[ilds] conspiracy

Pamela Francis albigensian at hotmail.com
Sun Jul 8 11:44:45 PDT 2007


Bill says:
As for theory, we all have our theories -- we have to have theories, as 
Norman Holland points out. But I have personal experience of theories 
controlling readings. A rigid theory limits the questions that are asked -- 
and thus answered. Ronald Crane many years ago said the best criticism is 
the one that asks the most questions.

My point exactly--any theoretical approach asks certain kinds of 
questions--a limitation that bothers you and Michael.  However, it is just 
one set of questions, and it's the set i like to ask of a text.  That 
doesn't mean i am limited to that set of questions.  As Jamie has said in 
his replies, circumstances of a text's reception, the publishing history, 
etc. and so forth, all add to the layers of a text.  Some people choose to 
focus their reading on one layer of the text--and i certainly demonstrate 
some particular reading strategies to my students.  But then, the next lit 
class they take will introduce them to other reading strategies.  The 
perception of the critic as a high priest is due to the ridiculous status 
and salaries accorded to some academics who really want to be "public 
intellectuals", whateve that may mean.  But those in the trenches do not 
require their students to sign oaths of dedication to postcolonial, 
deconstructive, historicist, phenomenological, etc. reading strategies.

But Charles is right. We should be discussing LD's works.  But just one more 
non-LD comment: i think my comment on my contributions to the Maryknoll 
Sisters was lost on Michael and probably most readers--the Maryknoll Sisters 
are associated with "liberation theology" in Latin America, and were 
considered a thorn in the side of JPII's early anti-communist/socialist 
stances (later much softened).  The CIA has also been extremely vexed by 
their presence.  Two of the four churchwomen killed by the El Salvador 
military in 1980 were Maryknoll sisters.  The order also runs Orbis Books, a 
publishing house focusing on social justice in the Christian tradition.

So, back to LD...


>From: william godshalk <godshawl at email.uc.edu>
>Reply-To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
>To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
>Subject: Re: [ilds] conspiracy
>Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:38:25 -0400
>
>
>
>I will defend my own
>position, however,my own approach to literature, as my way of making
>sense of the world, which I think is why many of us read at all. I will
>also defend the intellectual abilities of fellow "postcolonial"
>(quotes aqain!) scholars. ---Pamela
>
>I read because the world makes no sense at all, but I don't expect
>literature to give it any sense -- for me.
>
>
>As for theory, we all have our theories -- we have to have theories, as
>Norman Holland points out. But I have personal experience of theories
>controlling readings. A rigid theory limits the questions that are asked
>-- and thus answered. Ronald Crane many years ago said the best criticism
>is the one that asks the most questions.
>
>
>Bill
>
>
>***************************************
>W. L.
>Godshalk  
>        *
>Department of
>English         *
>University of
>Cincinnati           
>Stellar disorder  *
>Cincinnati OH 45221-0069      *
>513-281-5927
>***************************************
>
>


>_______________________________________________
>ILDS mailing list
>ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
>https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds




More information about the ILDS mailing list