I don't know if we're disagreeing or just talking at cross purposes.
I wondered that myself, actually, and I've be re-reading our discussion to see if that might be the case.
But whether we're disagreeing, talking at cross purposes, or just shooting the breeze, I'd like to thank you for the discussion. It's been lively and interesting and it's always nice to be able to have a civilized, intelligent debate, especially with someone who obviously is as thoughtful as you are.
If I read your reply like I think you meant it, then this where I think our bone of contention may be:
You're saying, Lit Crit, is perfectly valid and it just happens to have a few bad apples ruining it for all of us, and that the values I'm applying to it are those of a reader who reads for pleasure and enjoyment, while Lit Crit seeks a different purpose in evaluating what's worthwhile in a text. You're saying that you think that I'm saying because Lit Crit works differently than I do, I think it's invalid. (I hope I got that right, and if I misunderstood, do correct me).
I'm saying I think that Lit Crit is a broken system. I don't think the pomposity is completely the fault of individual critics (although, some of the blame does rest with them). I think reading as a "visceral" reader should be part of Lit Crit. I'm saying that the criteria that literary criticism uses in determining what's even worth looking at is completely skewed. But I am not saying lit crit should disappear from the face of the Earth.
I don't think that divorcing literature from its visceral, practical nature gets us anywhere useful, because that's like divorcing a symphony from its music.
Let's go for metaphors, since we seem to do best with those.
Literary criticism is a car. It's a car that squeaks and makes funny noises and doesn't always start and and when you shift gears, you hear grinding. That much we agree on.
However, I think that you're saying: "it's that way because sometimes, it gets driven by an idiot. Get someone who knows how to drive, and it's fine."
I'm saying, "Nope, the CAR is broken."
(Although to be fair, it's entirely possible that it's because the car IS indeed being driven by an idiot who doesn't know how to drive stick and when to take his foot off the clutch - we may never know).
So, I'm saying I don't get the point of driving this car around. Not because you shouldn't have a car, but because you shouldn't have a *BROKEN* car. I think that we need to take the car into the shop, overhaul the hell out of it, and get it running like the smooth machine it *could* be.
I think it needs oil and gas. I think it needs a tune up. I think it needs to borrow parts from other cars. I think it needs to remember that the point of driving the car in the first place is to go somewhere, to carry out a practical task.
And I hear you saying (again, correct me if I'm wrong), we have the car to see if we can have a car, to see what the car will do, to look at its parts, because the car is worth having all on its own.
*whew*. Okay, I think the car metaphor's done its job now.
And this is where I become curious -- just because you prefer a different path, lit crit has no merit at all? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to find it almost offensive.
Trust me, it takes more than lit crit to offend me. :) I'm not so much offended as frustrated. I have similar frustrations when it comes to some methods of looking at history, feminist theory (that is a WHOLE other thing though), and large parts of modern psychology.
It doesn't mean I find those studies and disciplines completely invalid (certainly not!), but I do think they need to change.
If I had my way, I wouldn't throw literary criticism out the window - I would just take it into the shop to get that tuneup. Although I suspect that if we built it from the ground up, our cars might look strangely similar. ;)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-18 08:34 pm (UTC)I wondered that myself, actually, and I've be re-reading our discussion to see if that might be the case.
But whether we're disagreeing, talking at cross purposes, or just shooting the breeze, I'd like to thank you for the discussion. It's been lively and interesting and it's always nice to be able to have a civilized, intelligent debate, especially with someone who obviously is as thoughtful as you are.
If I read your reply like I think you meant it, then this where I think our bone of contention may be:
You're saying, Lit Crit, is perfectly valid and it just happens to have a few bad apples ruining it for all of us, and that the values I'm applying to it are those of a reader who reads for pleasure and enjoyment, while Lit Crit seeks a different purpose in evaluating what's worthwhile in a text. You're saying that you think that I'm saying because Lit Crit works differently than I do, I think it's invalid. (I hope I got that right, and if I misunderstood, do correct me).
I'm saying I think that Lit Crit is a broken system. I don't think the pomposity is completely the fault of individual critics (although, some of the blame does rest with them). I think reading as a "visceral" reader should be part of Lit Crit. I'm saying that the criteria that literary criticism uses in determining what's even worth looking at is completely skewed. But I am not saying lit crit should disappear from the face of the Earth.
I don't think that divorcing literature from its visceral, practical nature gets us anywhere useful, because that's like divorcing a symphony from its music.
Let's go for metaphors, since we seem to do best with those.
Literary criticism is a car. It's a car that squeaks and makes funny noises and doesn't always start and and when you shift gears, you hear grinding. That much we agree on.
However, I think that you're saying: "it's that way because sometimes, it gets driven by an idiot. Get someone who knows how to drive, and it's fine."
I'm saying, "Nope, the CAR is broken."
(Although to be fair, it's entirely possible that it's because the car IS indeed being driven by an idiot who doesn't know how to drive stick and when to take his foot off the clutch - we may never know).
So, I'm saying I don't get the point of driving this car around. Not because you shouldn't have a car, but because you shouldn't have a *BROKEN* car. I think that we need to take the car into the shop, overhaul the hell out of it, and get it running like the smooth machine it *could* be.
I think it needs oil and gas. I think it needs a tune up. I think it needs to borrow parts from other cars. I think it needs to remember that the point of driving the car in the first place is to go somewhere, to carry out a practical task.
And I hear you saying (again, correct me if I'm wrong), we have the car to see if we can have a car, to see what the car will do, to look at its parts, because the car is worth having all on its own.
*whew*. Okay, I think the car metaphor's done its job now.
And this is where I become curious -- just because you prefer a different path, lit crit has no merit at all? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to find it almost offensive.
Trust me, it takes more than lit crit to offend me. :) I'm not so much offended as frustrated. I have similar frustrations when it comes to some methods of looking at history, feminist theory (that is a WHOLE other thing though), and large parts of modern psychology.
It doesn't mean I find those studies and disciplines completely invalid (certainly not!), but I do think they need to change.
If I had my way, I wouldn't throw literary criticism out the window - I would just take it into the shop to get that tuneup. Although I suspect that if we built it from the ground up, our cars might look strangely similar. ;)