Re: The Mantra of Michael

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: helena kim: "Re: Seymour's Death -- "Et tu, Muriel?""
• Previous message: J J R: "Re: liberation #1"
• Maybe in reply to: Erin McLaughlin: "The Mantra of Michael"
• Next in thread: WILL HOCHMAN: "Re: The Mantra of Michael"

At 18:11 11/20/98 -0800, Michael Tipermas wrote:
>If you really, want to learn from salinger reread zooey.  Franny and 
>Zooey both comment on how everyone is always intellectualizing great 
>writers, and how horrible it is.  Franny disscusses how section men uin 
>and destroy authors fo her in Franny.  That is an obvious and relevant 
>meaning.   


ARGGH...  It does not follow from this that all analysts of literature
are automatically section men.  Read the thread in the October archive
on "How to avoid phoniness"; we have addressed (from several different
viewpoints) the difference between a "good" teacher of literature and
what Franny would call a section man.  I think it would relate to
this.  I'm not going to reproduce that whole thread here.  That's
what the archive is for.


________________________________________________________

 G.H.G.A.Paterson  (804)662-3737  gpaterso@richmond.edu
________________________________________________________

• Next message: helena kim: "Re: Seymour's Death -- "Et tu, Muriel?""
• Previous message: J J R: "Re: liberation #1"
• Maybe in reply to: Erin McLaughlin: "The Mantra of Michael"
• Next in thread: WILL HOCHMAN: "Re: The Mantra of Michael"