What's the RLG series featuring the beneficent Tiger? I don't know that one.
Try The Land of the Lord High Tiger? I'm not familiar with Green's work myself, so I can't provide more details.
Well, again, I think it depends on what people think criticism should be doing. If one’s interested in what readers now are seeing in a given text, what they see is what one has to work with.There are those who believe Authorial Intent is supreme, and those who believe Reader Response is all that matters.It goes further than that. Only SOME of the reader response is valid because only some of it is seeing something that is (allegedly) actually there. Its like saying that MY role play is great, but everyone elses is junk.Just be careful not to confuse yourself for Everyman.
What you see isn't what "readers" see. One of the easiest and best way to learn what others have seen is to read what they have written on the topic, e.g. the secondary scholarship.
Oh, absolutely. I don't mean to suggest that I think that everything that anyone sees is very interesting, but then again, one of the best ways to find out is to float any given idea, if it hasn't already been raised, and scholars are the likeliest people to perform these kinds of checks. I guess I'm adding, allusively, the pressure to find something dazzlingly innovative into the mix of what goes into these things. I like your Gatsby example: I mean, here we are talking about a crazy idea. I suppose someone might find it interesting enough to look into where it came from. Maybe there's some back and forth in the "Notes and Queries" section in a couple of journals somewhere. Maybe it's important enough to warrant mention in a book chapter in a monograph about reading race in American fiction. Of course, the way this stuff can explode probably drives BigNorseWolf nuts. :)
An appropriate question to ask both reader 1 and reader 2 is "why do you believe what you saw is important?" If Reader 1 has a sensible and consistent answer that is supported by evidence of some sort and that has explanatory capacity for something else, it's appropriate to take her seriously. If Reader 2 simply says "just 'cause," it's also appropriate to take her less seriously, perhaps to dismiss her outright.
Fortunately, Reader 3, who read both of those opinions during the course of her Ph.D., is in a position to make that judgment, and part of her job as faculty is to help teach students the difference, in part by summarizing the two opinions and offering help in looking at the foundations of the two. (And this will also help the students both understand what they need to look for when producing their own interpretations, and also help them evaluate Reader 8 several years hence; if she's just as bad as Reader 2, they will recognize it and take appropriate judgment).
That's how scholarship works in general.
As an example of how this works, I've seen two real howlers in the past dozen or so years, with the rise of computer-aided linguistics. In both cases, the people involved were scientists, specifically computer scientists working in historical corpus linguistics.
The first was doing a study of family roles over time. and discovered that the ratio between the frequencies of the word "son" and "daughter" changed radically. "Son" was used a lot less frequently in 1750 than in 1850.
The second was doing a study of expressions of pleasure and games, and found that the word "fun" dropped dramatically over approximately the same period. The interpretations they offered were (independently) deep and culturally sensitive, and wrong.
You can confirm the findings for yourself if you like. Empirically, they're completely correct.
The reason, though, is more prosaic. Publishing conventions changed somewhat at the end of the 18th century, and the long 's' (the one that looks like an 'f') dropped out of use. So the word "son' would have been spelled as something that an OCR system would pick up as "fon" (and "sun" as "fun") in 1750.
Any actual 17th century literature expert could have told these groups of that fact. They did, in fact. But this illustrates why the opinion of an appropriate expert may be valuable.
Oh, absolutely. I don't mean to suggest that I think that everything that anyone sees is very interesting, but then again, one of the best ways to find out is to float any given idea, if it hasn't already been raised, and scholars are the likeliest people to perform these kinds of checks. I guess I'm adding, allusively, the pressure to find something dazzlingly innovative into the mix of what goes into these things.
Tenure is a strong motivator.
I like your Gatsby example: I mean, here we are talking about a crazy idea. I suppose someone might find it interesting enough to look into where it came from. Maybe there's some back and forth in the "Notes and Queries" section in a couple of journals somewhere. Maybe it's important enough to warrant mention in a book chapter in a monograph about reading race in American fiction. Of course, the way this stuff can explode probably drives BigNorseWolf nuts. :)
Well, empirically, it hasn't exploded. (For which I thank whatever powers may be, since I consider that particular theory to be daylight madness.) If it is discussed, it's usually in the context of a cautionary tale (Hey, kids, don't do this, m'kay?) but it's certainly a good illustration for that purpose.
And since one of the things people need to be taught is how to tell good ideas from bad, having a few type specimens of bad ideas lying around and discussing them in class is a reasonable way to conduct class. Especially since most college students can easily read Gatsby for themselves, but they can't find reasons to dismiss lunacy like this....
I was watching a crash course video on literature (because i really liked their history series) and one idea they had was that authorial intent doesn't matter, its the symbolic resonance that the reader gets from the reading that matters.
But if this is true then there should be no value in symbolism that you personally don't pick up on. If we're going to go existentialist, why does it matter if some literary critics and professors see that symbolism? Its hard to say that its objectively there if some people see it, some people don't, and the person who wrote the words somehow missed it.
Authorial intent does matter. It matters very, very much.
The problem is that a reader never entirely understands what the author meant to convey. And the author can never perfectly predict the nuances of meaning in every word, phrase, and image she writes.
But this is true of every form of communication. So at the same time that authorial intent matters, I'd say it matters just as much the different ways in which an audience interprets the writing.
I'm a Literature PhD student. But even I know full well that any interpretation I might have about a text is not the whole story. No one person has the definitive answer. So, yeah, anyone who says, "Wrong, here's the only correct interpretation," has basically stopped themselves from gleaning any new insight from a book. Which is a shame.
For me, the whole point of all those schools of literary theory is like owning different lenses. Each theory I look through allows me to see a little more.
Because most Lit departments are filled with people who couldn't write a book people would want to read if the lives of the entire human race depended on it.
This implies that literature professors are failed writers. I think they're actually professional readers.
It's kinda like saying Ebert is a failed filmmaker.
Oh, absolutely. I don't mean to suggest that I think that everything that anyone sees is very interesting, but then again, one of the best ways to find out is to float any given idea, if it hasn't already been raised, and scholars are the likeliest people to perform these kinds of checks. I guess I'm adding, allusively, the pressure to find something dazzlingly innovative into the mix of what goes into these things.Tenure is a strong motivator.
I like your Gatsby example: I mean, here we are talking about a crazy idea. I suppose someone might find it interesting enough to look into where it came from. Maybe there's some back and forth in the "Notes and Queries" section in a couple of journals somewhere. Maybe it's important enough to warrant mention in a book chapter in a monograph about reading race in American fiction. Of course, the way this stuff can explode probably drives BigNorseWolf nuts. :)Well, empirically, it hasn't exploded. (For which I thank whatever powers may be, since I consider that particular theory to be daylight madness.) If it is discussed, it's usually in the context of a cautionary tale (Hey, kids, don't do this, m'kay?) but it's certainly a good illustration for that purpose.
And since one of the things people need to be taught is how to tell good ideas from bad, having a few type specimens of bad ideas lying around and discussing them in class is a reasonable way to conduct class. Especially since most college students can easily read Gatsby for themselves, but they can't find reasons to dismiss lunacy like this....
I couldn't agree more. Depending on how the next phase of my studies goes, I hope and pray that I'll be strong enough to not let too much silliness slip from my pen under the ruthless exigencies of publish or perish. I may actually get to be more than a marking TA next year, too, so I may get a better of sense of what I might actually want to be teaching. (A lit. survey might be fun, but Latin 101 has less room for shenanigans.)
Moby Dick. It's just about a whale.
You know the problem with Moby Dick? Not enough crunch.
If Melville had just statted up Queequeg, Ahab, and the white whale there would have been no other shades of meaning.
"Yes, I see now. Ahab had the obsessive trait. That's why he had to keep going after that whale."
Nah, that would just have provoked more arguments about what the Obsessive trait entails.
I liked Pip.
It's kinda like saying Ebert is a failed filmmaker.
I don't mean to detract from your point, but didn't he write some terrible Roger Corman movies?
It's kinda like saying Ebert is a failed filmmaker.I don't mean to detract from your point, but didn't he write some terrible Roger Corman movies?
Also, couldn't cook to save his life :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nah, that would just have provoked more arguments about what the Obsessive trait entails.
Are you saying even crunch is open to interpretation?
Can I get an FAQ ruling on this!
