(urth) academic commentary

[Thomas Bitterman]

2010/11/29 António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>

> David Stockhoff wrote:
>
>> I'm confused. Whose argument?
>>
>> I don't think Antonio meant to say anything negative about Wright as a
>> person, if in fact he meant Wright's atheism blinded him to certain
>> interpretations. It's certainly possible---happens all the time, I'm sure.
>>
>
> Just to clarify things a bit, I only said it would be an uncomfortable or
> inconvenient leap. I can't understand how that got construed as an attack,
> personal or not.
>

My apologies if I have imputed uncharitable motives where none existed.
Allow me to explain my reasoning.  On the non-fiction side of things (which
is where I think Wright's thesis is meant to be) a researcher who is
unwilling to follow the evidence wherever it leads is considered a poor
researcher.  It is akin to intellectual dishonesty.

Another way of looking at it.  The question is "How did Wright miss/not
include an obvious (and likely superior) interpretation that any careful
reader would read?".  The answer is "Because it made him feel
uncomfortable".  This looks like a clear case of arguing against the author
rather than the thesis.

Perhaps literary criticism works differently.

(I think at this time and place everyone can read Wolfe both with and
> without Wolfe and/or Wolfe's motivations.)


I agree.  Fiction works differently.

-- 
Perfection is what happens when you're not looking closely enough: it's a
perceptual mistake on the operator's end of the equation.
   - Dr. Quandry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20101129/2b9957d6/attachment-0003.htm>