OSC spends most of his most recent review column attacking postmodernism. I agree with him, but I wonder if anyone's going to rise up to defend postmodernism the way they've done so with academic music.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh. I certainly loathe and despise postmodernism, but it's not only a vice of the Left. The religious right is just as happy to use its battle cry of relativism when it comes to defending creationism; "Radiocarbon dating depends on the interpretation of the scientist" is a favourite.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think it's cute that OSC thinks that reading and literature are the main forms of cultural transmission.
That being said, I don't know (nor particularly care) much of anything about the state of affairs in literature and post-modernism and such, but, seeing as it's OSC writing about academia, I wouldn't be suprised if a lot of what he said is based more on prejudice than on the acutal state of affairs.
You can only cry wolf so many times before at least some people stop believing you.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I don't mind postmodernism -- at least in a theatre setting. Speaking as a hopeful dramaturge and director, I find it really interesting when countertext and postmodernist ideas are used to rework a play text into something new and original on stage.
I heard on NPR that there's a new play going up in New York called Heddatron -- Robots kidnap this woman and force her to perform Hedda Gabler in her living room. It's extreme, but it also sounds really interesting.
Or there's the BYU musical I ASM-ed this year, where the director was able to have an original concept outside of the text, which made the production really cool. It definetetly wasn't extreme, and everyone loved it. That might not be possible if it weren't for the Postmodernist movement, I don't think.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I'm not a big fan of post-modernism. Our college has feminist professor of the theory and she's...pushy? focused? obsessed? I'm struggling to find nice words to describe her need to use the theory in any study of literature. I've not taken any of her classes but have had her as a seminar leader for some basic Text and Traditions classes and I find the theory quite restricting especially when discussing it professors who don't welcome criticism.
My main problem with OSC's column isn't his opinion of post-modernism but the idea that its a theory of left and its being used to brainwash somebody's kids. First, while it doubtful that this is true, one could say all supporters of post-modernism are from the left-wing but of course its necessary to point out that not all left-wingers support post-modernism. Second, while college students ARE somebody's "kids," we are not children. OSC affords post-modernism to much power if he thinks that ADULTS, especially in the liberal arts field, can't see a flawed theory for what it is no matter how prettily its wrapped by a "passionate" professor.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
When I attended Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, AZ (freshman year), I had to take an English course. I have always done quite well in English classes, and expected this year to be no different. I was interested in the literature we'd be reading, the styles we'd look at, and the cultural ideas inherent in the stories we'd consider. We'd also try our own hand at writing.
None of that bore any similarity to the actual course.
Sometime (not sure how long) before I began attending, those responsible for the decision, got together and decided that it was not enough for the liberal studies program (of which, English was a part) to impart instruction, method, and wisdom in their respective subjects. The Liberal Studies (with capital letters) program needed to do more: it needed to produce 'good citizens'.
Obviously, a laudable goal- on it's surface. But when it comes down to defining 'good citizen'...well, that's where the problem is.
The English program, then, was restructured so that the focus would be on Environmental Writing. Our textbook was a campus produced collection of essays called 'A Sense of Place', aside from a short book by some writer whose name escapes me, but was about his travels and life in the desert. The collected essays (which included one by then VP, Al Gore, also an environmental author) pretty much presented the standard "Western culture expoitative, Nature Good, Native American good, White man bad" line that one would expect. Only two essays were included to show the "other side", and these were so laughably lame and ignorant that they were truly straw men.
So not only would all the things we read be about environmental politics and our relationship with the environment, but all our writing would be as well (under the euphamism of 'something that is an issue on the Colorado Plateau.')
Now let me explain that while I have never been an evironmentalist, per se, I do love the environment and think that capitalist greed and shortsidedness especially have brought great harm to the planet in which we live. More than that, I think the actions of some of those who came over to the America's amount to some of the worst crimes against humanity- though I hasten to add that most peoples of most times have acted or are acting the same way. Tom Davidson put it nicely when he wrote (unrelated to this discussion) that 'people all compete to for the right to be the persecuter', or word to that effect. The works of Pablo Neruda are dear to my soul, and I think his writing would qualify for this course.
So I was not predisposed to dislike the course in any way, though I was a bit disappointed that we wouldn't be reading anything more interesting.
But my disappointment soon turned to irritation and disgust- at the teacher, mindlessly spouting the party line, the students parrotting it back, the self-congratulation, at the numerous screeds, I mean essays, that we were forced to read. The one-sidedness, the logical holes, the forced political correctness, was so very annoying. On an essay that basically announced that Glen Canyon Dam should be destroyed period, no mention is made about the 30,000 people (including a large number of Native Americans who work in Page, AZ and at the power plant there) and how they would be able to survive. It shouldn't have been built and thus, it shouldn't be there now. The first point is possibley debateable (though of course it wasn't debated- it was only assumed the reader would know why no one who was in-the-know would ever build a dam), but the second is definetely in need of discussion. Again, that never happened, except for my few attempts.
I spoke to the teacher about it and he said this was the curricula and that is how (and with what) he was told to teach the class. I complained about the fact that I could get a fantastically high mark on the ACT English portion, and still get a 'C' on a paper because I was not showing my connection to a tree vividly enough. It was utterly ridiculous.
If I had signed up for Environmental Writing, then it'd be fine. That's what I would have personally chosen. But this was an English class!
At one point, I, having had my fill, decided to begin choosing less politically correct topics for essays. At one point, I decided to write about the existence of canabalism among one tribe of Native Americans. There had been a (then) recent Nova series on the probability that it had been practiced, as well as some Discover and Nature magazines as well. It was actually quite interesting.
As you can guess (and I made sure to state at the outset) some might be offended at such a topic. "That it should be suggested that the ancestors of some now living might have done this grossly offensive," was an argument I anticipated and (I think) handled nicely. After all, all of us have ancestors who probably did things not unlike it (or even worse). Do we not teach about Slavery in front of white people, even those whose great-great grandfathers may have own slaves? Do avoid teaching about the Holocaust if a German person (or someone of recent German descent) is in the room? Of course not. History is history. People did horrible things. Sometimes people who are (distantly) related to us. Deal with it.
