(urth) academic commentary

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Thomas Bitterman <tom at bitterman.net> wrote:
> The statement "Wright's methodology
> does not permit a reading in which spiritual beings actually exist" is very
> different from the statement "Wright adopted a methodology which prohibits a
> reading in which spiritual beings exist because he is an atheist and that
> sort of reading makes him uncomfortable".  The first is very informative and
> leads to interesting questions such as "What other methodologies could be
> brought to bear, and what can they reveal that Wright's did not?"  The
> second simply speculates on the author's motives, which is out of place in a
> discussion of non-fiction.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense.

Is it out of place to discuss why Sarah Palin has written her book
"America by Heart," or why Al Franken wrote "Lies and the Lying Liars
Who Tell Them?"

Even outside politics, the motives of the author can be quite
significant to a work of nonfiction. Any autobiography, for example,
is clearly motivated.

But we're talking about literary criticism, and the author's motives
are clearly out of line here -- aren't they?

I say no. There are entire motivated schools of criticism, as Marxist,
Christian, deconstructionist, etc., and motivation is _clearly_ of
import in reading those critics. (If deconstruction has accomplished
anything at all, it is to demonstrate that all texts, not just those
called fiction, have ideological and metaphysical underpinnings -- "we
are always already within the circle of metaphysics.")

Thus, while your first statement is necessary it is not sufficient: it
is legitimate, and perhaps even necessary, to ask why <critic> chooses
the methodology s/he does and not some other methodology. The answer
to that question is going to be rooted in <critic>'s ideology and
metaphysics.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes