4 ms·

I'm sincerely curious to hear your case in defence of critical literary analysis.

foldr 17y ago
Why would it need any defense? Are you seriously suggesting that no-one should be reading literature and analyzing it? It's been an important part of Western culture for a few thousand years. Seems like it would be a bit rash to give it up now.
- nkurz 17y ago
  Despite the literal intepretation, you might be mistaken in assuming that "critical literary analysis" is the same as "reading literature and analyzing it". Instead, I think the phrase is being used here as a term of the art, referring to something closer to "postmodern critical theory". There are definitely those who wonder if this is useful. I too would be interested in hearing a defense.
  - foldr 17y ago
    Most of the people who whine about postmodern critical theory haven't even read any, so I'm not sure how to give a defense of work which people haven't read. I expect that most of it is rather low in quality, but most of the work done in every discipline is rather low in quality. And in any case, not all literary criticism in the academy is "postmodern" in the invidious sense. >Instead, I think the phrase ["critical literary analysis"] is being used here as a term of the art, There is no such term of art, as a quick google scholar search would tell you, so I see no reason not to interpret the OP literally.
    - nkurz 17y ago
      I see no reason not to interpret the OP literally Well, luckily even a casual adherence to postmodernism gives you that right! But in my old fashioned manner, I still think intentionality counts for something, and I don't think the author intended to say that we should give up on reading. :) Most of the people who whine about postmodern critical theory haven't even read any I actually have read a fair bit, and periodically urge it on others, likely in the same way that some people turn their friends onto LSD. Much of it is junk, but some of it is gold. For example, Michel Foucault's "History of Sexuality Volume 1" and "Discipline and Punish" permanently changed the way I see the world around me. So when I said I'd like to see a defense, I meant only that -- that I'd enjoy it. And, of course, that John F. Kennedy was not a homosexual: http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html
      - foldr 17y ago
        >and I don't think the author intended to say that we should give up on reading. :) He did, however, seem to be saying that we should give up on literary criticism, which is a different thing -- you shouldn't even need a google search to tell you the difference between reading and analyzing :) It was s a stupid thing of him to say, but then I've heard quite a few scientists say it, and I'm quite willing to believe that he meant it. >Much of it is junk, but some of it is gold. So, why are you asking for a defense of it? Isn't the fact that some of it "changed the way you see the world around you" enough of a defense?
- timwiseman 17y ago
  I believe he was asking for the defense of literary criticism's value to society. If people want to analyze literature they have every right to. The question is, have they added anything of value to society? Personally, I find it a question I have no answer to. I clearly see the value of medical doctor's, physicists, engineers. They all contribute to society in obvious ways. Liberary criticism may very well be of great value to society, but it is not in any way that is obvious to me and I sincerely would be interested if someone could provide an explanation for how it is of value to society.
  - foldr 17y ago
    > I believe he was asking for the defense of literary criticism's value to society. It's valuable because people are, and have always been, interested in discussing and analyzing literature in order to gain a better understanding of it. I'm not sure why you think that it has to "contribute" some definite thing to society in order to be valuable. Music and art don't obviously contribute anything either, but presumably you don't think these are without value. >The question is, have they added anything of value to society? Yes, they have added a greater knowledge of literature and how it works. I don't think it's necessary (or possible, really) to argue that knowledge is valuable to society. But I think the way you pose the question is a bit odd. Why does literary criticism have to "add" something distinct from itself to society in order to be valuable? Some things are valuable in and of themselves.
    - timwiseman 17y ago
      It's valuable because people are, and have always been, interested in discussing and analyzing literature in order to gain a better understanding of it. ... Music and art don't obviously contribute anything either, but presumably you don't think these are without value. But people can discus and analyze literature without there being a formal discipline for it. In fact arguable your average person could do it better without the formal discipline because they would not have be concerned about if they were doing it "right" The analogy to music and art appears false, they do contribute things other than themselves. They contribute first entertainment, second the ties that bind culture together, and third (at least in some cases) they provide an introspection on society. Art and music add all of those things, but at least as I understand it now, literary criticism as an academic discipline provides none of them. As I have very limited knowledge of literary criticism please let me know if I am missing something. * Some things are valuable in and of themselves.* An interesting possibility, but it is not obvious that it is true. (I am not claiming it is false, merely that it demands justification). At least one argument is that things are valuable precisely in proportion to their utility to mankind. Excluding those people who make their living at it directly, I am unclear as to what value literary criticism provides to anyone else.

