Re: My problem, Dr Rovira ...

Scottie, to me, it's just a matter of reading words. Simply a matter of reading
words. Robbie wrote a very clear (and very well written, I agree) disagreement
with my position, but I didn't see much substance in terms of support *for* his
position or *against* my own. He simply stated his disagreement. Beyond
stating clearly and succinctly his disagreement, he didn't say much.

I could be missing something, but I don't think I'm missing much.

It's not about "point scoring" to me (and I never really understood where this
came from), it's about seeing clearly what the people you disagree with are
saying, and not simply saying they must be wrong because you don't understand
them immediately.

I could write more clearly (no doubt), but I think I've repeated myself often
enough, and expressed my basic ideas clearly enough, that anyone who wants to
understand can. I'm not using jargon (don't like it myself unless it's
unavoidable, and it's unnecessary here), so there shouldn't be many obstacles.

The main assumption I'm working with here is that people take the time to
understand those they disagree with. The person who wrote the article posted by
Patrick didn't do that, and some of my respondents here aren't doing that (I'm
not including Robbie in this category -- just want to make that clear).

I agree with you, though, that some of my ideas may be a bit inaccessible to
some readers just because they're very different ways of thinking about
literature for them. I think we both recognize that's not completely my fault
-- but is it so bad a thing to have to confront a different way of thinking
about reading or understanding literature? To wrap your head around it and see
things, just for a second, from this new point of view?

I did receive one good attempt at a reply from Daniel. I even glowed a bit
about it in the opening line of my reply to him. He did misunderstand me on one
point, but he worked hard enough to understand me overall that I think he'll get
it on his next reply, and probably write me a pretty good response.

And yes, Scottie, the ideas I expressed are my own. I feel obligated to
understand what other people think, but that doesn't mean I need validation from
these others. I see my ideas mirrored in some degree by some critics I've read,
but on the whole they would be anathema to the very postmodern critics that were
being lampooned by the article that began this argument.

Do the critics of postmodernism see this?

Jim

Scottie Bowman wrote:

> '...Is the real problem that people with literary criticism
> its jargon, or simply an unwillingness to really think
> about these issues ...'
>
> I guess that must be it.
>
> My 'problem' is that I don't understand much of what you
> write. When I do, I seem continually drawn into a kind
> point-scoring, pseudo-debate where the conditions & terms
> are as defined by you - in ways that sit awkwardly to my own
> way of thinking. It's not exactly jargon but rather a system
> of assumptions shared, presumably, by your colleagues but
> which seem quite alien to my own untrained & doubtless naive
> 'common sense'.
>
> Even I know how treacherous that same 'common sense' can
> sometimes be. But it's much more often the valuable alarm bell
> triggered by bullshit.
>
> Robbie, on the other hand, though he gives every evidence of
> a scholarly provenance, I find absolutely crystal in his utterances.
> I simply couldn't improve on his remarks to the question of
> Authorial Intent. Yet your only response is to accuse him
> of 'assertions' - implying your own position is somehow attained
> by the loftier steps of pure reason.
>
> (Though even at this point, you seem more aware of its outdatedness
> & the derisory nature of the eejits who still hold it. I don't want
> to cheat but, as you've acquired the habit of saying: 'I wonder is
> the real problem' already evident in that secret new venue where
> your first request has been for guidance as to what others have
> written on the subject, what might be the good gen ...? Is the need
> greater, perhaps, after all this time in Academia, to fit your responses
> to the currently accepted network of opinion than to consider
> your VERY OWN.)
>
> Scottie B.
>
> -
> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Oct 24 14:33:48 2002