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