Re: Salinger's Problem with Westerners?

heh...I did my senior honors thesis on James Joyce and was declared by the
good Irish Dean at my school to be an "Irishman at heart" (I have this in
writing), and this was back in 1996 -- so if I've picked that up I've
always had it.

Anyway, yes, it makes sense that an attack on the author of the article
could be interpreted as an attack on those who agree with him. But then
you should have left Daniel out of the list of those being attacked -- he
didn't express agreement with the article, simply expressed the validity of
his own approach to literature. I didn't argue.

But even though I know you share the general attitude expressed by the
article (and this from previous comments and on other lists...and even
previous discussions on this list), it doesn't necessarily follow that you
endorse every single line of the article. I still feel it's fair to say
I'm attacking the author of the article without necessarily directly
attacking you.

But what did I really say about the guy? Mainly, that he was ignorant
about the real state of affairs of humanities study in US academia. Is
that, in itself, such a terrible, terrible thing? Is ignorance about this
particular, in itself, somehow a malign to someone? I am unashamedly
ignorant of the lingo of his field (computer science), and am also ignorant
of the general attitudes of people in his field (except, of course, when I
hear them expressed here and there). I don't feel bad about myself as a
result. I don't feel ashamed. I don't feel the need to apologize.

But I'm certainly not stupid enough to go ahead and write about the subject
anyhow.

His ignorance is only a malign to him because he chose to write an article
expressing his ignorance. But I don't see general ignorance about the real
state of affairs in humanities reseach in the US as being a terrible thing
in itself -- just as I don't consider my ignorance about the state of
affairs of physics research, computer science, engineering, or even auto
mechanics studies to be a terrible thing in itself.

Jim

Scottie Bowman wrote:

> '... where this comment comes from (and why it would be
> made so out of the blue) ...'
>
> Come, come. Of COURSE, the assumption is there
> that if one applauds Morningstar one is aligning with the
> glib troglodytes concerned mainly to demonstrate their
> philistine 'cleverness' - as opposed to the 'respectful'
> scholars humbly (perhaps even celibately) devoting
> themselves to a careful study of the text. (Or even texte.)
>
> For someone whose shoe didn't even graze the sacred
> soil, you seem to have suddenly picked up a lot of Irish
> attitudes - not least a distinct touch of the: 'AhGodBlessUs
> AndSavingYourPresenceYourHonourBeItFromMeToCast
> TheFirstStoneSureI'mOnlyADecentPoorManDoingHis
> BestForYourHonour's.
>
> 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 15:28:00 2002