Re: My problem, Dr Rovira ...

From: Jim Rovira <jrovira@drew.edu>
Date: Fri Oct 25 2002 - 09:46:19 EDT

Nah, Scottie's right about a couple things -- Robbie's and his writing has
an elegance I don't think mine usually does. I think it may come, partly,
from classical training, or from an educational system with a strong
backbone in the classics.

Now I feel cheated :).

I also remember the first time I really started approaching literary theory
and my initial reactions. They weren't unlike (at all) reactions I've seen
on this list lately -- in my case, the reaction was even further
exacerbated by previous training. My introduction to textual
interpretation as a discipline came through Biblical hermeneutics which,
you can imagine, were generally pretty conservative.

They also emphasized authorial intent as the basis of textual meaning, but
did so in a pretty rigorous way and demanded a good bit of research
(linguistic and historical) to back up any assertions about the author's
probable intent. The four main texts I drew from were:

Mickleson: Interpreting the Bible (from the 60s -- but very very good).

Osborne: The Hermeneutical Sprial (an 80s book influenced by Mickleson's
book, but taking into account Reader Response theory and even including a
brief page or two misunderstanding deconstruction. I think it described it
as an extreme form of Reader Response theory).

Cottrell and Turner: Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (a fair book).

Virkler: Biblical Hermeneutics (I had a bad impression of this book).

I think my first encounter with Derrida led me to initially compare him to
the serpent in the Garden: "has God really said?"

Then I read more of him for myself and saw the strong ethical basis of his
project, and also realized I couldn't really understand him without having
read Saussere, Plato, Heidegger, Nietzche, Levi-Strauss, etc....so went on
to read those books before forming many judgments about Derrida's own
thought. He's really not a literary critic -- he's a philosopher.

Anyway, makes it a bit difficult to stomach glib responses when I see how
much work it takes to _really_ understand, and I don't even consider myself
among those who _really_ understand. I hope you realize this isn't at all
about Scottie, though -- the article Patrick posted was the third such
article I've read in about that many months promoting the same outlook,
attitude, and idiocy.

Jim

Will Hochman wrote:

> Oh Jim, you fell for Scottie's trap. So did I!--but a years ago. I
> enjoy Scottie's posts (when I can understand what he's saying which I
> can't always do) on this list, but I won't give him the umpire
> position or even the wise old man position he likes to take. He's
> playing little mind games because in Scottie's world, it's fun to
> pinch professors by their egos and play favorites. True scholars and
> thinkers just move on and let the funny man have his silly fun.
>
> I hope you and your new wife are happy and well. I truly enjoy your
> ideas and learn a great deal from you. It really hurt to see you
> bending to Scottie's will when you said some of your "ideas may be a
> bit inaccessible to some readers." This is true for all writers and
> believe me, your intelligence and writing on this list are as fine as
> any. I don't always agree with you but I respect you as one of the
> finest contributors to this list.
>
> will
> --
> Will Hochman
>
> Associate Professor of English
> Southern Connecticut State University
> 501 Crescent St, New Haven, CT 06515
> 203 392 5024
>
> http://www.southernct.edu/~hochman/willz.html
>
> -
> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Fri Oct 25 09:46:22 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 10 2003 - 21:50:19 EDT