty, Thomas. 1996. After theory (2nd edn). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Dubreuil, Laurent. 2011. Literature after theory, or: the intellective turn. In Jane Elliott & Derek Attridge (eds), Theory after ‘theory’, 237–248. London: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[Eagleton, Terry. 1983. Literary theory: An introduction. Minneapolis, MN & London: University of Minnesota Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Eagleton, Terry. 2003. After theory. New York, NY: Basic Books.]Search in Google Scholar
[Eco, Umberto. 1979. The role of the reader. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Eco, Umberto. 1984. Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Bloomington & Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Elam, Keir. 1980. The semiotics of theatre and drama. London & New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9780203993309]Search in Google Scholar
[Felski, Rita. 2015. The limits of critique. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226294179.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Fogarty, Sorcha. 2005. Binary oppositions. In Hugo Azerad, Edward Forman, David Houston Jones, Nigel Saint, Tim Unwin & David Williams (eds), The Literary Encyclopedia. Volume 1.5.2.07: Postwar and Contemporary French Writing and Culture, 1945–present.https://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?pec=true&UID=122 (accessed 1 January 2019).]Search in Google Scholar
[Good, Graham. 2001. Humanism betrayed: Theory, ideology and culture in the contemporary university. Montreal & Kingston: Mc Gill-Queen’s University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Holbo, John (ed.). 2007. Framing Theory’s Empire. West Lafayette, IN.: Parlor Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Iser, Wolfgang. 1974. The implied reader. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.10.56021/9780801815690]Search in Google Scholar
[Knapp, Steven & Walter Benn Michaels. 1982. Against theory. Critical Inquiry, 8(4). 723–742.]Search in Google Scholar
[Leitch, Vincent B. 2014. Literary criticism in the 21st century: Theory renaissance. London: Bloomsbury.]Search in Google Scholar
[Mayer, John T. 1991. The Waste Land and Eliot’s poetry notebook. In Ronald Bush (ed.), T. S. Eliot: The modernist in history, 67–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[McCann, Sean. 2007. Theory’s Empire–wrestling the fog bank. In John Holbo (ed.), Framing Theory’s Empire, 61–68. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[McQuillan, Martin, Graeme Macdonald, Robin Purves & Stephen Thomson (eds). 1999. Post-theory: New directions in criticism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Olsen, Stein Haugrom. 1987. The end of literary theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO978051198349810.1017/CBO9780511983498]Search in Google Scholar
[Patai, Daphne & Will H. Corral. 2005. Theory’s Empire: An anthology of dissent. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Payne, Michael & John Schad (eds). 2003. Life.after.theory. London: Continuum.]Search in Google Scholar
[Punday, Daniel. 2003. Narrative after deconstruction. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Schad, John. 2003. Preface. What are we after? In Michael Payne & John Schad (eds), Life.after.theory, ix–xi. London: Continuum.]Search in Google Scholar
[Selden, Raman, Peter Widdowson & Peter Brooke (eds). 2005. A reader’s guide to contemporary literary theory (5th edn). London: Pearson Longman.]Search in Google Scholar
[Stevens, Anne H. 2015. Literary theory and criticism: An introduction. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tyson, Lois. 2014. Critical theory today: A user-friendly guide (3rd edn). London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315760797]Search in Google Scholar
[Wallen, Jeffrey. 2007. The death and discontents of literary theory. In John Holbo (ed.), Framing Theory’s Empire, 133–134. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.]Search in Google Scholar
