J J R wrote: > Nah...I think you both may not be giving your instructors enough credit. > If I were teaching a course involving Paz and Derrida, I'd first want to > see my students present a valid reading of either of them before I heard > the opinion of a student on the subjects those authors addressed. It's > almost the same type of complaint I had about Warren French. Let me hear > everyone else's opinion first--show me that you understand all the other > points of view--THEN I'll listen to yours. Well, yes and no. I don't think you necessarily have to know the other opinions to form your own, although sometimes it helps to know what you're up against (: . What I *did* object to though was the fact that he was not at all interested in my own opinions, which I attempted to form as independently from the critics as possible, where it would have in fact been easier for me to just summarise their opinions. This was supposed to be a course on Modernism in Art, which was a misnomer - we barely studied a picture the whole time - all it was really was a Paz Comprehension Test, a What Critics Say About Modernism In Art 101. In the case of Warren French (and I quite liked his book without finding it spectacular) he had a slightly different task at hand and yes, it might have been more productive to touch upon all the major strands of thought in a book such as his. There's nothing I hate more than (and I'm not necessarily accusing French of this) biographers and critics saying `And then of course there was book/album/movie X which as we all know was godawful' when I'm saying `Hey! Well actually I happen to think it's pretty darn good!' I think in the case of biography it should be all or nothing - the biographer should always be there or he/she never should. If it's 50-50 it just gets distracting and annoying. Camille verona_beach@geocities.com @ THE ARTS HOLE www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442 @ THE INVERTED FOREST www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest