"The ideal reader or 'super-reader' posited by structuralism was in effect a transcendental subject absolved from all limiting social determinates. But not even Levi-Strauss was able to read texts as would the Almighty himself." (Eagleton 105)
Structuralism, much like all the other schools of criticism we have been studying, can be a method to use when interpreting a piece of literature, but it cannot be the only method used. There are way too many restrictions. When I first started reading Eagleton's essay I found myself going along with the structuralist system. But, then I realized that to just concentrate on the rules and expel the "human subject," ergo take humanity out of literature, was a disturbing concept. Concentrating on only the rules and seeming to have a God-like knowledge of these rules was a bit ridiculous.
I liked this quote because it shows that only the Almighty himself would be able to have the capacity for true structuralist criticism. Later in the text Eagleton brings up a valid point he says "the competent reader is one who can apply to the text certain rules; but what are the rules for applying rules? (109)" This also goes against the structuralists teaching. For who put the laws and rules there in the first place?