Nah, that would just have provoked more arguments about what the Obsessive trait entails.Are you saying even crunch is open to interpretation?
Does my intention matter, or is it how you read the statement?
Also, couldn't cook to save his life :)It's kinda like saying Ebert is a failed filmmaker.I don't mean to detract from your point, but didn't he write some terrible Roger Corman movies?
On second thought, I guess that was kinda the point, huh?
Does my intention matter, or is it how you read the statement?Nah, that would just have provoked more arguments about what the Obsessive trait entails.Are you saying even crunch is open to interpretation?
These discussions always make me feel very, very alone. Eternally misunderstood. Eternally misunderstanding.
le sigh
These discussions always make me feel very, very alone. Eternally misunderstood. Eternally misunderstanding.
No, they don't. :-P
No, they don't. :-P
These discussions always make me feel very, very alone. Eternally misunderstood. Eternally misunderstanding.
I cannot understand your empty signifiers....
mic drop
You're not allowing for the role of scholarship, analysis and consensus.
I'm not apriori placing value on these things in this field.
An appropriate question to ask both reader 1 and reader 2 is "why do you believe what you saw is important?" If Reader 1 has a sensible and consistent answer that is supported by evidence of some sort and that has explanatory capacity for something else, it's appropriate to take her seriously. If Reader 2 simply says "just 'cause," it's also appropriate to take her less seriously, perhaps to dismiss her outright.If philosophy has shown me anything, its precisely how much "turd polishing" its possible to do. The difference in articulation (or razmataz if you want to be less generous) is not necessarily a difference in the depth and veracity of the idea.
Fortunately, Reader 3, who read both of those opinions during the course of her Ph.D., is in a position to make that judgmentThis is rather circular.
That's how scholarship works in general.In the sciences you can only build the ideas so far before an experiment proves you wrong. I don't see that sort of sweeping system in the humanities.
But I can also very efficiently learn about Melville by well-vetted secondary sources that have already already sorted that particular chaff from the wheat.Again, this seems circular. Their opinion is valued because it aligns with the valued opinion.
I'm not apriori placing value on these things in this field.
You're not allowing for the role of scholarship, analysis and consensus.
No. You are, incorrectly, not placing value on those things. In, I might add, in flagrant violation of standard scientific practice.
An appropriate question to ask both reader 1 and reader 2 is "why do you believe what you saw is important?" If Reader 1 has a sensible and consistent answer that is supported by evidence of some sort and that has explanatory capacity for something else, it's appropriate to take her seriously. If Reader 2 simply says "just 'cause," it's also appropriate to take her less seriously, perhaps to dismiss her outright.If philosophy has shown me anything,
Don't worry, it hasn't.
Fortunately, Reader 3, who read both of those opinions during the course of her Ph.D., is in a position to make that judgmentThis is rather circular.
Not at all. In theory you could yourself read both readers 1 and 2 and come to your own independent judgment, based both on internal evidence (how coherent their position is) and external evidence (how well it fits in with the rest of the world). Presumably in order to do so, you'd need to familiarize yourself with the appropriate evidence, including relevant evidence that neither reader had explicitly presented. In practice, you may not want to do that because life's too short to read the entire corpus of Melville scholarship.
Again, this is a standard part of how scientists evaluate others' work; if I write a paper that simply ignores a huge body of relevant work, that's a huge credibility hit. But to make that judgment, you need to be familiar with that body of work yourself, or you need to rely on the opinion of others who are.
So, basically, reader 3 as an expert is presumed familiar with the general body of work in the field. (That's part of the "breadth requirement" of any Ph.D. program world-wide, so it's not an unreasonable presumption.) Therefore, reader 3 is more like to spot such issues than a lay person for whom that presumption does not apply.
Of course, this can be drilled down. A generic Ph.D. in English Literature will not be as familiar with the work relevant to Melville as one with a specialty in 19th century American lit, and a Poe scholar will be less familiar than a Melville specialist. Again, this practice is shared among the scientific disciplines; if you want someone to review a paper on plasma physics, you will ask a plasma physicist, ideally someone with a specialty in low temperatures.
That's how scholarship works in general.In the sciences you can only build the ideas so far before an experiment proves you wrong. I don't see that sort of sweeping system in the humanities.
