Re: Salinger's Problem with Westerners?

Daniel --

I have a question -- does your failure to see the usefulness of criticism say
something about you, or about criticism? I'd say well over 95% of the criticism
out there doesn't have any direct use to me at all, but at the same time, I
wouldn't say it's not useful. I would say it's useful to people asking
different questions about different texts.

I think the mistake you're making here is partly one of objectifying something
that's inherently subjective. A discovery in a scientific discipline -- say,
computer science -- could conceivably affect anyone working with computers, both
directly and indirectly. But the article in the last PMLA about the influence
of contemporary medicinal practices upon Keats' poetry (if I'm remembering the
article right) wouldn't necessarily have any use to anyone but a Keats scholar,
and then only a Keats scholar interested in asking those kinds of questions
about Keats' poems.

Also, just by asking about "the writer's intent" as a valid ground for textual
meaning, you're working within a specific set of critical assumptions that just
aren't held anymore. If you look for criticism trying to answer this question,
you have to look for some pretty old criticism, generally.

If you really think through these assumptions, they're really nonsense -- you
can't read the author's mind directly, ever, can you? You can only know what
the author may have meant by the words the author speaks. So everything,
ultimately, comes down to interpreting those words within a specific historical
and cultural context. As a result, what you're really asking for, in the end, is
historical research.

Foucault, one of those nasty postmodern critics, actually does a lot of this.
As do people influenced by him. Marxists do this too. Freudian critics can
probe pretty deeply into the author's life if they're really doing their work
right.

Suppose the author, at one time in his/her life, writes a great deal about what
his/her work means to him/her. Is that a guarantee that the author was thinking
that while writing the works we're so interested in? Is it a guarantee he may
not change his/her mind later and then say, THIS is what my work means?
Authorial intent is a complete dead end for textual meaning.

There's plenty of historical research out there. You may want to start with a
good biography or two or three if you want research about fiction that goes in
the direction you're interested in. And even then, I think you'll find, there's
no real guarantee you'll get anywhere near a consensus on the author's probable
intent.

Jim

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

> My reply was not directed at anyone (and not Jim, thanks for the reply) just
> my experience with formal criticism in general. My reply was meant merely
> to "cast my vote" on the subject of critics and the list. I don't think
> the list exhibits traits of the 'specialized critic'. My experience with
> formal (academic) criticism has been negative as measured by usefulness to
> me understanding literature from two points of view a.)the meaning I get
> based on my experience. and b.) the meaning the writer intended regardless
> of my experience. I find there is no help required for the first and good
> dialogue is helpful for the second hence this list. Being a technical
> person, I appreciate the sentiment in the article; not it's details but
> sentiment. Technicians tend to value things based directly on their utility,
> at least I do, and I didn't find my experience with Academic criticism
> useful. What is a critics job? I am not sure and that is the beginning of
> sorrows not irritation with it all.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Rovira [mailto:jrovira@drew.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 11:51 AM
> To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
> Subject: Re: Salinger's Problem with Westerners?
>
> Wait...when did either John or myself do this:
>
> <<Yocum & Patrick sound a good deal more serious about books
> than I ever was. But to consign the three of us, & our like,
> implicitly, to the ranks of the knuckle-trailers is a teenshy,
> TEENSHY, weenchy bit - dare I say it ? - arrogant.
>
> Scottie B.>>
>
> At what point were denigrating comments made about either Daniel or yourself
> or either of your ability to understand literature?
>
> I think understanding where this comment comes from (and why it would be
> made
> so out of the blue) would probably take us a long way toward understanding
> the real source of the attitudes in the article.
>
> Jim
>
> -
> * 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 17:18:03 2002