(urth) academic commentary

[David Stockhoff]

Certainly literary criticism allows way too much leeway to critics 
trying to make texts into something they are not, whether to establish 
themselves or just make a splash. But I see your point.

I think I was thinking along similar lines when I suggested that Wright 
merely had ideological/pedagogical blinkers on. I doubt Wright was 
really being dishonest, but I think it's OK to get that possibility out 
there and dispense with it, if possible.

On 11/29/2010 9:22 PM, Thomas Bitterman wrote:
> 2010/11/29 António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com 
> <mailto: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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 101129-1, 11/29/2010
> Tested on: 11/29/2010 9:23:07 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 AVAST Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
>


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 101129-1, 11/29/2010
Tested on: 11/29/2010 10:24:31 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com