I acknowledge that you don't. As you yourself have pointed out upthread, that doesn't mean it's not there.
But I can also very efficiently learn about Melville by well-vetted secondary sources that have already already sorted that particular chaff from the wheat.Again, this seems circular. Their opinion is valued because it aligns with the valued opinion.
Nope. Their opinion is valued because it aligns with the documentary evidence -- in this case, Melville's letters.
No. You are, incorrectly, not placing value on those things. In, I might add, in flagrant violation of standard scientific practice
Can you explain that that comment?
You start with the idea "is this valuable?" not "this is valuable.
Don't worry, it hasn't.
I give that zinger an 8. Points for the laugh but lacks the poignancy needed for a 10.
Not at all. In theory you could yourself read both readers 1 and 2 and come to your own independent judgment, based both on internal evidence (how coherent their position is) and external evidence (how well it fits in with the rest of the world). Presumably in order to do so, you'd need to familiarize yourself with the appropriate evidence, including relevant evidence that neither reader had explicitly presented. In practice, you may not want to do that because life's too short to read the entire corpus of Melville scholarship.
You're still going in circles here. You are assuming that the literary scholarship is useful and accurate in order to show that the literary scholarship is useful and accurate.
Again, this is a standard part of how scientists evaluate others' work; if I write a paper that simply ignores a huge body of relevant work, that's a huge credibility hit. But to make that judgment, you need to be familiar with that body of work yourself, or you need to rely on the opinion of others who are.
In science, that other relevant work should be (and likely is) based on evidence. Ignoring it is ignoring evidence.
I acknowledge that you don't. As you yourself have pointed out upthread, that doesn't mean it's not there.
Then show me. Where is the trash can in literary theory? What makes it different than a random but popular meme?
Nope. Their opinion is valued because it aligns with the documentary evidence -- in this case, Melville's letters.
Unless they and everyone they ever studied from didn't have access to these letters then its like "predicting" the fat man will be heavy.
You're also conceeding one possible point here: that the author is very, very much alive.
Regardless of how one feels about the value of symbolism in literature from any of the myriad perspectives we explore, the exploration itself has value. It encourages creative and critical thinking, two skills that can be priceless when focused in the right direction and on the right problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. You are, incorrectly, not placing value on those things. In, I might add, in flagrant violation of standard scientific practiceCan you explain that that comment?
You start with the idea "is this valuable?" not "this is valuable."
Please don't tell me what I do. In general, however, scholars including scientists start with the idea that scholarly consensus is valuable, because it keeps you from needing to reinvent the wheel and because it provides you with a greater volume of evidence and argument than you yourself have or could reasonably get without help.
If you wish to reject the idea that scholarship is valuable, you'll be starting from an "interesting" and probably unsupportable position. I'd ask you to justify that position, but since you reject the scholarship that produces the network over which you would justify yourself, you'd be forced into incoherence almost immediately.
Not at all. In theory you could yourself read both readers 1 and 2 and come to your own independent judgment, based both on internal evidence (how coherent their position is) and external evidence (how well it fits in with the rest of the world). Presumably in order to do so, you'd need to familiarize yourself with the appropriate evidence, including relevant evidence that neither reader had explicitly presented. In practice, you may not want to do that because life's too short to read the entire corpus of Melville scholarship.You're still going in circles here.
I am not.
Again, this is a standard part of how scientists evaluate others' work; if I write a paper that simply ignores a huge body of relevant work, that's a huge credibility hit. But to make that judgment, you need to be familiar with that body of work yourself, or you need to rely on the opinion of others who are.In science, that other relevant work should be (and likely is) based on evidence.
And also in literary scholarship. A letter from Melville describing his interpretation of the symbolism in Moby Dick is very much evidence about symbolism.
Ignoring it is ignoring evidence.
Which you are doing, apparently.
I acknowledge that you don't. As you yourself have pointed out upthread, that doesn't mean it's not there.Then show me. Where is the trash can in literary theory?
In the pages of the same journals where it was originally discussed. More accessibly, you can find it anywhere that you find criticisms of once-popular theories.
What makes it different than a random but popular meme?
