Bad Ears

>From: Jim Rovira <jrovira@drew.edu>
>Reply-To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
>To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
>Subject: Re: invincible ignorance
>Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:16:47 -0400
>
>Nah, I didn't feel I was that out of temper. I felt I identified the
>problem.
>
>Come on...read some of the sentences in the article closely. Look at this
>one:
>
>wait...wait...DANG...I deleted the link. Can you resend?
>
>Thanks ;).
>
>Off the top of my head, I would say that:
>
>1. Undergraduates aren't generally expected to read Derrida or deconstruct
>texts, unless they're in an upper division literary theory class (hardly
>mandatory, even for English majors in most programs). Even then, the
>actual theoretical writing they get is pretty sparse and spoon fed by the
>instructor. So the article was factually incorrect at this point. It may
>have been an accurate representation of a very few institutions, but
>certainly not most.
>
>2. Again, most critics I've read aren't in the deconstruction/postmodern
>camp, so they wouldn't write from this POV or use this jargon. They may,
>and probably have, read some of this material, but that doesn't mean they
>necessarily agree with it -- even if they use some of the ideas.
>
>3. Some of the most difficult critics to read -- like Harold Bloom (his
>latest book on Shakespeare wasn't bad, though) -- aren't postmodern at
>all. I suspect the author of the article would probably identify Bloom as
>a postmodernist, though, even though Bloom criticizes this group as
>"professional resenters."
>
>4. I would like to add that I agreed with some of the article -- his point
>about Freud and Marx, notably, being accepted as legitimate authorities on
>human psychology and economic theory (respectively) by humanities scholars
>when they're not accepted by professionals in the field.
>
>I'd say this is partly due to the fact that Freud and Marx (and those after
>them) used literature themselves in the development of their theories, and
>partly because of the theoretical frameworks they constructed -- they
>really do provide alternative mythological structures into which all of
>human experience and history can be placed. But I'd say that Freud does
>still haunt the psychological profession as well to some small extent,
>doesn't he?
>
>At any rate, while there is an entire anti-Freud industry out there, I'd
>agree with the article when it says that humanities scholars generally give
>psychoanalytic theory a bit too much credit...
>
>Jim
>
>PS I don't know if I ever followed up on my attempt to publish in PMLA. I
>was, of course, shot down in flames, but I had the advantage of being shot
>down by three different readers. The reader that recommended publication,
>interestingly, understood the flaws in my article better than the next
>reader, who was quite hostile. This may be a good lesson to apply to the
>current topic...
>
>Scottie Bowman wrote:
>
> > '... being ignorance....ignorance is the real issue ...the ignorant
> > pool together to disseminate ...their ignorance
> >
> > Tch, tch, Jim. Temper, temper.
> >
> > The only thing I ever encounter that might remotely be termed
> > American lit crit is on Bananafish, Austen-L & Heming-L.
> > And, by cripes, I can recognise what Morningstar is writing
> > about.
> >
> > Scottie B.
> >
> > -
> > * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> > * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
>
>-
>* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
>* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH

Jim, it may be accurate that most critics are not card carrying members of
the deconstructionist camp. If so, this makes it all the more apparent how
forgettable their contributions are. Wasn't deconstructionism and the
pscyhoanalytic claptrap by the like of Lacan the literary theories of the
moment, many moons ago? Then someone who knew someone tenured decided those
types of criticisms didn't have enough flair, they wanted to find more
faults in the works of giants. So then they decided that the author being
dead wasn't good enough. It was time to exhume his body and piss on his
corpse. Thus began the next generation of critcism, under the vaunted title
of a "profession", of course.

I've found Harold Bloom as transparent as the rest of them. His "How to Read
and Why" book, subtly packaged under a non-affronting, descriptive heading,
an absolute perfect coaster for either a large glass of ale or an oversized
mug of green tea.

The "anti-Freud" industry, if it is likely still up and running, and was
initiated by bitter feminists, many of whom could not see past oversights
even Sigmund himself re-examined in his later years. Surely, the ghost of
Sigmund Freud(a great Halloween custom this year if anyone is still
searching for one) is palpable in the dusty halls of those
de-institutionalized brick buildings. Even under the weight of a 500 pound
social worker and through the click-clack of those clinicians sauntering
down the halls, if you put your ear close enough to the walls, you can hear
a faint 'I once had a case like that in Vienna' and then you know that the
founder of psychoanalysis is still with us, myths or not.

Yours,

John Gedsudski
Adjunct Professor of Sneer
Philistia Community College
507 Boorish Drive
NY,NY

_________________________________________________________________
Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Oct 23 18:11:14 2002