foldr 17y ago

Why would it need any defense? Are you seriously suggesting that no-one should be reading literature and analyzing it? It's been an important part of Western culture for a few thousand years. Seems like it would be a bit rash to give it up now.

nkurz 17y ago
Despite the literal intepretation, you might be mistaken in assuming that "critical literary analysis" is the same as "reading literature and analyzing it". Instead, I think the phrase is being used here as a term of the art, referring to something closer to "postmodern critical theory". There are definitely those who wonder if this is useful. I too would be interested in hearing a defense.
- foldr 17y ago
  Most of the people who whine about postmodern critical theory haven't even read any, so I'm not sure how to give a defense of work which people haven't read. I expect that most of it is rather low in quality, but most of the work done in every discipline is rather low in quality. And in any case, not all literary criticism in the academy is "postmodern" in the invidious sense. >Instead, I think the phrase ["critical literary analysis"] is being used here as a term of the art, There is no such term of art, as a quick google scholar search would tell you, so I see no reason not to interpret the OP literally.
  - nkurz 17y ago
    I see no reason not to interpret the OP literally Well, luckily even a casual adherence to postmodernism gives you that right! But in my old fashioned manner, I still think intentionality counts for something, and I don't think the author intended to say that we should give up on reading. :) Most of the people who whine about postmodern critical theory haven't even read any I actually have read a fair bit, and periodically urge it on others, likely in the same way that some people turn their friends onto LSD. Much of it is junk, but some of it is gold. For example, Michel Foucault's "History of Sexuality Volume 1" and "Discipline and Punish" permanently changed the way I see the world around me. So when I said I'd like to see a defense, I meant only that -- that I'd enjoy it. And, of course, that John F. Kennedy was not a homosexual: http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html
    - foldr 17y ago
      >and I don't think the author intended to say that we should give up on reading. :) He did, however, seem to be saying that we should give up on literary criticism, which is a different thing -- you shouldn't even need a google search to tell you the difference between reading and analyzing :) It was s a stupid thing of him to say, but then I've heard quite a few scientists say it, and I'm quite willing to believe that he meant it. >Much of it is junk, but some of it is gold. So, why are you asking for a defense of it? Isn't the fact that some of it "changed the way you see the world around you" enough of a defense?
timwiseman 17y ago
I believe he was asking for the defense of literary criticism's value to society. If people want to analyze literature they have every right to. The question is, have they added anything of value to society? Personally, I find it a question I have no answer to. I clearly see the value of medical doctor's, physicists, engineers. They all contribute to society in obvious ways. Liberary criticism may very well be of great value to society, but it is not in any way that is obvious to me and I sincerely would be interested if someone could provide an explanation for how it is of value to society.
- foldr 17y ago
  > I believe he was asking for the defense of literary criticism's value to society. It's valuable because people are, and have always been, interested in discussing and analyzing literature in order to gain a better understanding of it. I'm not sure why you think that it has to "contribute" some definite thing to society in order to be valuable. Music and art don't obviously contribute anything either, but presumably you don't think these are without value. >The question is, have they added anything of value to society? Yes, they have added a greater knowledge of literature and how it works. I don't think it's necessary (or possible, really) to argue that knowledge is valuable to society. But I think the way you pose the question is a bit odd. Why does literary criticism have to "add" something distinct from itself to society in order to be valuable? Some things are valuable in and of themselves.
  - timwiseman 17y ago
    It's valuable because people are, and have always been, interested in discussing and analyzing literature in order to gain a better understanding of it. ... Music and art don't obviously contribute anything either, but presumably you don't think these are without value. But people can discus and analyze literature without there being a formal discipline for it. In fact arguable your average person could do it better without the formal discipline because they would not have be concerned about if they were doing it "right" The analogy to music and art appears false, they do contribute things other than themselves. They contribute first entertainment, second the ties that bind culture together, and third (at least in some cases) they provide an introspection on society. Art and music add all of those things, but at least as I understand it now, literary criticism as an academic discipline provides none of them. As I have very limited knowledge of literary criticism please let me know if I am missing something. * Some things are valuable in and of themselves.* An interesting possibility, but it is not obvious that it is true. (I am not claiming it is false, merely that it demands justification). At least one argument is that things are valuable precisely in proportion to their utility to mankind. Excluding those people who make their living at it directly, I am unclear as to what value literary criticism provides to anyone else.