Welcome to The Valve
Login
Register


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

Articles
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

Comments
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

XHTML | CSS

Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

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

 


Blogroll

2blowhards
About Last Night
Academic Splat
Acephalous
Amardeep Singh
Beatrice
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogenspiel
Blogging the Renaissance
Bookslut
Booksquare
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cliopatria
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
CultureSpace
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Fernham
Ferule & Fescue
Ftrain
GalleyCat
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
Idiocentrism
Idiotprogrammer
if:book
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
Kitabkhana
Languagehat
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
MadInkBeard
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Moo2
MoorishGirl
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Philobiblion
Planned Obsolescence
Printculture
Pseudopodium
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
ReadySteadyBlog
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
S1ngularity::criticism
Say Something Wonderful
Scribblingwoman
Seventypes
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Splinters
Spurious
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
Uncomplicatedly
Unfogged
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
Waggish
What Now?
William Gibson
Wordherders

Sunday, March 26, 2006

The Sunday Snifter

Posted by Ray Davis on 03/26/06 at 09:05 PM

Lorine Niedecker of Black Hawk Island, Wisconsin, sent this advice:


To my small
electric pump


 

To sense
and sound
this world

look to
your snifter
valve

take oil
and hum

Swirl, spirits, swirl....

And from the peaty darkness, Laputan Logic offered a 12,000 kilometres close reading of Lord Bryon, The Mumpsimus bubbled Gardner vs. Gass and Pamela Zoline’s 1967 masterpiece, “The Heat Death of The Universe", and Josh Corey joined “A Tribute to Ronald Johnson" and called for a poet’s union.

Which uncharacteristically unpromising call nevertheless led to, among other worthwhile posts, Mark Scroggins’s:

As a weary and aging tenured faculty member, I find more and more attractive, and perhaps ultimately more honorable, the notion of staking out a place in the academy that takes advantage of its “residual feudalism” without directly tying one’s stake to poetic cultural capitalism....

And, less directly, to wombats of Adorno and the Rossettis, and, more circuitously, to Michael Peverett‘s notes toward a personal canon.

Speaking of core curricula, Dustin Wax’s post at the anthropology blog Savage Minds may be worth consideration:

The treatment of Muslim Spain in Western Civ books tends to consist solely of the Song of Roland and, centuries later, the defeat of Granada and subsequent expulsion of Muslims (and Jews) from Spain. In between, a mighty civilization emerged, flourished, and ultimately declined—one that I am beginning to think contributed more to “Western culture” than the Romans ever did.

Also picking through the blasted groves, fiction writer and scholar pica begins an inquiry:

What I see here is simple: I see the overwhelming urge on the part of a critic to tell a story. But is criticism the place to tell stories?

Maybe because I’m an essayist by nature, I do understand criticism as a narrative (or more generally a discursive) structure rather than a scientific argument. The appearance of argument is sometimes a formal constraint (as it can be in lyric verse). But criticism establishes nothing, in the same ambivalently positive sense that poetry makes nothing happen. Its goal isn’t conclusion but continuation.

Since scholarship, on the other hand, does attempt to establish something. “literary scholarship,” ambiguously perched, suffers endless perplexities. Are we reading (or, worse, writing) bad scholarship, or bad speculation? Or bad both, in the discursive prose equivalent of rhyming “love” and “dove”? Or are we merely exercising team spirit. hoping to be rewarded for choosing and sticking to a side even though we’re not scoring any of the game’s supposed goals?

For myself, the most painful recent outgrowth of perplexity has been the unprofitable shillelagh war between certain usually not-so-dull writers at The Valve and certain usually not-so-dull writers at Long Sunday and Kotsko’s. Although I can’t say I welcomed the latter’s latest swing, it does, I think, at least strike closer to the heart of the matter, may a quick death follow.

The same ambiguity’s haunted The Valve’s last two “book events,” with Moretti meeting less and Armstrong more skepticism. As I mentioned in earlier comments, How Novels Think compares badly to another recent “how everything changed” chronicle of individuation, equally Anglocentric but less English-department-bound, The Secret History of Domesticity. Even if Michael McKeon’s connective prose is uninspiring, his textual and graphic citations make lovely argument-by-collage—for example, this from Onania, a book whose popularity and influence beat Moll Flanders hands down.