I hated that class. I hated the political correctness being shoved down our throats, even when I tended to agree with it. It was ridiculous.
It is ridiculous. So I don't doubt that there are some schools and teachers who do the same, even when actually considering literature.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
I think I only ever read one pomo deconstruction and it was about the Terminator movies. After ducking and dodging (with an inquirial squint and a sigh) my way through the citations and ucky yucky sentence structure, I stumbled upon this doozy.
"B... B... B... Born to be Bad".
Now, if somebody's gonna quote Mr. Thoroughgood, they might take the time to get the lyrics right - assuming they actually watched the movie.
Posted by blonsky214 (Member # 8119) on :
quote: This was already in process, of course – as modernism became enshrined in our university English departments, the denigration of authors prior to the modernists was quite severe. The attitude was, “We’ll study them, of course, but we all know that the good stuff is what we’re getting now.”
This is a profoundly silly remark. The fact is, the very same people responsible for "enshrining" modernism in the academy - namely, the New Critics - were obsessed with 17th-century poetry, esp. Marvell and Donne (as many of the Modernists themselves were obsessed with the 18th-century -- read Woolf's Orlando if you don't believe me). Cleanth Brooks, the guy largely responsible (for better or worse) for introducing TS Eliot into the canon, wrote pages and pages on all of these poets.
Similarly, "postmodernists"/"multiculturalists" have invested a lot of their energy on looking for authors from previous centuries who weren't white males (but who were certainly dead!). Whether you think any of these projects are good or bad is a matter of opinion, but to say that modernism denigrated literature from previous centuries is, well, pretty dumb. (They rejected a lot of other literature from their own time period that was really good, and for that we should smack them upside the head.)
quote: And I say this with deep regret, because I used to be a multiculturalist – back when it meant opening the canon and adding to the existing literary culture.
Postmodernists still want to open up the canon, Mr. Card - that's why that jackass Harold Bloom is always whining about postmodernism in the same breath as he lambastes those who dare to read (let alone teach) Harry Potter novels. Popular literature is taught all over the place now. I agree it's annoying that they still make the distinction between "popular" literature and "real" books--that is the Modernists' fault--but in fact, if Card's novels are taught in English Depts. these days (and I guarantee some of them are), he (and we) probably have some version of postmodernism to thank for that. When postmodernists take it on the chin these days, it's usually from people on the opposite side--those who think we should STOP stop "opening the canon."
Whether you like Deconstruction or not (I generally don't, though a few critics like J Hillis Miller have almost turned me), postmodernism has done more than just about anyone to rehabilitate authors who didn't used to be in the canon. They might be doing it for reasons that you wouldn't approve of, but they're still doing it.
The point that their critical writing is awful and well-nigh-unreadable is certainly fair (hard to argue with, actually). But to say that postmodernists only want us to study elitist novels is simply an uninformed remark. (Postmodern *writing* classes, vs. postmodern literature classes, might be a different matter. But this seems like apples & oranges, at least in the academy as it stands now--again, for better or worse.)
quote: That’s what is happening when somebody shuts you down by saying, “That’s the male point of view,” or “Of course that’s how white people think,” as if that proved that your ideas don’t actually have to be answered, they can simply be ignored. Your thoughts are irrelevant solely because of your race or your gender.
Postmodernists do believe that our ideologies are informed by our circumstances, but that does not even come close to meaning that all white people think alike. If someone "shuts you down" by saying this, then you're talking to someone who doesn't really understand what (s)he is talking about.
I agree that this is part of the danger Card correctly labels of discussing this stuff so opaquely: 18-year-old undergraduates go home and recite things like "That's the white point of view," revealing that they have missed the point by a long way, thus revealing that their teachers haven't expressed themselves clearly, or that the profs too have missed the point. (But - and here I come clean - after 4 years as an undergrad English major and 3 yrs as a grad student, I was never taught anything remotely like the belief that there is one unified "white point of view." So my guess is that this is a mere straw man. Which is not exactly without precedent in these columns.)
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
I tried to stuff a straw man into a canon once. And, mine enemy was showered with sour cabbage.
'Course it wasn't my fault. I'd fallen in love with my canon.
She went "BLOOM!", and mightily so. Now, how, cow, could I not fall in love with that?!
Posted by KidB (Member # 8821) on :
I think the very first thing that needs to be grasped here is that Postmoderism is in no way the originator of empty jargon, snobbery, dogmatism and academic elitism in literary studies. These things were around many decades before the big pomo onslaught of the Reagan years. Before the 80's there was psycho-analytic theory (Freudian, Jungian, Lacanian, etc.), Marxist lit theroy, Modernism (totally different from Pomo), and a host of other "critical theories". So pernicious have all of these competing voice been that, even by the 1960's, people were able write parodies of them. Ever hear of the Pooh Perplex? The author parodies no less than 12 equally absurd types of lit crit jargon - two decades before the Po-Mo era.
So, please, let's stop acting like this is a recent phenomenon. There have always been elitist jargonistas. Literature faculties have always been dominated by the Left wing. I mean, news flash, grass is green! We are not in some special era of decline. There was good and bad then, and there is good and bad now.
The second thing we need to keep in mind is that the rampant misapplication of some original thinker's ideas does not automatically mean the originator had a bad or unworthy idea. Does the Soviet Union make Karl Marx a lousy thinker? People have used Plato to justify oligarchy - do we reject Plato? Academic institution - since the beginning of time, folks - have been places that can either foster original thought, or completely demolish it. Both tendencies usually exist simultaneously. That is the nature of the institution; it will institutionalize you if you don't watch it! The hip, academic mode du jour is just a veneer, it's really all about internal politics and career advancement. Don't blame pomo for a problem as old as time. Would a department run by Sophists really be any different? Jargon and all?
Finally, I've got to object to this characterization - I hear it so much and I'm getting sick of it - of college literature departments being "taken over" by the pomo bots. Having studied in no less than four English departments on both coasts, in very liberal areas, and at some of the most liberal schools in those areas, you'd think I'd see a lot of it. I don't. Does it exist? Yes. Dominate? No. Actually, most students and teachers of literature just want to study the literature directly. There are theory hobbyists, but little effort is needed to avoid them. I completed a Master's without having to read Derrida or Foucault once (I tried 'em out, along with some others on the side. Didn't care for it. Though I like the structuralists, Barthes, Marcuse, etc.).
