On Jul 15, 2012, at 7:42 AM, "Carl C. Trovall"
>> wrote:
>> Critical Tools and Theoretical Machines
>> “Critical tools” was a phrase I’d hear from time
to time, back in the
>> academy. No one ever said exactly what it meant,
but you got the idea.
>> Analyzing narrative structures, tracing patterns
of...
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Kelly Neal wrote:
>
>> Yes, but the separation of criticism From theory
is specious. One has a
>> theory behind the criticism always. Once at
Breadloaf the profs held an
>> impromptu panel, where they took an Emily
Dickinson poem and ran it through
>> various theories: deconstruction, feminist,
Marxist, new historicism, New
>> criticism; the result was each opened the poem in
a different way,
>> revealing a deeper understanding of the work
overall. And ultimately the
>> poem survived the various vivisections and still
read in a beautiful way. I
>> think most attacks on theory come from A
basically conservative view of
>> literary analysis which is comfortable with only
one "correct"
>> interpretation which everyone will come to if
only they use the "right"
>> tools. We make meaning happen through our living
talk about "texts"
>> whatever those texts are; when those meanings
become orthodox, we run the
>> risk of not having a meaning at all, or a life
for that matter.
>>
>> Thanks for the article, sorry if i ranted.
>>
>> Kelly
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 15, 2012, at 11:50 AM, "Carl C.
Trovall"
> wrote:
>
> No worries about ranting. When we are in dialog, it
is just a very nice,
> vigorous and passionate discussion, no? Besides, I
rant a lot, too.
>
> I wouldn't say the distinction is specious--that is
too strong, in my
> opinion (if by specious you mean that it looks good
on the surface, but is
> false). I don't think the distinction is false. It is
actually helpful
> and true to some extent.
>
> At the same time, I fully agree that everything
(definitions, language,
> criticism, even theory creation and maintenance
itself) is theory-laden and
> so the distinction falls apart and clouds thinking.
And, I like the
> Breadloaf story...I do that exercise with Biblical
texts in class all the
> time and explain the role of presuppositions (which
are constantly being
> modified in a hermeneutical circle). That's why the
biblical text, along
> with all great literature, is so wonderful...it just
keeps opening up
> worlds rather than shutting them down (though there
are plenty of shutter
> downer interpreters, esp. in theology, though I have
noted that nearly
> every field and politic has its closed minded
dogmatists. Thank God, I am
> not one! : ) ).
>
> I suppose my anxieties always arise because I think
there are better and
> worse ways of interpreting texts...some people's
interpretations are
> pure transference with little apparent relation to
the text (just sit in a
> Bible study...oh, boy). But, I also hate the theologian
who says 'this is
> what the text means.' Somehow there is a balance
between anything goes
> (which is uncritical) and tying the meaning down into
a forced meaning of
> the expert (which is uncritical at another level).
>
> That's why I liked this piece....it seemed to bridge
those worlds.
>
> Thanks for the opportunity to dialog!
>
> 100 today in MN! Whew....
>
> Oh, yes, thanks for the wonderful time and quiche and
wine and discussion
> at your house. Always a joy.
>
> Carl
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Kelly Neal wrote:
> I don't see a lot of difference between the person
who sees what they want
> to see, and the "expert" who uses outside
textual "authorities" to see what
> they want to see. There is no "pure"
objective way to interpret text. To
> speak of "criticism" as if it is some
rational method beyond the taint of
> theory is what I call specious. We create meaning
through our social
> interactions with the text and the societal contexts
in which we encounter
> these texts. There is a constant play between the
standard, possibly
> repressive, interpretations, and the counter /
resistant narratives of
> meanings. As William Burroughs said: language is a
virus from outer space.
> Theory is a way to differentiate the various strains
of viral outbreaks.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
From: "Carl C. Trovall"
Sent: Jul 15, 2012 2:01 PM
To: Kelly Neal
Subject: Re: Critical Tools and Theoretical Machines
I certainly don't think that criticism stands apart from
theory, as an
objective view from nowhere. But, not every interpretation
of a text is a
good one. Would you say that whatever interpretation of a
text by any
reader are all equally valid and good? Or, are there
'better' and 'worse'
interpretations of a text? Because if there are better and
worse, then one
has to justify why that is so. And, I hope that it is just
more than
simply power relations (I am teacher, you are
student)...that there are
tools to use to help us meaningfully interpret texts
better than having no
critical tools at all. For example, if someone interprets
the Pauline
texts on homosexuality as reason to kill and punish
homosexuals, and
another interprets those texts in a liberative way, I
personally think that
the second is a better interpretation than the first. And,
I have my
reasons, my critical theory for choosing that. It is
purely objective?
No. But I would argue that it is not purely subjective
either. I think
I can offer reasons why it is better to love than hate.
Further, while I know that reader makes meaning, and texts
take on their
own lives apart from the author's intent, I still think
the writer's intent
and purpose ought to be considered in fairness to the
author. It is the
standard of humility before the author. No, the author is
not omniscient,
but we at least owe the author some form of charity and
respect to
understand what they are trying to say, and ask, "is
that true, or good or
beautiful?" That is, I think that while I don't have
control over how
others interpret what I write, I still think that the
meaning(s) I intended
deserve to be privileged in some sense. That's why I speak
and write, to
make sure that others understand what I am trying to say,
and I want my own
interpretation of my own words .
Thanks for a wonderful discussion...I suppose we should be
discussing it on
the RFB blog. I plan to respond
to Steve and you sometime today...
Carl,
To step back a bit: my main concern with the article
was with the dismissal of theory, almost out of hand. I do not think that
one interpretation of text is as good as another, but that is where theory
comes to play in force. A theory helps explain what the person is seeing
in a text that is not just, "Oh, the inferno was an allegorical
description of Dante's summer vacation." Theory gives some validity
to the interpretative critique a reader is employing as they read the text.
I tend to read, when people say, "Well then anything goes" to
mean (my interpretation here), "anything" meaning any other
interpretation other than mine which I disagree with. (I am not saying you are
saying this Carl, just that over the years I have read that anything goes
phrase as dismissive and condescending to any interpretation other than the
status quo). I have found that for the most part, different theoretical
critiques do more to open up a text than they do to undermine the text. A
Marxist reading of Dickens is fairly profound, as is a feminist reading
comparing the Wife of Bath's tale to the Clerks Tale in Chaucer. And there is
doubtful any way that Chaucer can be seen as a feminist writer. And even when
they do undermine a text, I think that helps us to understand how the text is
making meaning in the current context, thus guaranteeing the continuing value
of a text over time. When the meaning of a text becomes fixed is when it
has become a dead text of no value to the society which is reading it.
Why are we reading this text? What does it say now? Is that
different than what it said when it was written? How can meaning change?
When we look at a text in the context of the time it was written and the
context of the author's life, how much can we project our own understandings of
the time period onto the text? Quite a bit I would venture. Should we use Freud
and Jung on anyone writing before Freud and Jung? Why not? Why? All
of these questions come under the pervue of theory. Theory is just the
grounding in a fairly open manner the perspective from which the critic is
applying his critical skills. I have thought of choosing for RFB this
book
Just because it is a fairly wild interpretation of
criticism. Eagleton is a marxist theorist and makes no attempt to
disguise that. But I probably want do that because I would rather read
something of beauty.
As John Keats wrote:
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' - that is all ye know on
earth, and all ye need to know.
Kelly
