Originally Posted by
Pierre Menard
1. Considering I was talking primarily about general audiences, and those influenced by the schools of thought, the scholars weren't overly relevant initially. The schools and the disciplines exist beyond those thinkers, they've evolved through the interpretation of those schools, and that's where my criticism lies. In saying that, there are inherent aspects of the original and/or top thinkers in these fields that inherently open up the wider general interpretations that I have issues with. However, I never said these people aren't capable of great thoughts or ideas, Greenblatt for example is an interesting writer, and i'm particularly fond of his intro to Thomas Browne's work I'm currently reading. I'd also argue he and people within his school are nowhere near as ideologically motivated as the other schools.
2. Difference between starting with the framework of aesthetics and what artistic aspects of a work are, and starting with the text through an ideological framework.
3. There's a difference in the value they place on the technical/artistic qualities of the text. Of course it's a matter of preference, obviously. Nor have I said I'm inherently correct, so pointless observation.
4. "Look" can also be used in a conversational way or as way to be more direct in a point…hell, to be honest, it's just the way I start sentences sometimes, and I'll say it if I damn well please. You'll get over it. Influencing other 'scholars' is nice, but not all scholars are made of the same stuff. You say the word 'scholar' as if it has inherent importance. It's dependent on the individual in question. There is a ton of political scholars for example who have their schools, and the support of many scholars, but are also largely full of **** (I think of Marxist-economics for example), the same thing is applicable in history and art history and so on. Having an established school doesn't inherently mean one has to follow the school of thought and or agree with it, and the lasting influence and whether or not their texts last, is without doubt important in the same way the question of whether or not literature last is important.
5. "Theoretically unproven"…well, all schools of literary criticism are 'theoretically unproven'…so what? There's no such thing as a theoretically proven literary theory, nor have I said so, so again, irrelevant point. There's schools of criticism one prefers, and ones you don't, haven't said otherwise. Yes, a knowledge of the history of race is important in Southern literature, etc etc, and I haven't said otherwise, a knowledge of the times, and critics that elucidate these themes can be important, but it can also be done without ideological frameworks (much in the same way that the wonderful scholarship explaining theological references in Dante has been done numerous times). Elucidating on themes is fine, and a part of approaching the artistic aspects of the text. There's a difference between that, and say, Marxist criticism whose starting points are inherently ideological and socio-political, it's this sort of criticism, and the wider interpretation of this criticism that I have issues with. There's also a difference between that, and certain personal biases we bring in, that can be overcome or at least put on the back burner most of the time. Beyond that, I'm not a Bloom cultist, nor am I of a 'school'. I think Bloom is hypocritical when talking about Eliot, and some of his Freudian heavy stuff goes too far sometimes as well, but no one is perfect, and I think aspects of his thought are important in these matters and combating the excess of these schools. But my enjoyment of Bloom has predominantly always been his sheer passion when talking about literature, which is important in of itself.
6. Your wanting of specific problems is irrelevant, as I've made it abundantly clear that I believe there are inherent broader issues fundamentally by looking at something through an ideological framework. It can take away from the technical/artistic aspects that an artist has devoted their time to, the thing that separates art from simple polemics (if in painting, one only focused on the socio-political meaning behind the painting, and not the art itself, it cheapens the artistic aspect of the work and I have issues with that and see similar things within that type of literary criticism). The inherent issue of that is applicable in most of those schools and inherently opens up the possibility of poor interpretation.