If people are turning away from books these days, I'd blame television long before Derrida.
[ February 17, 2006, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: KidB ]
Posted by blonsky214 (Member # 8119) on :
Wasn't Barthes run over by a milk truck?
Anyway, I have been required to read Derrida, but never have I been forced, or urged, or even mildly encouraged to *endorse* Derrida. We read him as one option of many that could be used to analyze a text. Some bought it, some didn't. Both sides are leading perfectly healthy and happy lives, I assure you.
Perhaps my professors were just angels and saints among men. Seems unlikely, somehow. The notion of a Deconstructionist orthodoxy in the academy is highly anachronistic, despite the book Card cites from 9 years ago.
One other thing -- some of the strongest critiques I've seen of PoMo come *from* the radical left, who see it as an elitist distraction from more serious social injustices.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dear God, clod, if you did what I think you did there, that was bloody brilliant.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
really? Would you write me a check to prove it?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You literature types are all the same. I offer love undying, and all you're interested in is money.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
so long as the money ain't funny, honey.
*unnecessary rhymes*
Posted by tms (Member # 9017) on :
to: sarcasticmuppet
i need to know so much more about the enfoced hedda play.
the last version i saw was adapted by blancehette's husband and it ROCKED. the postmodern notion works for me, it was originally a very modern play.
hey
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I don't know that much about it -- I heard there was a story on it on NPR.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: seeing as it's OSC writing about academia, I wouldn't be suprised if a lot of what he said is based more on prejudice than on the acutal state of affairs.
Squicky, in a nutshell, you've said here:
1) "I can't debate this topic. I don't know enough about it, and I don't care enough about it."
2) "But I DO know that Orson Scott Card is such a jerk, HE probably can't find his way to thinking through this argument clearly. Thought you'd all like to know, that even though I'M not an expert on postmodernism or deconstructive literary critiscism, OSC's not either because he's stupid-blind when it comes to talking about academia."
This kind of personal attack isn't welcome on Hatrack.
quote: You can only cry wolf so many times before at least some people stop believing you.
Blonsky and KidB have provided reasoned arguments against the opinions in OSC's essay. You've provided nothing more than your standard snideness directed at our host.
Knock it off.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
OSC has said ridiculous things so many times on things where I do know something, that I think it reasonable to dismiss him when he says something on a subject I'm not fully informed on. If (without comparison otherwise) Jack Chick began pontificating on the state of the economy, I do not think I would immediately begin deep, scholarly research to refute him. There is a limit to how much nonsense one is required to put up with from one man.
Posted by Ramdac99 (Member # 7264) on :
C'mon Scott give him a break, he was stating an interpretive opinion. He has just as much right to express it as you do. at least HE's thinking for himself.
Posted by Ramdac99 (Member # 7264) on :
and where is it written the we can only comment on things to which we are an expert?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That being said, I don't know (nor particularly care) much of anything about the state of affairs in literature and post-modernism and such, but, seeing as it's OSC writing about academia, I wouldn't be suprised if a lot of what he said is based more on prejudice than on the acutal state of affairs.
You can only cry wolf so many times before at least some people stop believing you.
quote:OSC has said ridiculous things so many times on things where I do know something, that I think it reasonable to dismiss him when he says something on a subject I'm not fully informed on. If (without comparison otherwise) Jack Chick began pontificating on the state of the economy, I do not think I would immediately begin deep, scholarly research to refute him. There is a limit to how much nonsense one is required to put up with from one man.
Just to be clear, neither of you have any information about the content of the article itself. You have an opinioon about the reliability of the author - essentially an attack on his authority - which you have stated but for which you have provided no evidence.
Essentially, the only way we have to evaluate your opinion of OSC's reliability is based on our evaluation of the reliability of your opinion.
It's hard to imagine anyone having enough information about either of your views to form an opinion about your reliability without already knowing your opinion on OSC as a columnist.
Essentially, your posts convey no new information to anyone with reason to trust your conclusions with no evidence, and no evidence to convince anyone who doesn't already have reason to trust your conclusions.
What were you trying to accomplish by posting, exactly, except insulting our host?
Posted by StickyWicket (Member # 7926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Essentially, the only way we have to evaluate your opinion of OSC's reliability is based on our evaluation of the reliability of your opinion.
this is rhetorical, circular nonsense. I don't think Squicky cared what YOU thought about his opinion of Card. so your point is moot.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:this is rhetorical, circular nonsense. I don't think Squicky cared what YOU thought about his opinion of Card. so your point is moot.
How, exactly, is it circular? Which part relies on another part which then relies on it?
Posted by StickyWicket (Member # 7926) on :
ok you got me, it's just rhetorical and nonsense. your argument is contingent on the fact that Squicky and KoM were not trying to convince everyone that Card is.....whatever they said..."Unrelyable" Here's my problem Dagonee: let's say I say something like "the sky is blue", not being a meteorologist, I'm not an expert on the sky. Is my opinion null and void just because you are ridiculously devoted to your Idol....the sky?
Posted by Ramdac99 (Member # 7264) on :
No, Sticky I think what he is trying to say is that if you are going to come to this site and voice an opinion, it should be to facilitate discussion and not simply to provoke. but at the same time I have also seen people getting pounced on for voicing unpopular ideas. I think we all need to work on understanding the "why" of our posts a little more.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:let's say I say something like "the sky is blue", not being a meteorologist, I'm not an expert on the sky. Is my opinion null and void just because you are ridiculously devoted to your Idol....the sky?
No, but if you tell me that person X can't be trusted on subject Y because you know he's been wrong on subject Z, and give me no other reasons, then how am I supposed to evaluate your statement?
The only criteria I have is what I know about you.
If I know nothing about you, then why would I believe you?
