Thursday, February 18, 2010

Stumbled on this

Hey guys, I found this article while doing some research for my paper. It distracted me quite well for a while. Can't say I read the whole thing, but this guy's argument is very well put. He talks about a lot of the theories we're discussing in class. It's available in PDF from this link.
Enjoy!

2 comments:

  1. His arguments remind me of those that say "Tolerant people who aren't tolerant of intolerant people are hypocrites." My question is, where is this elusive center of culture that Martin claims postmodernism is ignoring? What he fails to see is that we are in a postmodern age whose condition is that there is no center or mainstream.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So, I read this article. I end up both agreeing and disagreeing with Martin: on the one hand, I agree that reading criticism isn't "fun" or as engaging as reading literature, and I agree that that is a problem. People have written literary criticism that is beautiful to read, which I prefer, and regarding literature as criticism of the literature that came before it leaves even more room for artistic modes of criticism.

    On the other hand, he is polemical, which I rarely like, and I think there are postmodern critics who have done worthwhile things. He mentions that, actually, but argues that fewer and fewer postmodern critics have anything interesting to say.

    I suppose I agree with that too, and the pretension to science by a non-scientific discipline has always bothered me. I have run into people who look at literature with a Freudian or a Feminist framework, and they will make bold statements that absolutely categorize a work in a manner that corresponds to their theory of choice. "This is about X" is a fun game to play, and I enjoy it, but it isn't something that criticism can or should do; I think people forget that sometimes.

    I am intrigued by the article, but entirely unwilling to take what he says at face value. He is too opinionated. So, how many of his factual claims are true? Are there really no new developments in criticism within the last 20-30 years? Was the high point of postmodern criticism effectively when it first began to topple the paradigm before it, followed by a period of development to its logical conclusion, and then nothing much that's any good at all? I like the idea of "persona" that he brings up, but I don't have the experience in literature departments to properly assess it. Is it off base?

    It was an interesting article that raised a lot of questions, but I don't feel competent to judge it.

    ReplyDelete