Welcome to The Valve

Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom


Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.



About Last Night
Academic Splat
Amardeep Singh
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogging the Renaissance
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Ferule & Fescue
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Planned Obsolescence
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
Say Something Wonderful
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
What Now?
William Gibson

Friday, April 15, 2005

Look Ma, No Theories (or, No Taste)

Posted by Sean McCann on 04/15/05 at 08:38 PM

I’ll bet I’m not the only to have an ambivalent reaction to the kind of thread that developed from Daniel’s Disinterest Hats post--not the post itself, but the extended discussion that followed.  (Confirmation.  No sooner did I write that sentence than I flipped over to the Valve main page and saw that Miriam said almost exactly the same.) And I do mean ambivalent in the full sense of the word.  What is it with conversations of the sort?  They’re like wrecks on the highway or late night televisions shows featuring teams of crime solving supermodels.  Or maybe the Sunday morning talk shows are a better analogy.  You can’t take your eyes away, but when it’s over you feel icky and like you’ve just squandered some of the precious time you’ve been allotted in this brief transit.  Nothing happens, the debate never advances, no minds get changed, and precious little in the way of new information or perspective comes to the fore.  So, why, for gaia’s sake, are they so damnably and weirdly compelling?

Well, for precisely those reasons is my guess.  Nothing’s so gratifying as an irresolvable debate of starkly opposed positions.  And what’s attractive about them is that, since so little development occurs, they can function as a kind of moral theater.  A place, in other words, where you can display, to choose a random example, your inability to suffer the pomposity of academic jargon.  Or, vice versa, your impatience with the old fartiness of the cultivated sensibility.  And, then, in turn where you can be further gratified by the outrageous postures of your hapless foes.  This isn’t reasoned discourse, in other words.  It’s professional wrestling.

I think there’s a reason--apart from the current state of the field--that literary criticism is prey to such dramas.  Aesthetic judgment is all about developing, refining, displaying sensibility.  It may seem that recent generations of academic critics have left that all behind.  But that’s a misperception.  What they’re quite frequently doing rather is cultivating and displaying the sensibility of one eager to leave such trivial concerns behind.  In my view, in other words, the critic who says, “well, at least I’m not a stuffy old don nodding complacently off over the classics” isn’t really changing the subject (or not only, anway) but showing us what kind of worthy person he or she is.  Which isn’t really that different from the critic who exclaims about their love of lit.  The differences between them are differences of sensibility, but their not really differences in the kind of discourse they’re engaged in.  They’re both engaged in the process of making themselves admirable people. 

(Acknowledgment due: John’s mock platonic dialogue about Theory says something very similar to this if I remember and understood right.  Needless to say, he’s not responsible for the careless rambling here.)

Arguing about literary criticism is a bizarrely compelling kind of theater I think precisely because it’s usually less about any subject than about our most cherished self-perceptions.  Like narcissism in general, it’s tedious and addictive at the same time. 

p.s., I should add that if you haven’t read John’s mock platonic dialogue, go, do it.  Not only is it brilliant, but you will be a better and finer person for having experienced it.


I think one thing we can all agree upon how is much Eagleton’s phrase (I think), “swooning over the lectern in a port-induced stupor” has contributed to this debate. I doubt its inspiration was even the result of procedures described in Kieckhefer’s Forbidden Rites: A Necromancer’s Manual of the 15th C (Penn State UP, 1998).

By Jonathan on 04/15/05 at 11:03 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Were people “arguing about literary criticism”? I guess I missed the point entirely—how clueless I can be sometimes. For my part, I was trying to make the point that academic lit-studies profs and departments (exceptions allowed for) seem to be doing a lousy job of preparing and educating students.

By Michael Blowhard on 04/15/05 at 11:50 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Forgive me for being presumptuous, MB, but I’d say that post is a case in point.  I hope I’m not misreading you when I take your comment about being clueless to be a tad sardonic.  Your point is--isn’t it?--that academics are tediously scholastic and that even to refer to arguments about literary criticism is to display the symptom. 

But here’s the way you began your comments to Daniel’s post: “screw scholarship, and screw literary studies.” If that’s not arguing over literary criticism, what is it?

The point of my post is that comments like the one you made saying that criticism is “of no use if it doesn’t help the student understand something of what the actual world (or actual worlds) of reading-and-writing is like” are remarkably standard and neutral in this kind of argument.  The analyzers of texts share that first principle with you--which is why they often speak with the kind of dimissiveness your comments also show.  They don’t just disagree with you.  They think you speak for lesser values and would prefer to keep young minds in chains. 

This may be unfairly topgallant of me, but both views seem to me to be wrong and to habitually cast their opponents in conveniently and gratifyingly simple guise.

By on 04/16/05 at 12:46 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Sean—I’m flattered by the close reading! But I’m really much simpler than that. Saying “screw literary studies” isn’t a way of arguing over literary studies—even I could do better than that if arguing over literary criticism were what I wanted to do. Instead, it’s clearing the decks (or trying to, anyway) for another discussion altogether. Each of my comments was an attempt to get the discussion to focus on the question of whether academic lit-studies is doing a good job of teaching and preparing the students who go through its programs.