But in arguing against Uncleanness, especially this sort of it, which of all, as it is the most loathsome, the same Liberty is not to be taken, but a Man is extremely confin’d, and is oblig’d to express himself with the utmost Circumspection and Caution, for fear of intrenching upon Modesty; which as I promis’d I would not be Guilty of doing, I shall all along with the greatest strictness observe, as knowing that I shoul’d be oblig’d to name some Things that might betray my Readers into the remembrance of what it is much better that they should for ever forget, as they would not then be able to set such a watchful Guard upon their Thoughts and Fancies, but that some foul or filthy Desires would in Spight creep in; the least imagination only of which, would render them Odious in God’s sight, who seeth the Heart, and Delights in none but those who are pure and upright there; with which Apology, hoping it will be sufficient for what Omissions and Obscurity I have been guilty of, I conclude this Chapter.

Horni soit qui mal y pense.


Comments

Thanks, Ray. “The appearance of argument is sometimes a formal constraint (as it can be in lyric verse). But criticism establishes nothing, in the same ambivalently positive sense that poetry makes nothing happen. Its goal isn’t conclusion but continuation. Since scholarship, on the other hand, does attempt to establish something. “literary scholarship,” ambiguously perched, suffers endless perplexities.”

I think I’m trying to say that a lot of the time, but not encapsulating it so nicely. No doubt this is a function of some of my other bad habits, which you correctly diagnose.

By John Holbo on 03/26/06 at 11:05 PM | Permanent link to this comment

That’s extremely gracious of you, John, and I feel honor-bound to acknowledge that I haven’t put forth the honest critical effort to completely unravel the difference—which seems (to me) so viscerally present—between those entertaining and insightful antagonistic pieces which I don’t wholly agree with but which I’m still grateful for, and those other entries. In lazily unexamined terms, the former (seem to me to) play to your unique strengths (and I think no one’s ever denied that a witty pop-culture-saturated Nietzschean liberal analytic philosopher Trilling fan has unique strengths) and the latter don’t so much. (But I have no idea if you feel any such distinction yourself.) Similarly, one of the sadder things about the Valve for me has been that Sean McCann has had so little opportunity to display his gift for historically empathic reading. It takes a special kind of talent to be at one’s very best at one’s very most aggressive, and, perhaps mercifully, I don’t think we have a talent to match Thomas Nashe or Joanna Russ.

By Ray Davis on 03/27/06 at 12:53 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Virtually all analytic philosophers are liberals. As are virtually all pop culture fans and ( if Leiter is any guide) Nietzscheans. So why do you find his liberalism suprising?

By on 03/27/06 at 01:11 AM | Permanent link to this comment

When I said pop culture fans I meant academic pop culture fans.

By on 03/27/06 at 01:17 AM | Permanent link to this comment

I’d like to see the numbers on pop culture fans and Nietzscheans, Timothy, but I’m willing to take your word on analytic philosophers. It’s the combination, I guess, which I find refreshingly problematic. But maybe that’s because I tend to associate most of that combination with Libertarians—and, to be fair to my prejudices (which is only natural; feel free on your part to be mean to them), I seem to remember Libertarian sympathies expressed occasionally on John & Belle, and, as a computer programmer, I’ve encountered many more loathsome Libertarians than loathsome Theorists or Neocons....

By Ray Davis on 03/27/06 at 01:31 AM | Permanent link to this comment

"For myself, the most painful recent outgrowth of perplexity has been the unprofitable shillelagh war between certain usually not-so-dull writers at The Valve and certain usually not-so-dull writers at Long Sunday and Kotsko’s. Although I can’t say I welcomed the latter’s latest swing, it does, I think, at least strike closer to the heart of the matter, may a quick death follow.”

I believe that you’ve posted before about not commenting on inter-blog spats.  You’ve also written that politics should be avoided on the Valve because it’s a literary blog—but, again, you seem to be heading in that direction.  Is this simply a matter that you can do so without the yells of Archbishop or Acolyte that otherwise would disturb these hallowed halls?  If what you’re really concerned with is a heckler’s veto rather than what subjects are appropriate, I guess that’s fine.