Memes such as catch-phrases and songs are not typically based, even superficially, on reason and evidence. It's literally nonsensical to try to disprove "where's the beef?" for example, because that phrase has no propositional content.
On the other hand, statements like "authorial intention is irrelevant to understand literature" have propositional content. We can legitimately argue about whether or not it's true or false, and we can continue to amass new evidence either in terms of new documents that neither of us had read, or in the form of new arguments that haven't been made before. Eventually we will come to a consensus based on our pooled knowledge (which is presumably greater the knowledge either of us had at the beginning, and therefore more accurate).
Nope. Their opinion is valued because it aligns with the documentary evidence -- in this case, Melville's letters.Unless they and everyone they ever studied from didn't have access to these letters then its like "predicting" the fat man will be heavy.
Not really. As a simple example, MagusJanus has "access" to the same published letters that contradict his statement that there's no intended symbolism in Moby Dick as anyone else does. He's simply not read them, has read but forgotten them, or has read but rejected them for reasons he's so far kept to himself (and that therefore do not convince me or mainstream scholarship).
Having access to information isn't the same as having it. Google Books, for example, provides access to over thirty million books, but I doubt any single human has read more than 10,000 of them. (That would be reading two books a week for 100 years). On the other hand, there's a very good chance that the five hundred books I know best are different from the ones you know best, so you may be able to draw my attention to some evidence that I have "access" to but are nevertheless unfamiliar with.
This, of course, is nothing new and not confined to the humanities. I've never seen a blue whale, Ayers Rock, or Cherenkov radiation, but people who have have been able to draw my attention to them.
And that's why scholarship is valuable. Because I know things that you don't, and it's at least possible that you know things that I don't.
You're also conceeding one possible point here: that the author is very, very much alive.
Since that point was never in issue, that's not really relevant to anything. The idea that the author is irrelevant is one of those theories that has been consigned to the trash can of current mainstream literary scholarship.
If you wish to reject the idea that scholarship is valuable, you'll be starting from an "interesting" and probably unsupportable position.
If you want to start with the idea that literary scholarship is valuable top show that literary scholarship is valuable then yes, you're arguing in a circle. Case in point...
In the pages of the same journals where it was originally discussed. More accessibly, you can find it anywhere that you find criticisms of once-popular theories.
Literary scholarship is being used as the ruler for literary scholarship.
On the other hand, statements like "authorial intention is irrelevant to understand literature" have propositional content. We can legitimately argue about whether or not it's true or false, and we can continue to amass new evidence either in terms of new documents that neither of us had read, or in the form of new arguments that haven't been made before. Eventually we will come to a consensus based on our pooled knowledge (which is presumably greater the knowledge either of us had at the beginning, and therefore more accurate)
The statement "authorial intention is irrelevant to understand literature" seems to have been a thing for a while and is now not quite so much of a thing. I can't see any what new evidence could come to light against that proposition than would be evident for it from the beginning, so it looks more like a coming and going fad than something based in genuine reason and evidence.
Why is the current expert opinion of 'the author is dead' more valuable than previous opinions on it?
Not really. As a simple example, MagusJanus has "access" to the same published letters that contradict his statement that there's no intended symbolism in Moby Dick as anyone else does. He's simply not read them, has read but forgotten them, or has read but rejected them for reasons he's so far kept to himself (and that therefore do not convince me or mainstream scholarship).
I do not have nearly enough ranks in survival to try to track his thought process.
Since that point was never in issue
Its been the issue from the beginning. Literally. Its the title.
If the author is dead....
Your answer is -the author is not dead- which is an acceptable answer.
that's not really relevant to anything. The idea that the author is irrelevant is one of those theories that has been consigned to the trash can of current mainstream literary scholarship.
If you want to start with the idea that literary scholarship is valuable top show that literary scholarship is valuable then yes, you're arguing in a circle.
If you wish to reject the idea that scholarship is valuable, you'll be starting from an "interesting" and probably unsupportable position.
But I'm not. I'm arguing that scholarship in general is valuable because it gives you more information. If you want to believe that literary scholarship is different, you are welcome to make the case.
In the pages of the same journals where it was originally discussed. More accessibly, you can find it anywhere that you find criticisms of once-popular theories.Literary scholarship is being used as the ruler for literary scholarship.
