Re: Da Bears

You don't sound like a curmudgeon, John G., you sound like an asinine bigot by
characterizing every member of a profession with your grand generalities:

<<People who fuel the literary criticism industry: Good-for-nothing,
God-forsaken, supercilious academicians;>>

There are over 4000 degree granting, accredited institutions in the United
States. A large proportion of them employ people who "fuel the literary
criticism industry" either by writing criticism or reading it.

And you have them _all_ pegged.

Jim

John Gedsudski wrote:

> >I believe you can name quite a long list of rhetorical classics -- that are
> >read
> >by academics. Seems like the point I was responding to at the time had to
> >do
> >with something that's influential beyond those circles. I read Aristotle's
> >Poetics in High School --
>
> And I Ethan Frome-what's your point?
>
> I heard Spielberg,
> >though, virtually quote Aristotle in his description of what makes a good
> >movie
> >-- you have to be able to create the effect just by telling the story,
> >without
> >all the impressive visuals.
>
> Interesting theory coming from a guy whos last three movies have been
> propelled by eye candy.
>
> >
> >Shakespeare? My God, man, he's writing for Hollywood this very day :).
> >His
> >plays, both in film and performance, haven't diminished an iota in
> >popularity.
>
> Most students, every day ones that usually won't pick up Critique of Pure
> Reason on a rainy day, forget about Poetics, have the reaction; 'why do they
> talk that way?' or other explinations of how it bores them. Aside from good
> performances where they engage the text through a play, the bulk will likely
> thrive in a 'Language Arts' class that shows them what the Bard really meant
> via film.But really it is what the producer, director and of course the
> actor intended and thus we have the text unravelling before our eyes.
>
> >Don Quixote is a fun book
>
> So is Mao II.
>
> >
> >I would have to separate rhetorical works (about the proper use of
> >language)
> >from literary criticism (explication of a text) in this discussion, though.
>
> But you have mentioned and then referenced to a literary critic by the likes
> of Barthes . Of whom was known among many, if nothing else, by his quip 'the
> author is dead'. But if the author is the source of the text, I say once
> again THAT type of literary criticism, the kind that has made such an impact
> among the academic hacks still deriding Papa, is and always will be, bogus.
>
> '...to answer the questions people have about the text'
>
> In other words, how to distort important pieces of work great people toiled
> over and make them turn over in their graves.
> People who fuel the literary criticism industry: Good-for-nothing,
> God-forsaken, supercilious academicians; most of whom haven't the innate
> drive to find a better way to kill a cancer cell (perhaps that is why on
> average more grant money goes to science departments, at least some are
> awake), will measure their progress in a college by how many times they can
> point out that Scott never developed after Gatsby.
>
> Publish or Perish.
>
> If I appear like a curmudgeon on this subject, and many on this list have
> privately told me so, than at least I've gotten through to some people.
>
> Yours,
>
> John Gedsudski
> Adjuct Professor of Waggery
> Philistia Community College
> 507 Boorish Drive
> NY,NY
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband. Join now!
> http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
>
> -
> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Oct 28 02:02:54 2002