By on 03/27/06 at 11:39 AM | Permanent link to this comment

I agree, Rich, my position in that paragraph is itself awfully precarious. (My thanks to John H. were genuine—I would have understood entirely if he’d reacted with hostility.) I was led there while writing what I thought was a pure links piece, and it surprised me. But, combined with pica’s questions, Kotsko’s joke seemed to me to pinpoint the literary aspect of the dispute rather than any (more or less supposed) political aspect. I may be wrong—noncombatants often are.

(And as I’ve written before, my position is only my position; I may sometimes feel compelled to describe it, but it’s certainly not comfortable enough for me to recommend. I carry no authority here, except to delete the troll’s comments from my own threads.)

By Ray Davis on 03/27/06 at 12:59 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Well, thanks in turn for reacting gracefully to my twitting you about it.  I guess that my problem is that it’s always seemed like a literary or philosophical dispute—I’d have a difficult time identifying any political aspect to it, other than classic bloggy side-choosing.  As such, aversion to it is hard to disentangle: it is aversion to subject, style, or repetition?  Or mixtures of all three of course.  I guess that what I’m getting at is that I think that you sometimes characterize the dispute as non-literary because of the manner in which it has appeared.  Which I fully understand as a pragmatic argument, but disagree seriously with as a classificational one.

By on 03/27/06 at 01:33 PM | Permanent link to this comment

That’s fair, Rich. Sadly, your reward will be a long-winded reply. (Second Prize: TWO long-winded replies!)

You’re right that my aversion is tangled. It’s not a walk-away-quickly type. It’s a knotted-stomach type. It includes guilt feelings. When the Valve launched, those who wanted to attack some fashions in academic writing (or, in Dan’s case, the entire institution) walked into the room speaking in a loud clear voice; others mostly hung back. As a result, our hoped-for lively party looked more like an oddly-shaped Party organ. Having been one of the wallflowers, I’m in no position to blame the host for trying to spark conversation.

Or maybe even to blame the conversational topic. I’m no Lacanian, I’ve been appalled by some of the tales I’ve heard from younger and more academically inclined friends, and I thought John Holbo’s cod-Socratic dialog was more than funny enough to justify itself. Worthwhile satire can’t always be extended into a full-out military campaign, though. As the war’s continued, wit has sometimes flagged and certain flaws (or diplomatic opportunities?) have become apparent.

Problems such as purely gestural (almost cargo-cultish) “rationality” and references to contradictory scriptural authorities aren’t exclusively patented by any critical school. We can find them stretching back centuries. In fact, they’re disturbingly hard to eradicate, although most of us try a good-faith weeding. My pre-Theory-era college classes certainly didn’t lack for bullying and group-think. So why single out a single (large, varied) critical school for attack? Shouldn’t we treat each specimen, regardless of provenance, on its own merits? Wouldn’t we jab the eternal verities of Dana Gioia, Camille Paglia, Richard Dawkins, or Pat Robertson as gleefully as those of Fredric Jameson?

The answer would seem to depend on “practical considerations”—that is, on politics. (And I’m in agreement, I think, with you, Sean, Scott, and John H., that in this case we’re talking career politics more than what-gets-us-thrown-in-prison politics. Because let’s face it, Pat Robertson wins on that score.) We need academic balance in our sloppy thinking. Mr. President, we must not allow a nonsense gap!

But of course political strategizing raises its own bunch of issues, none of which I’m competent to address—except this one, since I’ve heard it brought up by friends: I explicitly hoped this space might allow for something better than competition in a zero-sum game. Consider the following short plays:

“As a good Christian, I would give all my money to the poor if it wasn’t for these damned progressive taxes.” [ENTER REDUCED RATES] “As good Christians, my children can’t give all my money to the poor until we get rid of these damned inheritance taxes.”

“Literary studies have been completely taken over by blather about philosophy and politics.” [ENTER THE VALVE] “Great! We now have a place where we can complain about philosophy and politics in literary studies!”

Because I have some sense of the players here, I don’t suspect bad faith. But I do suspect our (and my own) conflicted motives have become more manifest.

So there’s my aversion, as best I can untangle it.

By Ray Davis on 03/28/06 at 05:21 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Ray, have you read Archaeologies of the Future yet?

By Jonathan Goodwin on 03/28/06 at 06:02 PM | Permanent link to this comment

No, I wasn’t planning to, Jonathan, since I’ve never really enjoyed anything by Jameson, and the reviewers’ frequent mention of “utopia” seems to indicate I wouldn’t enjoy this one either. Do you think I should at least skim it?