This may have been tedious of me, as you and Miriam graciously note. I may not have done it well. That comments-thread may not have been the place to try to do such a thing. On the other hand, it isn’t a bad question. And it’s the kind of question that many non-academics find much more important than questions about research programs or intellectual trends: Are the profs doing a good job of educating and preparing the students who they’re being paid to educate and prepare?

I wonder sometimes:  why do academics so resist discussing the question of whether they’re doing a good job of serving their students? Silly me, I’m forever making the mistake of imagining that academics wuold be eager for feedback and observations. But, judging from the way many of them tend to take any attempt to open a discussion up and turn it back into yet another inside-academia debate, I guess I’m wrong. Any thoughts about this?

By Michael Blowhard on 04/16/05 at 01:39 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Let’s not lump teaching students and scholarly lit-crit together. There are overlaps but among the goals of teaching is to help students develop a passion about a something.That something can be a poem, an idea, an historical period. If scholarly studies of the lit-crit type can spark that development then hi ho Silver !

By on 04/16/05 at 08:05 AM | Permanent link to this comment

I’m eager not to appear on the wrong side of the dismissiveness tracks, so I’ll tell what I thought of when I read Blowhard’s comments: “here,” I thought, “here is a man who doesn’t believe that a college education should be purely vocational--no, poring over the uses of a new metal and figuring how Sarbanes-Oxley can make your clients money should also be leavened by the reading of Moneyball and other books he likes. And, by the way, his friend, eminent and grise, tells him tenure’s on the out, so there’s that too.”

Rarely have I read the vocational/instrumental argument combined in such a way with that of the idiosyncratic reformer. So I was thrown, frankly, and had to consult the aformentioned manual for consultations.

By Jonathan on 04/16/05 at 09:59 AM | Permanent link to this comment


Wouldn’t Liar’s Poker be the more appropriate Michael Lewis book if the point is to educate future securities’ brokers?  (I admit to being a little glib here, but only because I seriously considered teaching Moneyball in my intro. to literary journalism course this quarter.  The shock of seeing myself associated, via the absurdity of teaching undergraduates Moneyball, with the “what’s the use of literary criticism crowd” compelled me to respond.  You’ll be happy to know that in the end I decided instead on Orlean’s The Orchid Thief...because kids these days know fuck all about flowers.)

By A. Cephalous on 04/16/05 at 01:19 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I think M. Blowhard is the person to whom this inquiry should be directed, unless that wasn’t the book he had in mind, in which case I offer my utmost apologies to all concerned parties.

By Jonathan on 04/16/05 at 01:43 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Let’s not lump teaching students and scholarly lit-crit together. There are overlaps but among the goals of teaching is to help students develop a passion about a something. That something can be a poem, an idea, an historical period. If scholarly studies of the lit-crit type can spark that development then hi ho Silver !

If, to the extent that it’s a happy coincidence if scholarly criticism can accomplish the goals of teaching, the goals of teaching and criticism don’t largely overlap, why are they practiced by the same people?  It’s not at all clear that one and the same type of person is best at both.  What are the overlaps?

(And what makes you so certain that’s what a/the goal of teaching is?  I’m pretty sure that the goal of my Dostoevsky class (in this crowd I should probably say: class I took, not taught) was to read and understand his works, not to get everyone all excited about Notes from Underground.  NTM, why should one of the goals of teaching be helping students develop a passion about something?  Students can do that pretty well by themselves, can’t they?)

By ben wolfson on 04/17/05 at 12:32 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I agree Ben.  The really interesting stuff is about WHY some things make some of us passionate and others don’t and - even more demanding - whether we can become passionate about those things by understanding them better.  Where this gets snarled up is that it implies relative values and maybe that some things are more worth getting passionate about than others.

By on 04/18/05 at 11:18 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Dear Michael B,

a long delayed response to your question. 

The problem you point to in instructors of literature is not unique to the field.  Lawyers seldom get together and gab about the big problems of justice and whether they serve it or not.  Doctors all too rarely ask whether the current state of medicine serves patients well.  (If they did, the medical profession in the U.S. would be in a profound state of crisis.  It’s quite amazing actually the deference that American doctors get, especially compared to the nasty treatment that other professions are routinely subjected to.) And professional writers, who you praise as an alternative to academics, don’t worry about whether their work serves the public or literature well.  Like everyone else, they obsess about status, income, etc. 

The point is that the underpinning of the professions is an implicit social bargain.  The public allows professionals to be concerned with personal advancement and narrowly framed issues with the implicit understanding that in the long run everyone benefits. 

of course, you might want to make the case that in the case of academic literary instruction the bargain has broken down, and I’d be willing to concede that there’s something to the idea.  But, since the complaints you make against academics are pretty standard and have been around for generations, a question naturally arises: whether any possible reform short of just disbanding or breast beating would accomplish what you want.  I think Ben’s right.  You can’t teach passion and you shouldn’t try.  You can show people what they might admire and why, but passion should be an unintended side effect.  Otherwise, good forbid, you might turn into Robin Williams.

By on 04/18/05 at 09:48 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:



Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: