Arwin,
 
I think that literary criticism should be pursued as a serious
vocation, capable of offering a great deal of enlightenment, but
why do you insist on its becoming a "serious *science*"?  The
implication would be that a text should have only one universally
agreed-upon meaning.  Such a view of literature flies in the face
of ALL serious literary criticism.  Of course, there are too many
literary critics who think they have *The Answer*, but they'd never
justify their certainty on "scientific" grounds.  Even the most
cocksure of us critics would consider such a claim absurd.  To
become scientific, in the sense you suggest, sounds too much
like an invitation to being dogmatic--and would turn literature
into theological exegesis.  I don't think any of us wants
literature to have a Pope.
 
As to too many books being published: there are never too many
books.  The more choices I have, the better.  The system that
allows garbage to be published also permits of good stuff
getting out there.  What's the alternative?  A committee of
immortelles allowing only those newbies to get published who
agree with them?
 
==Dan P
 
At 02:36 AM 10/12/98 +0200, you wrote:
>Thanks for your intelligent response. I agree with you about eclecticism,
>but having studied briefly something which was exact and yet required
>insight into a very wide area of study (Artificial Intelligence) I can't
>help but believe that things could and should be better.
>
>Method for instance. I'm sure you are in favour of thousands of books being
>published each year that hardly differ from one another, but make it
>totally impossible to, in one's lifetime, read everything. Have you any
>comments on that? Of course, you need not comment if you believe literary
>research should not be attempted as a serious science.
>
>Kind regards,
>Arwin
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel Pearlman <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Monday, October 12, 1998 1:21 AM
>Subject: Re: psychoanalytical criticism
>
>
>>Mr. Arwin has just said, and I excerpt:
>>>
>>>In general there is nothing wrong with a psychoanalytic approach. Or
>should
>>>I say, in theory there is nothing wrong with a psychoanalytic approach.
>>>Many scholars and critics with no qualification whatsoever attempt
>serious
>>>discussions of a creative process that involve biology, psychology,
>>>culture, communication, sociology, history, phonology, linguistics, and
>so
>>>on. Usually however these scholars and critics only have any
>qualifications
>>>of note in perhaps one or two of these fields.
>>>
>>This sounds like a frank recognition of, and even justification for, the
>>"amateur" status of literary critics.  We are "eclecticians," and should
>>remain so, avoiding any attempt to scientize, because we don't need any
>>fundamental "theory" to justify our individual perceptions.  The best of
>us
>>are amateurs in the best sense: lovers of literature who explore, in
>>public, our full intellectual and emotional range of reactions thereto.
>In
>>addition, the eclecticism of our experience maps the mental world of the
>>writer/artist better than the tunnel view of the specialist.  We should be
>>as educated as possible about as much as possible, but never take one
>>thread of our knowledge as the key to Truth (if you'll excuse the mixed
>>metaphor).
>>>
>>Arwin says:
>>
>>>It is my belief that in current literary criticism the two major problem
>>>areas are improper delineations of the area of specialisation with
>regards
>>>to training and/or qualifications, and the use of old-fashioned theories.
>>>To begin with the latter, we will hardly accept a heart-surgeon to
>proceed
>>>on his patient using late 19th century developments and equipment, and
>yet
>>>that is exactly what most psychoanalytic literary criticism is doing
>today.
>>>That this is a very topical issue is evidenced by a similar discussion
>>>about the differences in qualification between "amateur" and
>"professional"
>>>psychotherapists and psychiatrists on the Pound-list (where only real
>>>difference should be that a psychiatrist is qualified to prescribe
>>>medicine, basically being a doctor, and a psychotherapist limits himself
>to
>>>alteration of thinking and behavioural patterns).
>>
>>I disagree about the inapplicability of "old-fashioned theories" because
>>theories are always in conflict with each other, and if there happen to be
>>trends, e.g., away from Freudian sexism/determinism, nevertheless there is
>>much in old-fashioned Freud that is still indispensable to an
>understanding
>>of a broad range of social phenomena (mutatis mutandis for Jung).  The
>fact
>>that modern dream researchers have developed new "theories" about the
>dream
>>being the way the brain makes sense of experience, i.e., its homeostatic
>>function, does not invalidate Freud's way  or Jung's way of looking at the
>>symbolic structures dreams throw out.
>>
>>Arwin says:
>>>
>>>In my view, the creative process is, in theory, simple and the areas of
>>>research clearly definable: at the centre of the research is the text; on
>>>the left is the writer, on the right is the reader. The text is a form of
>>>communication between the writer and the reader.
>>
>>Well, I can't think of anything more rawly scientistic, in the worst
>sense,
>>than to regard the creative process as simple.  That would mean that the
>>human brain is simple.  (Some are, of course. ...)
>>>
>>... Where are the works which study, not endless particular instances
>>>and details of literary history, but attempt to ask fundamental questions
>>>on the meta-level? And once that has been done (an easy task, because all
>>>the knowledge is there as well as endless particular instances to build
>>>meta-scholarship on), a solid scientific method ought to be developed.
>>
>>There have been plenty of "theory of literature" books!  Where ya been?
>>But no practising critic needs such generalizing in day to day
>>applications.  ... I am sure that the most incisive and insightful
>>psychological criticism of specific authors and works I have read was
>>written by total "amateurs," as they would have to be called, rather than
>>by diplomaed psychological specialists.  The great critic has the
>artistic,
>>i.e., synthesizing sensibility, and you find little of that in the
>>analytic, reductivist approaches of most specialists in the more
>>respectable, big-grant-attracting disciplines, like Sociology.
>>
>>Arwin further says:
>>>Surely, once some of this more serious work has been done, we can start
>>>taking ourselves seriously.
>>>
>>Is Arwin suggesting that none of us poor-schmuck literary critics can be
>>taken seriously until the defining "Literary Theory of Everything,"
>>equivalent to the physicist's Holy Grail, the TOE, or GUT, comes
>>out--written by some genius who has finally seen how Simple it all is?
>>Come on, Arwin guy, give us a break.
>>
>>==Dan Pearlman
>>
>>P.S.: Arwin, Melitta is a brand of coffee-filter.
>>Dan Pearlman                    Office: Department of English
>>102 Blackstone Blvd. #5                 University of Rhode Island
>>Providence, RI 02906                    Kingston, RI 02881
>>Tel.: 401 453-3027                      Tel.: 401 874-4659
>>email: [log in to unmask]            Fax:  401 874-2580
>>
>
Dan Pearlman                    Office: Department of English
102 Blackstone Blvd. #5                 University of Rhode Island
Providence, RI 02906                    Kingston, RI 02881
Tel.: 401 453-3027                      Tel.: 401 874-4659
email: [log in to unmask]            Fax:  401 874-2580