By the way, nice little dig about my "Idol." It seems like a popular way to respond to anyone who defends OSC here. Meaningless and without validity, of course, but popular.
quote:your argument is contingent on the fact that Squicky and KoM were trying to convince everyone that Card is.....whatever they said..."Unrelyable"
If they weren't trying to convince anyone then they were insulting for absolutely no good reason. Which is no surprise, really, but worth pointing out.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:No, but if you tell me that person X can't be trusted on subject Y because you know he's been wrong on subject Z, and give me no other reasons, then how am I supposed to evaluate your statement?
By considering my arguments against OSC on the subject of Z. My intended audience was the Hatrack regulars, who have participated in many of the discussions around OSC's columns, and have therefore formed an opinion on who is the better informed. Now, you can certainly say that you disagree, and believe that OSC has brilliantly defended all his columns, none of which present misinformation; or, indeed, that I am full of it, because in thread A I said B, which is plainly wrong. But to claim that you have no basis to form a judgement is a little dis-ingenuous, coming from you. (I grant that a newbie might be a touch confused.)
Posted by StickyWicket (Member # 7926) on :
oh, and a word to the wise........if you like L. Ron Hubbard, you have no credibility.
.....*cough* Scott
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But to claim that you have no basis to form a judgement is a little dis-ingenuous, coming from you.
Good thing I didn't say that.
What I said was that anyone with enough knowledge about your relative level of informedness compared to OSC's already knows your opinion.
There are two types of readers of your posts:
1.) Those who don't have the knowledge from previous threads - people who likely know far more about OSC than you - and whom you didn't even try to convince.
2.) Those who have read what you've written about OSC's articles in the past and already know your opinion. People to whom your opinion is not news and have already made their own judgment.
You offered no new information yet insulted our host.
Posted by StickyWicket (Member # 7926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You offered no new information yet insulted our host.
broken record much?
When is it my turn to decide how OSC feels about things?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:broken record much?
Well, let's see, I've had my post misrepresented by the only two people who've directly replied to it, neither of whom have given the slightest indication that they comprehended my actual point. Restating in a different way, in hopes that they might demonstrate that they've understood what I'm saying, even if they disagree, seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Now you have implicitly stated that you understood the point of my posts. Of course, you haven't bothered to address that actual point, which is fine.
I do wonder why you would bother to post "broken record much?" though if you don't care to actually respond to me.
quote:When is it my turn to decide how OSC feels about things?
When is it your turn to post something that actually addresses what's been said, rather than replying to something you made up. I am, of course, merely assuming that the unstated premise of the quoted sentence is that I am deciding how OSC feels about things. If that's not an unstated premise of this sentence, feel free to clarify.
If you do, I promise I won't call you a broken record unless you decide to simply repost word-for-word.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hmm. OK, Dag, you have a point about the information part. I do feel, though, that 'OSC is wrong about X' is not an actual insult.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:'OSC is wrong about X' is not an actual insult.
I agree.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If (without comparison otherwise) Jack Chick began pontificating on the state of the economy, I do not think I would immediately begin deep, scholarly research to refute him.
Jack Chick doesn't have a degree in economics.
Scott Card has an advanced degree in English Literature. Furthermore, he teaches several literature courses at a university. He has at least got the credentials and experiences to critique both postmodernism and academia.
Your analogy is flawed.
quote:oh, and a word to the wise........if you like L. Ron Hubbard, you have no credibility.
.....*cough* Scott
I'm very curious as to what you mean.
Once you've explained what you're insinuating, we'll go from there. Fair enough?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, if the truth were told, I don't exactly hold comrade Chick as a great expert on theology, either; a subject on which he plainly does have a lot of experience.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
wow, neither do I.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Post-modernism, as OSC is defining it, comes close to no longer existing. In fact, post-modernism and deconstruction are not the same thing. Even literary professors don't use it without serious looks at other kinds of interpretation. A very small, and even snobberish by literary snobbery standards, group studies deconstruction. I must admit, however, that a good deconstructionist reading can make me appriciate a work more than first thought.
What we do have too much of is ideological studies of literature. They have their purposes, but to base whole classes on one particular movement (and I am not talking graduate studies) is more propaganda than scholarship. Who cares how blacks, women, and other "politically protected" groups perceive and are perceived in literature? All that teaches you is how to read singlemindedly. My favorite literary classes were the ones that taught all kinds of literary study techniques - and then let you decide how to approach a subject. My least enjoyable ones were when the teacher had a specific grudge or viewpoint that MUST be included.
I think OSC has many credentials. He is a reader and a writer as well as teacher. What I don't think he understands is the complete change in literary studies since the post-modernist explosion. Besides those I have mentioned that continue to insist on particular viewpoint readings, there is no single school of thought. If I was to label the current practice of literary thought, I would call it "tooled reader response." Each reader uses favorite literary techniques (maybe one or maybe many for each study) to find some personal meaning for the text. To me that is a good thing because each book read is somewhat as fresh as the first time.
The problems of what books are read and what books are ignored has been and will always be a problem, outside of literary techniques. There is probably nothing that can be done about that other than to decide for yourself not to take the popular literary world's advice. My guess is that not many people at Hatrack are enamored by collegiate reservations about what constitutes quality. After all, this is full of science fiction readers. The only other genre that might be more hated by literature professors is westerns.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, I dunno - Harlequin romances, maybe?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I thought of that, but there are plenty of romances that literary professors use. They just wouldn't be the kind that the popular definition would recognize as such. I would consider Harliquin romances more of a sub-group.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
An interesting article on postmodernism. Obviously biased toward capitalism and Republicanism... there are interesting nuggets within, though.
Posted by Scooter (Member # 6915) on :
Speaking from outside the English literature discipline but from within my own--
I am a professor and attend yearly conferences with other professors around the country and postmodernism is alive and well. I am in a social/behavioral sciences field and the comments and viewpoints from the prodominant figures in my field say things just like OSC mentioned in reference to early or modern contributions from white, male, etc. perspectives. In short, I don't think OSC based his conclusions on a couple of isolated incidents or something that is mostly an outdated phenomenon.
As I became aware of critical theory years ago, it has been easy to see the things that OSC talked about, but I suspect that some people who buy into the theory don't necessarily see it as agenda-driven or slanted in any way because for them it is just a "normal" way of thinking, and critics of it just verify the legitimacy of critical theory in the minds of those who promote it.
I realize that some of these observations can be applied to other agendas/perspectives/value systems, etc. However, that fact doesn't discount the afore-mentioned observations per se, unless I am so blind that I can't see what is really going on--but how does anyone prove that about anyone else, especially on an internet message board. Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
oh please.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Scott, what the devil did you find interesting about that article? I mean, quite apart from sweet little ad homs like this one
quote:Heisenberg's accommodating relationship with Nazism is hardly unique among the great thinkers of postmodernism. Martin Heidegger, the most influential philosopher of the 20th century and the founder of postmodernism, adored Nazism.
The guy also seems to think that you can argue from physics to sociology :
quote:If Heisenberg and Bohr were wrong that quantum events (e.g., where an electron is) are fundamentally random, then the use of their theory to label traditional literature as politically incorrect may also be wrong:
Never mind, for a moment, whether this grand unification he's dug out of somewhere holds up. Never mind, even, whether the columnist understands what may be a perfectly legitimate scientific result, although frankly, publishing in book form is not a good sign. Even if Bohr and Heisenberg are right, it is completely idiotic to use the Uncertainty Principle on literature, of all things! It just doesn't apply! Yet this guy, given the opportunity to totally blow up the position (strawman or not) that he opposes, fails utterly, and instead clings to the bare hope that the physics his opponents are mis-using is wrong!
quote:At a famous debate in Copenhagen, Albert Einstein uttered his famous line "God doesn't play dice with the universe" — as Einstein objected to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and to Bohr's vision of the randomness and incomprehensibility of reality.
Well, yeah, and he lost the debate. What is with this guy and appeal to authority, anyway?
quote:Indeed, "there is no truth, only power," summarizes Heisenberg's theory of physics and its application to moral philosophy.
While I'm not particularly fond of Heisenberg as a man, ye gods, he was at least smart enough not to confuse physics and morality!
As a side matter, I saw the play the column refers to; it was really quite good. There's a line given to Heisenberg that I rather liked; he has been arguing with Bohr about whether or not he should be helping Hitler, and naturally enough, he has been getting the worst of it. In anguish, he cries out "But you must understand - one cannot cease to love one's homeland, merely because it is in the wrong!"
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I certainly loathe and despise postmodernism, but it's not only a vice of the Left. The religious right is just as happy to use its battle cry of relativism when it comes to defending creationism; "Radiocarbon dating depends on the interpretation of the scientist" is a favourite.
Indeed. The "fair and balanced" motto of Fox News could be a motto for postmodernism itself. Postmodernism is not an idea invented by liberals or by academics - it is the synthesis of many different yet supposedly equal cultural ideas into one big mess. It is the natural result of the way our world operates today, and it influences all political movements and artistic movements. It's influence on literature is only one major aspect.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
[ ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Even if Bohr and Heisenberg are right, it is completely idiotic to use the Uncertainty Principle on literature, of all things! It just doesn't apply! Yet this guy, given the opportunity to totally blow up the position (strawman or not) that he opposes, fails utterly, and instead clings to the bare hope that the physics his opponents are mis-using is wrong!
I agree. I don't think the author was saying that the postmodernist movement is using the uncertainty principle in literature, but rather, using it to enforce properties of their own philosophy. As in, "Look, even PHYSICS is postmodern..."
In this case, 'interesting' doesn't mean that I agree with the author's stipulations; rather, it means I think them worth pursuing to find out if they are correct or not.
I think his proposal that Bin Laden is a post-modern creature rather than a medieval one is interesting, for example.
Posted by blonsky214 (Member # 8119) on :
quote:As I became aware of critical theory years ago, it has been easy to see the things that OSC talked about, but I suspect that some people who buy into the theory don't necessarily see it as agenda-driven or slanted in any way because for them it is just a "normal" way of thinking, and critics of it just verify the legitimacy of critical theory in the minds of those who promote it. I realize that some of these observations can be applied to other agendas/perspectives/value systems, etc. However, that fact doesn't discount the afore-mentioned observations per se, unless I am so blind that I can't see what is really going on--but how does anyone prove that about anyone else, especially on an internet message board.
Oh I see, so you can say PoMo is still alive because you're objective and neutral while everyone else is blinded by ideology, but your perspective is inviolate because this is a message board. Nice work.
Yes, PoMo is alive and well--the point is that academia is also full of people who DON'T buy into it. The error is not in saying that Postmodernists are ideological, b/c EVERYONE has an ideology.
The error is in saying that Postmodernism is completely dominant and rules over everything at all times. I agree w/ previous posts -- PoMo/Deconstruction/whatever are just tools among many others.The fact is, we in English departments want to read and study books, and to use whatever tools help us do this.
The vast, vast majority of time spent in an English classroom is still spent doing all the things he talks about -- teaching literature as art, as part of a cultural and historical legacy and reading texts closely.
My hunch is that OSC's real axe to grind is that he thinks English departments don't take HIS books seriously. The same way that when he talks about "academic music" that audiences don't want to hear what he really means is, "Waaah! I write science fiction and the academy doesn't read it!" (Which, BTW, is also not true.)
But he doesn't want it to look self-aggrandizing. So he turns it into a Tolkienesque moral battle where he's out there fighting against those nasty people in English departments who want to reform the universe, so that everyone worships Marx while they destroy the family by gay-marrying with their PC leftist atheist cousins while watching "American Beauty," reading Derrida, listening to "academic music," and burning Old Glory. And eating the wrong brand of olives.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:My hunch is that OSC's real axe to grind is that he thinks English departments don't take HIS books seriously. The same way that when he talks about "academic music" that audiences don't want to hear what he really means is, "Waaah! I write science fiction and the academy doesn't read it!" (Which, BTW, is also not true.)
My hunch is that this is a subject that OSC has given a lot of thought and study to. Perhaps it is a matter of weighing witnesses-- and I take his word to be of greater weight than your own, because it matches more closely with my experiences with academia than yours does.
And I've learned never to give much consideration to virtual psychoanalysis. Especially those that ring with defensiveness. (Not that I blame you-- heaven forbid OSC ever take a dislike to technical writers...)
I don't care if academia takes speculative fiction seriously. If serious consideration by critical thinkers at every university means that science fiction stops being understandable by the common, non-Literary man, I'd rather continue to be looked down upon. Can you imagine, 'Portrait of the Alien As a Young Man?' It'd be the death of speculative fiction.
Speculative fiction writers are not competing against academia-- rather, we are competing against Anhesaer-Busch, Miller, and Schlitz. Jim Baen, in the newly launched Baen's Astounding Stories, makes the point quite adequately-- unless speculative fiction can claim the reader's beer money, we're doomed. (To a certain extent, I believe that the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction is experiencing this kind of slow death-- more literary stories and a decreasing readership.)
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Postmodernism is too complicated to have such sweeping generalizations made about it. It is certainly true that some postmodernists are like OSC’s description, but many are not. Trying to generalize them would be like trying to generalize Christians, actualy worse, because postmodernists don’t even agree on something basic like “In the beginning was the word....”
Edited to add, it seems his main complaint is with deconstructionism, not postmodernism per se.
Posted by blonsky214 (Member # 8119) on :
quote:Perhaps it is a matter of weighing witnesses-- and I take his word to be of greater weight than your own, because it matches more closely with my experiences with academia than yours does.
That's fine, although it's kind of sad when you give people more credit simply because they already agree with you.
quote:And I've learned never to give much consideration to virtual psychoanalysis. Especially those that ring with defensiveness.
Fair enough, though it certainly rings with no more defensiveness than OSC's constant kvetching about literature as studied in the academy. BTW, if you want to complain about imputing motives to others ("virtual psychoanalysis"), you should read OSC's recent column on Intelligent Design. Sigh.
quote:Can you imagine, 'Portrait of the Alien As a Young Man?' It'd be the death of speculative fiction.
Um, yes, actually, I can. Try Samuel Delany. I'm not a fan, but I'm pretty sure he didn't kill off "speculative fiction."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Taking someone's word to be of greater weight than anothers because it matches your experiences is not the same giving someone more credit simply because they already agree with you.
Posted by blonsky214 (Member # 8119) on :
Thanks for the update.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My hunch is that I really don't much care about 'postmodernism' at all, but I do find this thread a humorous thing coming from people who have said in the past that OSC should not feel on the defensive around here.
Posted by blonsky214 (Member # 8119) on :
Well Rakeesh...I can't really deny the justice of that point. I guess I enjoy getting worked up by things. On the other hand, I don't think OSC would write these columns if he didn't want people to bite back. But your point is well taken. (I just can't decide which was wrong: my earlier comment or the ones on this thread...)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Thanks for the update.
You're welcome. I like to help people out who have problems with basic logic.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:if you want to complain about imputing motives to others ("virtual psychoanalysis"),
You misunderstand the word 'virtual.' You psychoanalyzed an individual that you (as far as this forum audience knows) have no real world connection to. Because there is no true, personal connection, and because all your conclusions are based not on observation or experience, but on an admittedly biased and defensive interpretation of a number of essays (second hand, edited, oriented thoughts), your analysis (and any analysis undertaken in this type of situation) is questionable.
There is a difference in doing this and analyzing the documented efforts and literature of a group of people-- say macro-evolutionists.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
If I may indulge in some virtual psychoanalysis, your problem, Scott, seems to be deification. Most people here agree that while OSC is a great writer of Speculative fiction and also of reviews, he is not always right (nor has he ever claimed to be.) This does not mean that he is less talented, only that he is human. In fact, I question the ability of anyone who does not make mistakes to write anything of any worth.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Pelegius-
Gimme my nickel back.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What the devil is a macro-evolutionist?
About the article : Scott, I think you are missing the point. If the writer thinks that physics should not be used to support postmodernism, well, I agree completely. But attacking the physics is a totally stupid way to make that point! It seems he accepts the principle that physics can be used to support sociological theories, and the best argument he can come up with is 'but Heisenberg might be wrong'! That's as bad as the other side, with the additional problem that he needs to search out obscure new crackpot theories.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Is there some secret meeting I missed where anyone that challenges criticism of OSC is automatically accused of worshipping him?
Come on boys, at least find something more original than that to dismiss other people's ideas with.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, Dag, didn't you get the memo? We decided that since the defenders of OSC were going to use logic and reason, it was only fair to accuse them of being irrational fanatics.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
KoM, I am not sure the "how dare you criticize OSC on his own forum" defence counts as logic and reason.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because NO ONE has said "how dare you criticize OSC on his own forum."
Your rephrasing, plus the idolotry accusations, are simply the convenient way to categorize those who decry posting no information on the topic but throwing in an "OSC is prejudiced about academia" comment for no good reason.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
quote: Do you think that it's funny, or witty, to insult someone on their own site?
From Douglas Adams and OSC, directed at clod.
And in a atypical moment OSC himself
quote: So easy to come on my website and attack me....
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Zing! Oh my, Dagonee caught out in an error of fact! Whatever will happen next?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm a little unsure why you're using those two examples, Pelegius, seeing as they have no bearing on this discussion, and as Dag pointed out, no one's defended OSC in this thread by using that particular argument.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
First, I was talking about this thread. Scott, at least, picked up the context correctly, although I could have been more explicit.
So examples from other threads don't really count. However, even if they did, you'd still be wrong.
quote:
quote: Do you think that it's funny, or witty, to insult someone on their own site?
From Douglas Adams and OSC, directed at clod.
Insult <> criticize. If you can't be precise in your own accusations, that's hardly my problem.
quote: So easy to come on my website and attack me....
Attack could mean criticize here, so at least it's seemingly possible that this one might be applicable. "Attack" could be referring to something like criticsim. It could also be referring to something like the insults we've seen here. However, since you haven't bothered to supply a link, I can't really tell from the context of your quotation.
quote:Zing! Oh my, Dagonee caught out in an error of fact! Whatever will happen next?
At minimum, you are premature in your zinging, and only if we grant a universality to my previous post which I did not intend.
Quite possibly, depending on the context of Pel's quote, you are wrong.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
All comments are universal unless qualified.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:All comments are universal unless qualified.
