tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post421423512005845856..comments2024-01-06T10:36:04.084-05:00Comments on A Commonplace Blog: The question in criticismD. G. Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-31916435199389954192009-08-04T09:50:59.713-04:002009-08-04T09:50:59.713-04:00I stand corrected in that my figure of speech shou...I stand corrected in that my figure of speech should have said walk correctly before running, and, Prof. Myers, I rather like the way you have built upon and modified my language. Actually, while I thought the "correctly" was implied in my original comment, I'm glad to have my figurative language tweaked and improved.R/Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07791522136032565027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-91308361024163182662009-08-04T08:26:26.322-04:002009-08-04T08:26:26.322-04:00Please forgive me, but I don’t agree with either o...Please forgive me, but I don’t agree with either one of you. I am the father of four children. And I taught none of them to walk. Nor to run. <br /><br />What I <i>am</i> teaching them, especially the boys, is to walk <i>correctly</i>. No strutting, no slouching, no running in the aisles of the supermarket, no pouting halt. I am trying to introduce them into—God forgive me—a <i>culture</i> of walking in which gait reflects character (more or less).<br /><br />And that’s pretty much what I try to do in the classroom. <br /><br />Take the critical failing that I described on Sunday as “solipsism in interpretation.” This will be immediately recognized in the undergraduate remark, “I can relate to O.” It is neither good manners nor rational adequacy to understand a literary text only in relationship to oneself, one’s history, one’s prejudices and preferences.<br /><br />Yvor Winters taught corrosion and distrust; I, correctness and demands.D. G. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-68477378330005988592009-08-04T08:09:09.883-04:002009-08-04T08:09:09.883-04:00R. T., do go on to read the whole of my comment. I...R. T., do go on to read the whole of my comment. I suggest quite clearly that we should teach students to walk, and then to run.litlovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10952927245186474480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-77230997157025582292009-08-03T17:51:54.916-04:002009-08-03T17:51:54.916-04:00CORRECTION:
Of course, I meant to say "to wal...CORRECTION:<br />Of course, I meant to say "to walk before teaching him or her to run" in this sentence: "It is similar to teaching someone to walk before teaching him or her to walk." I apologize for the sloppiness.R/Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07791522136032565027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-55453130743171340232009-08-03T17:03:51.078-04:002009-08-03T17:03:51.078-04:00D. G. Myers says: "Teaching, at least of lite...D. G. Myers says: "Teaching, at least of literature, should be as unoriginal as possible. My responsibility as a teacher is to introduce my students to a share of the human heritage. Not to exhibit my intellectual idiosyncrasy." Litlove, though, "can't possibly agree with that." Well, for whatever it is worth, I agree with you, Prof. Myers, because we as teachers of literature must give students the basic tools with which to approach literature. It is similar to teaching someone to walk before teaching him or her to walk. Agenda-driven observers may not understand the need for such an ostensibly conservative or pragmatic approach but--if they look at other academic disciplines--they would have to admit that walking precedes running in every endeavor.R/Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07791522136032565027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-22087864960676680102009-08-02T15:38:46.943-04:002009-08-02T15:38:46.943-04:00What is at stake in the debate over careerist crit...What is at stake in the debate over careerist criticism is, I think, what the goal of criticism should be. We don't have an agreed upon sense of what it would mean to "contribute to knowledge" in literary criticism compared, say, to what it would mean to win a game of chess.<br /><br />In a broad way, everyone thinks he or she contributes to knowledge--even if this contribution is not artful--but the premise of the previous few posts is that many of those people are wrong in that belief. What should they be doing instead? Anyone can write anything they like about literature outside the university, but what sort of activity should the university protect and nurture?<br /><br />Once we decide on professional norms then we should align institutional incentives such that calling a person a careerist ends up being the biggest compliment you can give. A careerist might be damaging themselves emotionally by having bad motivations--really caring about themselves rather than "the profession"--but so what, so long as they do their defined job well?<br /><br />A reduction in publication load would be useless without a concomitant social decision on what the specific goals of criticism should be and which broad methods of critical analysis are deemed valid (internal contradiction: bad; new archive-based literary histories of writers deemed worth studying: good; readable prose: good; etc).Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10796210926514146235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-60359284447345158222009-08-02T04:06:35.708-04:002009-08-02T04:06:35.708-04:00Oh no, I can't possibly agree with that. Of co...Oh no, I can't possibly agree with that. Of course one begins by showing the students the orthodox interpretations and by discussing the way that texts have traditionally or frequently been read. But over here at least we also encourage students to think for themselves, to refine and to further the readings that exist. That's not at all the same thing as foisting eccentricities upon them or encouraging them into curious flights of fancy. But we do want them to become capable of producing their own readings, backed up continually by textual evidence, well-organised and disciplined in structure and clear in self-expression. I'm not here just to fill their minds with received wisdom, I'm here to encourage a spirit of creativity and critique as well. To be quite clear - I'm proposing here that educating students requires BOTH introduction to an existing field of knowledge and practice in the tools and strategies for furthering it.<br /><br />Your comment suggests if nothing else that you consider your own views about texts to be irrevocably idiosyncratic. I would hope that wasn't the case!litlovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10952927245186474480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-46144168309072586392009-08-01T22:07:38.757-04:002009-08-01T22:07:38.757-04:00I appreciate what you are saying, Litlove.
But he...I appreciate what you are saying, Litlove.<br /><br />But here is the thing. Teaching, at least of literature, should be as <i>un</i>original as possible. My responsibility as a teacher is to introduce my students to a share of the human heritage. Not to exhibit my intellectual idiosyncrasy.D. G. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-61650105244386581732009-08-01T04:11:04.018-04:002009-08-01T04:11:04.018-04:00I do agree, you know, and my earlier comment was i...I do agree, you know, and my earlier comment was in the nature of a supplement rather than a pure critique. Just for clarification, what I meant in saying that knowledge grows organically out of discussion, is that we often need other people to see what it is that we do not know. An insightful question has often given me pause for thought and made me refine my interpretations or reconsider the issue at stake. <br /><br />And over the years I've become very interested in understanding what it is that can be heard - misunderstandings, misreadings develop not just out of obfuscation, but out of the gaps in what we say, gaps we often do not realise are there. One teacher's coherent explanation can so easily become one student's gnomic discourse. The discussions of the commenters here with you, D. G., all motivated to add to the field of knowledge, often display the same sort of pattern.litlovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10952927245186474480noreply@blogger.com