Nope. It's being used as a repository. You asked where the trash can could be found -- and the answer for literary scholarship is the same as for any other form of scholarship. It's in the papers that outline the reason why a now-discredited theory is discredited.
On the other hand, statements like "authorial intention is irrelevant to understand literature" have propositional content. We can legitimately argue about whether or not it's true or false, and we can continue to amass new evidence either in terms of new documents that neither of us had read, or in the form of new arguments that haven't been made before. Eventually we will come to a consensus based on our pooled knowledge (which is presumably greater the knowledge either of us had at the beginning, and therefore more accurate)The statement "authorial intention is irrelevant to understand literature" seems to have been a thing for a while and is now not quite so much of a thing.
Yes. That's because that particular theory has been discredited, largely because it has been shown to lack any useful explanatory capacity and to be incoherent.
That's I can't see any what new evidence could come to light against that proposition than would be evident for it from the beginning, so it looks more like a coming and going fad than something based in genuine reason and evidence.
Your individual inability or unwillingness to see does not constitute evidence.
Why is the current expert opinion of 'the author is dead' more valuable than previous opinions on it?
More complex and detailed analysis as the result of accumulative scholarship.
Its been the issue from the beginning. Literally. Its the title.
It was also disposed of on the first page. It's a discredited theory that no one except you seems to hold. (More accurately, the title is a question based on a false premise.)
If you want to understand why it's discredited -- it's because literary scholarship analyzed it and found it wanting.
But I'm not. I'm arguing that scholarship in general is valuable because it gives you more information.
That it is information and not opinion is precisely the point of contention here.
Yes. That's because that particular theory has been discredited, largely because it has been shown to lack any useful explanatory capacity and to be incoherent.
Well, why was it shown to have useful and explanatory power in order to become a theory in the firs place?
Your individual inability or unwillingness to see does not constitute evidence.
Your willingness to insult me for not accepting evidence is inversely proportional to your willingness to present any.
Why is the current expert opinion of 'the author is dead' more valuable than previous opinions on it?
More complex analysis as the result of accumulative scholarship.
What is more "complex" about it?
That it is information and not opinion is precisely the point of contention here.
But I'm not. I'm arguing that scholarship in general is valuable because it gives you more information.
Opinion is information. If you aren't skilled enough to distinguish useful opinions from useless ones, that doesn't reflect on the opinions.
In fact, I'd argue that any opinion is useful if only to inform you about what nonsense other people can be persuaded to believe (and how to persuade them of nonsense, a very useful piece of information).
ETA: I should also add that humanities scholars are generally very good at getting the basic observations right; when Prof. So-and-so writes that "Milton wrote that X" and provides a bibliographic citation, it's very rare that the good professor will get that citation wrong. If you weren't familiar with that particular work of Milton, then it's definitely information to you.
Yes. That's because that particular theory has been discredited, largely because it has been shown to lack any useful explanatory capacity and to be incoherent.Well, why was it shown to have useful and explanatory power in order to become a theory in the firs place?
It wasn't. The word "theory" is often misused (think of how the creationists dismiss the theory of evolution as "only a theory") and it would be better described as a "hypothesis" in accordance with standard scientific terminology.
Even in science, "theories" are not necessarily useful and/or explanatory in cases where the imagination of the proponent exceeds the current empirical background. DIrac famously noticed that the equations describing QM allowed for two solutions describing the electron, one with negative and one with positive charge. This wasn't useful or explanatory at the time, but it was an interesting prediction that led (eventually) to an explanation of some unusual experimental findings.
In broad terms, a challenging new idea can be "useful" precisely because it can stimulate new thought and a new way of looking at things -- even if the ultimate effect of that new thought is to reject the new idea.
What is more "complex" about it?Why is the current expert opinion of 'the author is dead' more valuable than previous opinions on it?
More complex analysis as the result of accumulative scholarship.
More examples of application of the theory (few if any of which produced anything of interest). Further examination of the evidence cited in favor of the theory (which showed that the evidence was not, in fact particularly compelling). A more detailed examination of the line of reasoning offered in support (a line of reasoning that wasn't particularly rigorous; it basically worked out to be an argument from consequences). Et cetera.
