Subject: Re: Bananastanley Fish
From: Matt Kozusko (mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu)
Date: Sun Feb 20 2000 - 14:15:45 EST
AntiUtopia@aol.com wrote:
> What I would argue for theoretically is something of a cross between Fish's
> Reader Response and a historicist approach. Fish almost argues for that
> himself, but doesn't want to see it.
Maybe he does now. The whole of poststructuralism has, I think,
turned largely towards (new) historicist tendencies. See Louis
Montrose's critique of J. Hillis Miller's MLA address of 1986. Miller
mourns the turn away from high theory back to the cruder, social
studies sort work (Miller secretly imagines, one assumes, a
pre-formalist-revolution kind of *romantic* historicism). Montrose
argues neatly for contexts, for adding a salvaged Marxism and a
measure of CLifford Geertz to the mix of poststructuralism. Maybe
John V. is around and wouldn't mind stepping in with some thoughts
here.
Please, Jim, post on. I am delighted and intrigued, reading what
you've said so far. I always (uncritically) liked Fish because he was
one of the smartest and snottiest, yet most entertaining and
smartly-spoken of the bunch. Here my pure enjoyment of a figure--of
the author--wins out easily over my disciplanary pledge to hard-nosed
post logicalism. I saw Fish once at UGA...he was a right bastard, but
I never enjoyed a speaker more (even Stephen Greenblatt, even Terry
Hawkes). He fooled a whole row of snooty philosophy grads and law
students (a few of my own bretheren, too), in a way like a Mark Twain
protagonist might beguile a bungling villain of his shotgun or his
trousers. I wasn't able to figure out exactly how, but it sure was
fun.
-- Matt Kozusko mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu - * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 19:30:22 EST