[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-35256":3,"doc-seo-35256":29},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"doc_content":15,"file_id":16,"file_url":17,"file_type":18,"file_size":19,"view_count":4,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":20,"is_downloadable":20,"audit_status":20,"page_count":21,"language":22,"language_code":23,"site_id":24,"html_lang":23,"table_of_contents":25,"faqs":26,"seo_title":13,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":27,"read_time":28},35256,549758146520,"Patrick","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/80002397d8c0411e94?_k=1775819394049821470",2,"Literature","What Remains of Our Loves?","The text traces the rise and delay of French literary theory during the twentieth century, contrasting France’s relative isolation with the international momentum of Russian formalism, Anglo-American New Criticism, and other movements. It outlines factors behind France’s early “foot-dragging,” then describes a late reversal when theory surged worldwide around the 1960s and early 1970s. It concludes that institutionalization has transformed theory into rigid pedagogy, with stagnation visible in curricula and exam-oriented jargon.","","cbCairT5HHWey5uc","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCairT5HHWey5uc","pdf",7313940,1,210,"English","en",105,"# What Remains of Our Loves?\n## International movements and French delay\n## Spitzer’s diagnosis and added explanations\n## The late surge and its social appeal\n## Institutionalization and stagnation in education","[{\"question\":\"What does the text claim about France’s early relationship to major theory movements?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that French studies lagged behind other influential twentieth-century movements, having relatively limited exposure compared with developments in Russian formalism, Anglo-American New Criticism, and related schools.\"},{\"question\":\"Which reasons are cited for French “foot-dragging” before the major change?\",\"answer\":\"Spitzer attributes it to an entrenched sense of superiority, a positivist search for causes, and the dominance of explication de texte practices; the text also adds the absence of comparable linguistics and philosophy-of-language curricula and a weakened hermeneutic tradition.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the text describe the later transformation of French theory in the 1960s and 1970s?\",\"answer\":\"It says that theory suddenly moved to the cutting edge, becoming highly attractive to young scholars under labels such as “new criticism,” “poetics,” “structuralism,” “semiology,” and “narratology.”\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the author suggest theory later loses vitality in France?\",\"answer\":\"The text claims theory becomes institutionalized and turned into a stifling method, with stagnation reinforced by rigid educational requirements—especially mastery of narratological jargon for exams.\"}]",1782511606,323,null]