The purpose of litcrit is not to instigate follow-through. It is itself a type of performance, obviously dependent on the object of discussion, but a separate mode of expression.
Now Carroll can eviscerate me. On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Doug Henwood wrote: > > I was at Yale from 1971 to 1975 when the English department was really > cooking - Bloom, Hartman, de Man, Derrida sometimes. You may find that gang > to be full of it - I didn't, and still don't - but it was intellectually > very alive.< > > I think I've figured out what I don't like about literary criticism. > It's not the lit crit _per se_ (after all, a lot of economics is BS, > too). It's just that there's so little follow-through to write novels > and other literature based on the criticisms. > > But since I'm not a literatum, my vision of this issue is likely > blurred at best. My barb is based on generalization from experience > with so many "heterodox" economists who talk about methodology but so > seldom apply what they perceive as a correct methodology; if they do, > they rarely seem to come out with much in the way of new > understandings of reality. I'm not against discussions of methodology > _per se_ as much as _stopping_ with it. > -- > Jim Devine / "In an ugly and unhappy world the richest man can > purchase nothing but ugliness and unhappiness." -- George Bernard Shaw > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
