Re: Salinger's Problem with Westerners?

Daniel --

the validity or respectability of literary discussion outside of academic
circles was never the issue at all. OF COURSE people can and should read,
enjoy, and discuss a work in whatever way they like without reference to
professional literary criticism.

There is work out there intended to help new readers understand the basic issues
revolving around specific works of fiction. Just look for it. While this work
is done by professional critics or historians as well, most literary criticism
isn't written on this level because it's taken for granted that the audience for
literary criticism is able to get these simply through their own reading.

What I was taking issue with was the grand (and inaccurate) generalizations the
guy made about humanities research merely on the basis of one conference and
maybe four or five books. This doesn't imply a denigration of the discussion of
literature on any other level.

Jim

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

> I don't know how many on this list are professional's in the field of
> Literary criticism but I can relate to Patrick Wong. I am a Civil and
> Environmental Engineer and there are direct consequences to my work. People
> can die or property damaged if I am not rigorously attentive. I suspect
> that many critics attempt to be rigorous (application to field?) but how do
> you measure it? I am not an ignorant person, I love literature but
> criticism in its academic practice doesn't seem to directly help
> understanding, at least for the majority of readers out there. I may be
> wrong but I think the majority of writers aren't thinking of Literary
> critics as their intended audiences. I say Critique away if its what you
> enjoy doing but it is not needed to have a meaningful discussion on any
> literature (that is the formulaic methods).
>
> I joined this list for insights on Salinger's writings based on what
> Salinger was trying to say, I know this is subjective but Salinger had an
> Idea/s he was trying to communicate at least I think so, a mere salinger,
> meaning that everyone gets whether they are japanese, engineers or Lit
> proffesors from Great Britain. I think it is highly egotistical to think
> that all these groups can't have a meaningful discussion on a work of
> literature. The best example is the Rilke stuff posted at this list, good
> interesting insight, valid? I think so, helps to make sense of the Salinger
> body of works. Some people use language to communicate and others use
> story to communicate meaning and others use language for prideful self
> promotion. The last is not my intent I just want to talk about Salingers
> stuff, the stories and the stuff in Salingers stuff. I good part of my
> family are literate in spanish only or completly illiterate but they can
> have some incredible insights and not infrequently. If this list is for the
> Literary elite let me know and I will gladly unsubscribe.
>
> I hope that is not what this list is for, because some of you have made
> Salinger more interesting to me.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Rovira [mailto:jrovira@drew.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 8:22 AM
> To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
> Subject: 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
> -
> * 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 12:50:15 2002