A much better question for you to ask would be "why did the theory of 'the death of the author' become as popular and as powerful as it did in light of its epistemological failings?"
The answer lies to some extent in the sociology of the academy. Basically, theories (broadly defined) are accepted or rejected for a number of reasons unrelated to the actual validity of their content -- again, this is not confined to the humanities. A politically unpopular speaker (e.g Einstein) can create negative prejudice against a theory (the "Jewish science" rejected by the Nazis), while a politically popular or powerful speaker can create support unfounded in the evidence (Lysenko's biology).
Opinion is information. If you aren't skilled enough to distinguish useful opinions from useless ones, that doesn't reflect on the opinions.
Holy cow is this wrong. If you are relying entirely on the reader to separate the chaff from the wheat why on earth would you even pretend to be an expert?
It wasn't. The word "theory" is often misused (think of how the creationists dismiss the theory of evolution as "only a theory") and it would be better described as a "hypothesis" in accordance with standard scientific terminology.
And this is why i've been using "a thing" and a meme to describe it until you
In broad terms, a challenging new idea can be "useful" precisely because it can stimulate new thought and a new way of looking at things -- even if the ultimate effect of that new thought is to reject the new idea.
Or you have a bad idea that gets stuck in the academia, self propogates and filters down.
A much better question for you to ask would be "why did the theory of 'the death of the author' become as popular and as powerful as it did in light of its epistemological failings?"
I did
Well, why was it shown to have useful and explanatory power in order to become a theory in the firs place?
A much better question for you to ask would be "why did the theory of 'the death of the author' become as popular and as powerful as it did in light of its epistemological failings?"I did
Well, why was it shown to have useful and explanatory power in order to become a theory in the firs place?
You're very good at asking questions that start from wrong assumptions.
The answer, again, is that "useful and explanatory power" is not a precondition for something becoming a theory.
So, I can see the disconnect from earlier, Orf.
If you watch the John Green video, he explicitly states that he "doesn't go as far as the postmodernists who believe that the author is dead" or some such.
Why BeeNee chose something for the title that John Green specifically distanced himself from seems a bit odd, but, there you go.
Because he distanced himself from the phrase (because it was disturbing) and then went right back into the idea.
The answer, again, is that "useful and explanatory power" is not a precondition for something becoming a theory.
It generally is, in the hard physical sciences -- or, at least, "predictive power" is. And I've provided examples of people in the humanities using their skill at literary/film/musical criticism to predict what will be popular, produce works according to that hypothesis, and gain $$$ and fame from those works -- exactly as predicted.
Granted, those are predictions of fame and popularity, but these are entertainment media we're talking about, so it's not like we can build nuclear reactors or fly to the moon.
It generally is, in the hard physical sciences -- or, at least, "predictive power" is. And I've provided examples of people in the humanities using their skill at literary/film/musical criticism to predict what will be popular, produce works according to that hypothesis, and gain $$$ and fame from those works -- exactly as predicted.
With a sample size of one and how many examples to the contrary? Thats like proving psycic powers because of a lottery winner.
I gave two examples off the top of my head. Sticking with music for a bit -- Alan Parsons is a textbook example of skill in music theory and criticism (he was a producer and engineer) being directly used to compose a hit song incorporating those observations. (The song, to me, was fairly annoying and monotonous, but I can't deny that it was a #3 top billboard hit.) Google Brian Eno, a music producer, and look at why he was in such high demand. Hell, listen to Iron Maiden at their peak and imagine each guitar as being replaced with an orchestra section; the bassist/songwriter informed his compositions with classical music theory.
In fine art, we have my favorite painter, Gustave Caillebotte, who was a patron and critic of impressionists -- and used what he'd learned to produce his own, very intentionally employing the observations he'd made as a critic.
We can go on and on for a larger sample size, but in general, saying something like "people who are adept at theory and criticism of the arts can use that skill to produce more successful works" is not an unrealistic hypothesis (or at least not one that we can reject out of hand).
I'll let you come up with illustrative counterexamples, if you want.
Because he distanced himself from the phrase (because it was disturbing) and then went right back into the idea.
No, it's slightly different.
"The author is dead, whatever his intentions were are irrelevant" vs. "if a reading has symbolic resonance for the reader that the author didn't intend, we still win."
