5 ms·

I think sometimes it is OK to be simply enchanted. (Well I think it's always OK, but ...) I tend to favor literary "analysis" that dwells on that feeling of enc

I think sometimes it is OK to be simply enchanted. (Well I think it's always OK, but ...) I tend to favor literary "analysis" that dwells on that feeling of enchantment, tries to explain it to an extent, and sometimes even re-create that feeling. I'm not sure an overarching "meaning" is always really needed. For several years I followed the mailing lists dedicated to several of my favorite authors, and at the same time took literature classes at university. Both were great, but I'll always consider those mailing lists my "real" education in literature. University was mostly good for learning to write a certain kind of essay, and how to read in ways that are valued by tenured professors (which isn't exactly a bad thing--these are smart, interesting people).

ynasser 12y ago
Which mailing lists did you follow?
noname123 12y ago
> University was mostly good for learning to write a certain kind of essay, and how to read in ways that are valued by tenured professors. Not to be pedantic, but what specific value did you find in academic literary critique? My personal experience in University wasn't very positive. I found most books/papers to be derivative or more of a documentation of humanities people's self-referential knowledge (e.g., explaining all of the literary (Grego-Roman, Biblical and Celtic) allusions and historical context in "Ulysses"; and therefore, all of these allusions fit in this grand theory of {Hegelian Dialectic, Post-modernity}). IMO, it kind of defeats the purpose of literature if one has to be so well versed in the Western cannon or whatever cannon to appreciate a narrative which ultimately conveys a human experience. A humanities grad student once explained to me that in literary analysis, the creativity is "in the interpretation as opposed to the creation for the author." I don't understand why in a subjective experience as literature, why an academic's word is then more valuable than mine or a monkey's. But I'm curious why you have a different perspective as for why professors in humanities have good perspective on literature.
- ryanpardieck 12y ago
  Well, I'm not sure I have as strong of a position on this as I should. The way literature is talked about in university isn't really the way I would ever prefer to talk about literature really, but it was enlightening in the same way that doing anything strenuous outside of your comfort zone can be enlightening. The essays themselves, if you had a demanding prof, could be an excellent chance to practice analytical thinking and learn to compose your thoughts on paper. In general, I don't think there's a compelling reason why Writing Composition has to be tied so closely to Literature. And really of the two most demanding essay-writing profs I had, only one taught literature. (The other taught symbolic logic and a Frege/Russell/Wittgenstein seminar I took.) You're right that most the essays are derivative and bad, but I think that's general to all writing--fiction, non-fiction, academic writing, whatever. It's all usually derivative and bad because it's really hard to make something that isn't. And while there is a taste for those name-dropping "look what I've read" essays, I never had a prof that didn't also appreciate a tight, close reading. I always stuck to close reading anyway, as I suspect most people on this forum would. (It feels less bullshitty to look at one or two small things extremely closely, than to fling around loose references to god knows what theories and famous names.) It's interesting that your friend said that. I'm not sure I understand completely what is meant by that, but here's my personal take on it: I think literary criticism should be subject to the same scrutiny that the original literary texts are. And if a work doesn't partake of creative exuberance* like an excellent novel or poem might, then I can't really be bothered to care about it. I think literature should respond in kind. Some criticism does this, and is breathtaking in the same way reading Whitman, e.g., can be breathtaking. Bloom's little book Anxiety of Influence, for example, is something I found beautiful and strange in a way I had never before encountered. I don't think academic literary critics really see what they do as an artform necessarily, so my view is probably a very marginal one, and one they might scoff at. I don't even know of a sub-discipline that promotes criticism-as-artform, so maybe I'm just weird. Probably weird. In the end I try to take a soft stance on this because I want to leave room for the idea that other people may enjoy things that I don't. I would never talk about literature the way they do outside of the pressures of "academic success," but perhaps they find it to be genuinely thrilling. If so, I'm only happy for them, and wish them the best. Many of them had an obvious passion for literature, including one prof who was completely looney-tunes for Shakespeare. :-) And that's nothing but delightful. * - which isn't to imply there need be an exuberant style.

ynasser 12y ago

Which mailing lists did you follow?

noname123 12y ago

> University was mostly good for learning to write a certain kind of essay, and how to read in ways that are valued by tenured professors. Not to be pedantic, but what specific value did you find in academic literary critique? My personal experience in University wasn't very positive. I found most books/papers to be derivative or more of a documentation of humanities people's self-referential knowledge (e.g., explaining all of the literary (Grego-Roman, Biblical and Celtic) allusions and historical context in "Ulysses"; and therefore, all of these allusions fit in this grand theory of {Hegelian Dialectic, Post-modernity}). IMO, it kind of defeats the purpose of literature if one has to be so well versed in the Western cannon or whatever cannon to appreciate a narrative which ultimately conveys a human experience. A humanities grad student once explained to me that in literary analysis, the creativity is "in the interpretation as opposed to the creation for the author." I don't understand why in a subjective experience as literature, why an academic's word is then more valuable than mine or a monkey's. But I'm curious why you have a different perspective as for why professors in humanities have good perspective on literature.

ryanpardieck 12y ago
Well, I'm not sure I have as strong of a position on this as I should. The way literature is talked about in university isn't really the way I would ever prefer to talk about literature really, but it was enlightening in the same way that doing anything strenuous outside of your comfort zone can be enlightening. The essays themselves, if you had a demanding prof, could be an excellent chance to practice analytical thinking and learn to compose your thoughts on paper. In general, I don't think there's a compelling reason why Writing Composition has to be tied so closely to Literature. And really of the two most demanding essay-writing profs I had, only one taught literature. (The other taught symbolic logic and a Frege/Russell/Wittgenstein seminar I took.) You're right that most the essays are derivative and bad, but I think that's general to all writing--fiction, non-fiction, academic writing, whatever. It's all usually derivative and bad because it's really hard to make something that isn't. And while there is a taste for those name-dropping "look what I've read" essays, I never had a prof that didn't also appreciate a tight, close reading. I always stuck to close reading anyway, as I suspect most people on this forum would. (It feels less bullshitty to look at one or two small things extremely closely, than to fling around loose references to god knows what theories and famous names.) It's interesting that your friend said that. I'm not sure I understand completely what is meant by that, but here's my personal take on it: I think literary criticism should be subject to the same scrutiny that the original literary texts are. And if a work doesn't partake of creative exuberance* like an excellent novel or poem might, then I can't really be bothered to care about it. I think literature should respond in kind. Some criticism does this, and is breathtaking in the same way reading Whitman, e.g., can be breathtaking. Bloom's little book Anxiety of Influence, for example, is something I found beautiful and strange in a way I had never before encountered. I don't think academic literary critics really see what they do as an artform necessarily, so my view is probably a very marginal one, and one they might scoff at. I don't even know of a sub-discipline that promotes criticism-as-artform, so maybe I'm just weird. Probably weird. In the end I try to take a soft stance on this because I want to leave room for the idea that other people may enjoy things that I don't. I would never talk about literature the way they do outside of the pressures of "academic success," but perhaps they find it to be genuinely thrilling. If so, I'm only happy for them, and wish them the best. Many of them had an obvious passion for literature, including one prof who was completely looney-tunes for Shakespeare. :-) And that's nothing but delightful. * - which isn't to imply there need be an exuberant style.