By Ray Davis on 03/28/06 at 06:13 PM | Permanent link to this comment

You’ll love the theoretical reflections on utopia.

By Jonathan Goodwin on 03/28/06 at 06:16 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I’m far worse of a glommed-up wallflower than you, Ray.  *shrugs helplessly*

By on 03/28/06 at 08:04 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Ray, I agree with many of your premises, disagree with your conclusion.  As you say, the same kinds of flaws, and criticisms of them, could have appeared at any time over the last century.  That makes this kind of argument just one of the things that literary people do.  Nor am I surprised by the choice of targets: I don’t think that anyone really cares much about Camille Paglia, and as for Pat Robertson, I really can’t think of what interest there would be in reading him, much less jabbing at him.  Zizek, on the other hand—you’d want to invent him if he didn’t exist.

I don’t remember the basic complaint at the beginning of the Valve as being “Literary studies have been completely taken over by blather about philosophy and politics.” Holbo is a philosopher, after all.  Wait, I’ll look back at the first post.  From the statement of purpose: “We mean to foster debate and circulation of ideas in literary studies and contiguous academic areas.” Let’s see: “I have dreams of making the Valve a platform for bold e-publishing ventures”, well, those dreams are still evergreen, and probably will still be a year or so from now.  “Every scholarly book published in the humanities should be widely read, discussed and reviewed - should have it’s own lively blog comment box, not to put too fine a point on it.” OK.  But maybe that is just Holbo?  Well, second post is Amardeep on Eagleton.  Fourth post, Lawrence on Wittgenstein.  Then a couple by Sean on individual authors, one by Miriam on publishing, and then there’s Dan Green writing about blogs as source of intellectual debate.  I’m just not seeing your characterization.

More to the point, perhaps, I can’t imagine most people being interested in literature without being interested in literary theory, at least part of the time, and literary theory at the present moment means philosophy.  There’s no way to get around it: theory defines, to some extent, how people read literary works.  It’s not important because of career politics, it’s important because bad theory can still have a hold on the high ground of interpretation.

So I think these debates are pretty much unavoidable.  It was perhaps avoidable for certain people to decide that this was a fine opportunity for a bit of pugilism, yes, but that wasn’t the Valve’s doing, although it was the Valve’s problem.

By on 03/28/06 at 08:44 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Pat Robertson, yes. Where I came from even in the late 1970s there was probably as many went to Christian colleges as went to state universities. (You think Zizek doesn’t have future lecture revenues in mind?)

Outside that unseemly outburst, I’d just repeat myself, and there’s no point so long as we have literacy. Thanks for giving it a try, Rich. You stated your point of view well, and I appreciate it.

By Ray Davis on 03/29/06 at 12:24 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Sure.  One last addition—I didn’t mean to imply that Pat Robertson had no influence on education.  Just that having to jab at theocracy one more time is dull.

By on 03/29/06 at 12:36 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Some scattered afterthoughts on a scatterbrained post:

1) I’d originally intended to point to Adam Roberts’s annual review of the Arthur C. Clarke shortlist. His hook is weak, but the individual segments are strong, and there’s an absurd personal outburst to provide fannish cred. Like the Tiptree Jury, he likes Geoff Ryman’s Air: Or, Have Not Have. I assume the Booker Prize will be next?

2) From the outside, my and Rich’s narrations of Valve history must seem like Rashomon. On the inside, it feels more like Last Year at Marienbad.

3) Pica has posted a follow-up.

4) Only this morning, it struck me that the very first essay I wrote for publication concerned the choice/struggle of fiction vs. criticism. In retrospect, it’s pretty clear where my own deepest sympathies lay.

By Ray Davis on 03/30/06 at 12:25 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Weak hook, yes.  I’ll see if I can get hold of some hook support, perhaps from Boots the Chemist.  But I’m glad you like the individual segments; and I’m double glad that you were too gracious to haul me up for my egregriously sophomoric error (yes, it’s true, I do refer to Finnegan’s Wake.  Sorry sorry, writing in too much of a hurry, promise not to do it again.)

By Adam Roberts on 03/31/06 at 04:39 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

 

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: