Re: The last Logos; An Iceberg Full-On

>From: Yocum >

> Bear with me, This is the promised post from earlier. I will be windy,
>and
>just to put me in the proper frame;
>
>BONZAI!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

>Who decides the Boundaries? (again I say this). John O.'s attempts with
>his students seems whimsical. Some define the boundary wider and some
>narrow. You and John O. say it Doesn't mean that the author is dead, And
>the reader can make the text mean anything. Your theory may say that but
>it
>does not do it. It seems in actual practice it results in the readers
>making the text say anything, since it is you and John O. labelling the
>intelligent and perceptive readers, ok, so what. You both see this as
>nonsense or carping but the heart of it is 'reasonable-ness'. This
>reasonable-ness is subject to whom ever is defining the limits of meaning.
>There is no falsification, there is no repeatability there is no parsimony.
>It all comes down to who has the most charisma, or attitude, or who can
>yell
>the loudest or claim the most authority. No criteria is given to test
>texts
>and determine if they are in the bounds. Atleast nothing you can take to
>the
>bank. Check your bank book at the end of this Kim. If this is the state,
>then how are poor slobs like me are to know the good critics from the bad?
>You and John O. might agree in principle, as a result of all this, your
>boundaries of possible readings become equivalent to no boundaries in the
>larger sense of literary criticism. They become weaker than the quest for
>the Author, or atleast less noble.
>
>
>Literary critcism is an art form, no that really is a compliment as well
>coming from an engineer. It is an art form with pretensions to science.
>Since science has dominated the intellectual landscape throughout the 20th
>century every other field of knowledge is trying to ride that bandwagon of
>respectability or trying to some how garner some of the value associated
>with it. Literature is respectable, valuable, and should be held in high
>regard on its own merits. Can some one look at art scientifically? Sure,
>but they see through the glass darkly.
>
>This is a large part of what I have been saying over and over again.
>Trying
>to show you guys and gals this with the absurd things I write

Yocum,

With all due respect, your posts of late have struck me, and frighteningly
so, as a cross between a hungover Thompson and second-rate Burroughs.

Cheers,

A

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sun Mar 9 15:52:07 2003