1.) No. You specifically accused Scott of "deification," presumably in response to his conduct in this thread. In response to that, KoM posted something about my use of logic and reason, to which you responded with your "how dare you criticize OSC on his own forum" crack. The thread of conversation is very clear.
2.) You ignored everything I said about the quotes themselves, which applies whether you twist my remark into universality or not.
3.) Please explain what you meant by posting "KoM, I am not sure the 'how dare you criticize OSC on his own forum' defence counts as logic and reason" in this thread? Was it just a random decision to put it in this thread when nobody in this thread had said so? Were you referring to something specific? If so, what were you referring to?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Actually, in accordance with my statement about comments being universal, I was commenting about Scott R on this thread yes, but also on other threads.
This is really quite an ordinary convention of the English language. When I say that the CSU is composed primarily of those who believe it still to be 1950, I mean that most, but not necessarily all, CSU politicians are hopelessly out of touch and provincial. However, when I say that Václav Havel is a great man, I do not mean that he is only great at certain times, nor do I mean that he is perfect. Finally, when I say that Joyce Kilmer's poetry should only be preserved as a monument to creative folly, I mean just that. Is that sufficiently clear.
By the way, the sentiments expressed in this post are applicable everywhere, and not just in this thread.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
I, for one, find it hard to read my own posts. Sometimes because I was just stretching too far into obscurity, sometimes because I was just being an irritable turd. (I'll keep my own counsel on what percentage belong to which type.)
Is it easy to come on his website and attack "OSC"?
No. The only type of person who would say such a thing is the type who hasn't tried it.
Attacking a concept, I mean.
[edit: for grammatical correctness]
[ February 20, 2006, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: clod ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:All comments are universal unless qualified.
Ah. How prevalent is this type of attitude on Hatrack?
I feel quite differently, Pelegius.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Having given you two opportunities to address the inadequacy of the quotes themselves to support the contention that someone has said ""how dare you criticize OSC on his own forum," I will simply assume you are unable to do so until I see evidence otherwise.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
dagonee,
Was that comment directed at me, Scott R., or Pelgius?
It's not always clear who is responding to whom. Sometimes, I submit a post and it appears a few places away from the post of the person I was responding to. For that reason, I tend to try and use the handle of the person I'm hoping to reach. I dropped that recently, as it didn't seem to be the norm around here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That was to Pelegius, the original author of the quoted portion.
I try to use names, but get lazy about it when I quote someone.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
that's cool. everyone's a bit lazy on this bit or that bit.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm sorry. We don't state our opinions that people who have previously been untrustworthy on a particular subject should have their current statements on that subject taken with a grain of salt? That's not the Hatrack I know.
Likewise, I'm not sure I get the logic of saying you shouldn't express an opinion because people fall into either believing you beforehand and will believe you afterwards or don't believe you and won't believe you afterwards. For one thing, that's a pretty stupid false dichotomy. For another, it's hardly a reason to get so upset that someone expressed an opinion.
One thing I've notice Dag, when you're telling me what I know or understand or am trying to do, that I come across as pretty simple-minded. I don't know, I would have thought that I've built up a reputation for a great deal more complexity than you generally seem to give me credit for.
Let's take this instance. Now, you've been the other principle in discussions in the past where I've shown that OSC has made false statements about parts of academia that I am very knowledgible about. Based on his false and venemous statements about parts that I know very well, I exressed the opinion that it's likely his current venemous statments about academia may not be all that accurate.
For what reasons? Here's a simple list.
1) The emperor has no clothes. OSC writes from a position of authority and is also accorded a position of authority on Hatrack. However, he has a history of making false statments. There's a host of psychological phenomena that deal with situations like this, all of which pretty much boil down to the same less as the fable I referenced. Unless someone breaks the surface tension, many people are going to assume that the group is more certain of what is being asserted than they are, and will often squelch their own doubts or at the very least, be hesitant to make them public.
2) If you look at it, you'll notice (despite Scott's wild distortion) that what I said was pretty mild, especially given the past history of which you're aware. That's due in part to another social dynamics technique. I was trying to establish a referrence point for criticsm. Posting a low key response along the same lines that other people were no doubt thinking should have some effect towards setting the tone of other critical responses.
3) This is hardly an isolated situation. I've been on this site for some time and have established a certain reputation, independent of OSC's articles. This reputation is going to factor into people's reception of what I said. For that matter, people who don't know me by reputation, say newcomers to the site, are going to take something away from the fact that I'm a long established and relatively active member of the site and that my statements stand relatively unchallenged.
4) I fully expected other people to come along, as they did, who know this part of academia to refute OSC's assertions. This both strengthens my personal standing and the standing of previous and future statements I'll make. Making predictions that then come true is a good way to establish credibility.
5) I expected you or other apologists to attack me. So, then we have this conversation and, most likely, will expand the conversation into a wider discussion of the previous false statements that OSC has made about academia, which I'll try to use to strengthen many of the previous reasons for my statements.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Regarding criticism of academia:
You know, I'm a member of academia and I find an awful lot to criticise about it. Here's the thing though. It's not monolithic, nor is it a group of moustache twirling villians.
Are there people who use their positions of authority to irresponsibly spread their opions and punish those that disagree with them? You bet. Are their people who slavishly adhere to a certain philosophy and react with extreme hostility to anything they see threatening this? Yes. Are there people who get totally unconnected from reality? Yup. Is there an enormous amount of BS put out there by people who aren't up to the task, who don't have good ideas of their own, who are just trying to make themselves feel or seem important? You better believe it.
But here's the thing, in these respects it's really not all that different from the "real world". All of those things describe my interactions with the world outside academia pretty accurately. Look at any large company, you'll see everything I described there.
As I've said, I don't know a darn thing about post-modernism in relation to the study of literature, but here's some things I can tell you about it if it follows all the stuff I do know about. First, though it may be a strong movement inside academia, while it may even completely dominate the faculties at specific institutions, it is very far from the only movement or a bit of established orthodoxy. There are likely many people within academia strongly critical of it. Second, while there are plenty of people pumping out essentially meaningless BS within its bounds, there are also people making very insightful, useful, and illuminating observations using it as a framework. Third, the people working in this area are not unified by character, motives, or methods. They are not an easily addressible group who all have the same clear, simplistic faults.