Also, you can intentionally leave space for the reader's/viewer's/listener's personal interpretation to "fill in the blank" for you, and make the work that much more meaningful to everyone, but in an idosyncratic way for each. What's in the briefcases from Pulp Fiction and Ronin?
Pulp fiction: Something glowy that is well enough known to be recognized, and simple enough to be appreciated by two crooks.
Given that Tarantino is even more of a film geek than I am, I suspect the glowing briefcase a direct reference to Kiss Me Deadly.
In interviews, Tarantino says what's in it: "It's whatever the viewer wants it to be."
Because he distanced himself from the phrase (because it was disturbing) and then went right back into the idea.No, it's slightly different.
"The author is dead, whatever his intentions were are irrelevant" vs. "if a reading has symbolic resonance for the reader that the author didn't intend, we still win."
He went further than that, saying that the symbolic reference actually is there when its seen , which kills the english teacher because it makes the entire process wholly dependent on the individual.
Given that Tarantino is even more of a film geek than I am, I suspect the glowing briefcase a direct reference to Kiss Me Deadly.
In interviews, Tarantino says what's in it: "It's whatever the viewer wants it to be."
I thought it was supposed to be the diamonds from reservoir dogs?
He went further than that, saying that the symbolic reference actually is there when its seen , which kills the english teacher because it makes the entire process wholly dependent on the individual.Because he distanced himself from the phrase (because it was disturbing) and then went right back into the idea.No, it's slightly different.
"The author is dead, whatever his intentions were are irrelevant" vs. "if a reading has symbolic resonance for the reader that the author didn't intend, we still win."
Chances are, most people aren't going to read William Shakespeare, The Great Gatsby or Moby Dick unless an English teacher assigns them in class, so I'd say reports of their death might be a bit exaggerated.
I heard it was just a lightbulb, but one that was powered by a briefcase sized perpetual motion motion machine; that thing's not like a refrigerator light it's on all the time in there! I also had some explain to me that, because Marcel has a band aid on the back of his neck (where the Devil pulls out a dude's soul) it was obviously Marcel's soul in there.
Or, backing up Kirth's point, Tarintino never says, so anyone can imagine it's anything, and no one's imagination is any more correct that anyone else's.
Why BeeNee chose something for the title that John Green specifically distanced himself from seems a bit odd, but, there you go.
I don't see it as odd at all. It's an old rhetorical technique. He wishes to prove (largely to himself) that humanities are worthless and misguided. Because he can't actually do that with the humanities as they are actually practiced, so he creates an imaginary straw version of the humanities into which he can pour his contempt.
It's the same reason creationists -- who he strongly resembles in his "debating" tactics -- are so fond of quoting out of context.
For fun, I transcribed Mr. Green's rant.
"They're doing it, at least if they're doing it on purpose, so the story can have a bigger and better life in your mind.
"But, for the record, the question of whether they're doing it on purpose IS NOT A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION!!!
"Oh, we're still doing open letters?
"An Open Letter to Authorial Intent:
"But first, let's see what's in the secret compartment...[last line from Gatsby]
"Dear authorial intent,
"As an author, let me speak to you directly: You don't matter!
"Look, I'm not willing to go so far as the postmodernists and say that the author is dead, because that would make me very nervous. However, the author is NOT THAT important. Whether an author intended a symbolic resonance to exist in her book is irrelevant. All that matters is whether it's there because the book does not exist for the benefit of the author. The book exists for the benefit of you. If we, as readers, could have a bigger and richer experiences with the world as a result of reading a symbol and that symbol wasn't intended by the author, WE STILL WIN!
"Yes, inevitably, reading is a conversation between an author and a reader. But give yourself some power in that conversation, reader. Go out there and make a world
"Best wishes, John Green."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that, rather than addressing postmodernism and the current day academy, Mr. Green is addressing the class clown in freshman AP English who made poor Mrs. Newton's life a daily hell.
No, I'm not talking from experience, why? It was a made-up example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chances are, most people aren't going to read William Shakespeare, The Great Gatsby or Moby Dick unless an English teacher assigns them in class
I must be a really weird dude, then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are.
My union brother who has only read three books in his life that I mentioned above, is a bit more typical, alas.