tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3571309.post112864932406455160..comments2023-10-31T07:32:11.739-04:00Comments on Wormtalk and Slugspeak: Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07566889846240013567noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3571309.post-1128753454514940812005-10-08T02:37:00.000-04:002005-10-08T02:37:00.000-04:00Fact: deconstruction as promulgated in Of Grammato...Fact: deconstruction as promulgated in <I>Of Grammatology</I> is not a methodology for literary criticism. The theory of deconstruction is a kind of theorem (or set of theorems) that some literary critics then decided to apply to their research - some cleverly, and some ill. <BR/><BR/>I think what you're rightly pointing to is that methods claiming a geneology in deconstruction are too often used to impart a sort of cheap veneer of relevance to basically boring, uncreative research. <B>But the problem isn't deconstruction per se, but rather the lemminglike scholarly community that encourages boring criticism to thrive.</B><BR/><BR/>(By the way, I'll be referring to "us" a little bit; I really mean "literary criticism in general," because the deconstruction boom happened when I was still disputing with my mom over Brussels sprouts.)<BR/><BR/>When I commented, long ago, that deconstruction has brought us useful tools, and that, in particular, it has made us suspicious of binaries, I did not mean (did not even <I>imply</I>) that "gigging for binaries" was a good critical methodology. <BR/><BR/>Rather, and I think this is fairly indisputable, deconstruction brought some philosophical issues to our attention that merited attention, particularly in that historical moment (the moment of structuralism). Similarly, the New Criticism made us permanently aware of "ambiguity." Most of us have grown up and don't wave ambiguity around like it's in itself interesting, but that doesn't mean we don't give it a look when the situation warrants.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, most of us <I>haven't</I> grown up enough to treat deconstruction as one of many useful sets of intellectual issues. I've read plenty of bad criticism whose stunning punch line is that X is hegemonic, yet relies on the oppressed Y. And that's bad. <BR/><BR/>But I don't think grousing about "theory" is the answer. I would rather grouse about bad literary criticism instead; after all, Paul de Man wrote some smart things. Come to think of it, so did William Empson.Nataliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898457401179147102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3571309.post-1128735832963390582005-10-07T21:43:00.000-04:002005-10-07T21:43:00.000-04:00I think that binaries were once necessary structur...I think that binaries were once necessary structures for framing ideas which didn't necessarily take binary form outside the realm of theory. To the New Critics, this disconnect represented glorious ambiguity. To the deconstructionists it represented untenable hegemonies of one binary feature over the other. To my mind, where both approaches stopped being interesting was when they stopped seeming to be productive. As we came to view social (and literary) phenomena as complex, it became harder to see contrary forces as diametrically opposed. Rather, they become creative forces giving rise to new phenomena. Postcolonial theory parallels your biological metaphor in using the term 'hybridity'. Although the efforts of postcolonial theorists are not always successful, I think their basic drive to understand the new hybrid beast speaks to a broader tendency in today's theoretical approaches (stated or unstated) to look for such productivity in literature.Scott Kleinmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09642536762466019138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3571309.post-1128719714147799092005-10-07T17:15:00.000-04:002005-10-07T17:15:00.000-04:00Not that my opinion counts for anything, but I tot...Not that my opinion counts for anything, but I totally agree with you. Whenever we talked about deconstruction as a theory, I always thought, "Well, that's nice with all the binaries and hegemonies and whatnot. But where does it actually GET US? What does it actually tell us about a piece of literature?" I feel the same way about Othering: yeah, that's nice, but who cares?Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03301077496668834657noreply@blogger.com