The travel of theory to the construction of Theory, and then to the constructions of "after Theory" and "against Theory", instilled an increased demand for self-awareness in literary studies. Self-awareness in literary studies has two directions which usefully obtrude upon and refine each other. On the one hand, there is the self-awareness that applies within the discipline itself (the self of the discipline), or the awareness of disciplinary prerogatives and presumptions while, so to say, doing the discipline. This is the stuff of Theory textbooks for literature students (an area of some moment to this study, to which Chapter 8 is devoted); many begin by explaining to students that to engage with Theory is to become aware, as Steven Lynn puts it, "of a variety of different assumptions about texts, and [of] how to use those assumptions to explore and understand literature",¹ or to realize that reading is not, in Raman Selden's words (echoing Terry Eagleton), "an innocent activity".² These exhortations to disciplinary self-awareness are addressed to students, couched in a register appropriate to exchanges between master and novice, where the master's voice represents the discipline itself for the novice, becomes the discipline's self.