Re: Salinger's Problem with Westerners?

Ah, I read the article, and the guy makes remarkable generalizations about
literary criticism that tells me he hasn't read very much of it at all. I dare
anyone to pick up the last issue of PMLA, English Langauge Notes, Milton
Quarterly, Shakespeare Quarterly, etc., and tell me if these at all fit the
description in the article.

They probably won't. He's describing a small corner of literary criticism and
dishonestly representing it as the whole thing -- the only thing that could
save him from the accusation of dishonesty, of course, being ignorance. And I
think ignorance is the real issue. The ignorant pool together to disseminate
their ignorance and pat themselves on the back for their own cleverness.

It's not surprising that he has the gall, as a computer person, to critique the
humanities as an entire profession based upon his very limited study of a small
corner of literary criticism. If he had a humanities degree he'd know better
than to think that way but, unfortunately...

Jim

Scottie Bowman wrote:

> I can just see John's 'momentary' (if somewhat tight-lipped)
> smile as he dismisses Chip Morningstar's squib for being so
> 'old' & 'lame'. A bit like watching a chap, with great self-control,
> indulge the urchin who has just dropped a mouse down his pants.
>
> I'm afraid, though, quite a few of us low-life types will be
> pissing ourselves at the precision with which it hits the bull.
>
> Why is it so many teachers of language & literature - of communication,
> for Crissake - find it so hard to convey their thoughts to the rest
> of us? It must be the thoughts are too subtle, too paradoxical,
> too ornate for a plainer exposition.
>
> That must be it.
>
> Scottie B.
>
> -
> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Oct 23 10:22:28 2002