Re: Bad Ears

It's hard to really know how to respond to your post, John...I'm not sure
exactly what you expect literary criticism to do. I don't think there's any out
there that's good for more than 50 years -- perhaps the closest is Aristotle's
Poetics, but that's the sole example I can think of (no doubt Robbie can name a
number of classics in the field of rheotric, but who reads those outside of
academia?).

Literary criticism appears "faddish" (and I'm not saying it's not at all)
because we tend to ask different questions of our literature over time. You can
see this in readings of older texts, like Shakespeare's Othello. Did you know
that many readers over 100 years ago read it like a morality play -- see, this
is what happens to a young girl when she goes against her father's wishes? I
can't imagine anyone reading it like that now, nor did that idea cross my mind
any one of the number of times I read the play.

At the same time, I can very easily see how people can read it that way.

I think you're asking for literature to serve the purpose of religion -- to
provide set readings of sacred texts that never change. I don't think I need to
point out that this expectation is a bit difficult to meet even in the case of
religion, so how much more can you not expect this from literature?

I read to learn about myself, the world I live in, and the worlds other people
have lived in.

Jim

PS I said the New Historicism was prevalent in the 90s, not the New Critics.

John Gedsudski wrote:

> Jimbo,
>
> The literary criticism 'industry' may very well be up and running with the
> likes of Lacanian and Derrida experts. What kind of lasting power do these
> 'professionals' have? Oh, we could all guess that they surely won't have
> more than fifty good years in academia ahead of them. But ALL of them fail
> to produce the flight of imagination so many giants have exhibited and
> instead prefer to tie works down in a Lilliputian nightmare. Those famous
> writers you mentioned wrote criticism during dry spells or when they were
> broke never as serious endeavors, certainly not as a profession.
> .
> I wholeheartedly agree when Rob said something to the effect that reading
> literature is reading history.
> Then I say critics are revisionists. Plain and simple. No contradictions, no
> fancy sublimations of the unconscious into the paragraphs, no breakthrough
> of insight into the funstion of language.
> It's no wonder Hemingstein touted the built-in shit detector for writers Did
> I happen to tell you this brilliant Lacanian critic once shed light onto the
> dark area of castration in Papa's big books?
> And Salinger with his 'cast-iron' ego. Oh, but didn't you hear? Fielder and
> Kazin destroyed him.
> To paraphrase one of your last messages "new criticism was the in thing
> during the 90s.." So was the Macarena at one point there too.
>
> Excuse me I have to answer the phone.
>
> It's for you Jimbo. It's the ghost of Foucalt. He says your mad but whats
> the difference anyway. So is the writer of this message.
>
> Yours,
>
> John Gedsudski
> Adjuct Scholar of the House
> Phillistia Community College
> 507 Boorish Drive
> NY,NY
>
> >From: Jim Rovira <jrovira@drew.edu>
> >Reply-To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
> >To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
> >Subject: Re: Bad Ears
> >Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:56:13 -0400
> >
> >John -- there are many possible reasons why specific theoretical
> >perspectives
> >can come and go, but none of the ones you've really mentioned are gone.
> >Derrida
> >and Lacan are still around in the lit crit industry the way Freud, with all
> >his
> >contradictions (and I mean from paragraph to paragraph, not from year to
> >year.
> >The latter kind are perfectly acceptable) and banalities and wonderful
> >"conclusions" that seemingly come out of nowhere, is still part of the
> >psychiatric profession (even though he meant to describe _physical_
> >structures
> >in the mind that we know now simply aren't there).
> >
> >What I was trying to affirm, rather, was that most of the work done by
> >critics
> >these days acknowledges these past theorists, is influenced by them, but
> >isn't
> >replicating their work. It's even working with pretty different
> >assumptions
> >quite often. But it's really hard for me to know whether or not your
> >assessment
> >of guys like, say, Derrida can really be trusted...have you even read him?
> >If
> >so, how can you be so dismissive? Don't you think he's making some good
> >observations about the function and nature of language as we're using it
> >these
> >days?
> >
> >Jim
> >
> > > 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
> >
> >-
> >* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> >* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN!
> http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
>
> -
> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sat Oct 26 08:33:43 2002