I have a friend who is likely around as smart as I am. He's just about to get his PhD in Art History from NYU. We used to have long arguments about Art, especially in regards to the things I appreciated more, like literature or science. At a certain point though, and I'm not entirely sure when this happened, I realized something very important. That is, this is a very smart person who is very passionate about this thing and has studied it very thoroughly. It's also a field I have little knowledge of and am not intrinsically iclined towards. And what came out of this is, while we still enjoy a good argument, I've realized the importance of, at times, shutting the heck up and listening to what he has to say. It's been incredibly rewarding. I get it a lot better now. When I go to a museum, especially if I'm hanging with my friend, I get a lot more out of it than the "oooh, pretty pictures" reaction I had before.
Also, those Art school girls can get pretty freaky.
All of which is to say, the academic world isn't substantially different from the "real" world in many things. It's neither a shinig bastion of people who are free from the petty problems that everyone else goes through nor is it a never-never land for out of touch people who look down on everyone else while at the same time behaving irresponsibly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I expected you or other apologists to attack me.
Ah, there we go - the more polite form of the "deification" charge.
But not much more polite. I mean, it's technically true, but it's also correct only at certain times. Certainly, I'm less of an OSC apologist than you are an OSC assailant. But, whatever.
I'm guessing then, that you wouldn't mind if I posted about how you distort the views of others every time you post? You'd be fine with that?
Because I can certainly support it at least as easily as you support your claims about OSC, and can muster at least as strong a reputation to back it up.
Of course, I won't do that. I'll mention it when I find it relevant in the context of saying something else in response to you. But I won't post it when I have nothing else to say on the topic.
My point is very simple. You had no information about the article, and you posted a general insult about the author of the article.
It's pointless. It's rude. And it's unsurprising.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I posted an opinion on the likely accuracy of the description presented based on the previous inaccuracies by OSC on related aspects of the super-subject. I don't see how that was a general insult. Nor is it in any way out of line to how we would treat any other member of the site who did something similar. From where I sit, the hidden point of yours and Scott's posts is "OSC should be treated differently from other people." which is something I don't agree with, at least not in regards to being called out when he writes things that aren't true.
I just listed five things that I thought were substantive aspects of my response. So, I don't see how I agree with you that it was pointless.
[ February 21, 2006, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Nor is it in any way out of line to how we would treat any other member of the site who did something similar. The hidden point of yours and Scott's posts is "OSC should be treated differently from other people." which is something I don't agree with, at least not in regards to being called out when he writes things that aren't true.
In the words of an ex-President, "there you go again." I'd appreciate it if you could support this at all from my posts on the subject. My statements were general and not at all based on OSC's status as host of the site.
And, once again, you weren't calling out OSC when he wrote things that weren't true. You specifically didn't know if he had written anything untrue in the article in question.
Come to think of it, I've been knocking on this door pretty hard on the other side with respect to other non-posters.
quote: just listed five things that I thought were substantive aspects of my response. So, I don't see how I agree with you that it was pointless.
Perhaps those are substantive aspects of your response. I won't go into that right now. But, they weren't in your original post.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Dag pretty much said what I wanted to say.
"You only feel that way because you're obsessed with OSC, and can't see his faults clearly," is a pretty pathetic excuse, especially since you don't know me well enough to offer that kind of analysis.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:In the words of an ex-President, "there you go again." I'd appreciate it if you could support this at all from my posts on the subject. My statements were general and not at all based on OSC's status as host of the site.
Your comments were ridiculous. You said, in effect, that it was pointless to express an opinion because people either already agree with you or don't. You then claimed, because of this, I must have written my post with the only purpose to insult OSC.
I wouldn't have to put up with this nonesense for anyone but OSC.
quote: And, once again, you weren't calling out OSC when he wrote things that weren't true. You specifically didn't know if he had written anything untrue in the article in question.
Yes, in fact, I was. OSC has written false things about academia before. A consequence of this, as part of being called out on it, is a tendency for people to disbelieve him when he writes on that subject in the future. That is what I expressed, that I had doubts about the accuracy of OSC's description based on his prior inaccuracies on very similar subjects.
quote:Perhaps those are substantive aspects of your response. I won't go into that right now. But, they weren't in your original post.
I have no idea what this means.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, You tried to tell me that we don't say that we doubt the accuracy of people who have said false things in the past on Hatrack. I really don't think that this is true, nor do I think you would have said anything like this with any expectation of being taken seriously if it wasn't about OSC.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Your comments were ridiculous. You said, in effect, that it was pointless to express an opinion because people either already agree with you or don't. You then claimed, because of this, I must have written my post with the only purpose to insult OSC.
Let me sum up: You couldn't bother to take the time to make your case, but you wanted to get your insult in. That's why it was pointless - you weren't even trying to convince anyone. You just wanted to further your little vendetta against OSC.
Oh, what's that you say? You don't like having your opinion dimsissed by motive? Then don't do it to me.
By the way, does this mean you can't point to anything in my post that suggest I think this standard should be applied only to OSC?
quote:I wouldn't have to put up with this nonesense for anyone but OSC.
This is a false statement.
quote:I have no idea what this means.
Well, at least you didn't just make something up to respond to when you couldn't decipher the meaning.
Let me use clearer language: the 5 substantive points weren't in your original post.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I really don't think that this is true, nor do I think you would have said anything like this with any expectation of being taken seriously if it wasn't about OSC.
You have yet to back this crap up. I've spent quite a bit of time dealing with someone on the other side who makes crap up about Bush based on similarities to what's being made up to other things he's done.
Once again, back up your assertion that this is only about OSC.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Those weren't 5 substantive points. They wre 5 substantive aspects or reasons for my initial post. I offerred them because you describe what you apparently felt where the only reasons and expectations I could have about that post. They are there in order to, as I've said, answer your accusation that my post was pointless.
I haven't been around all that much lately, so maybe I'm missing how your telling somoene that they shouldn't post negative things about George Bush because people already either believe them or not before they are posted. If so, it's as poor an argument there as it is here, for the 5 reasons (and likely more than that) that I posted.
OSC has said false things (and things that were not difficult to discern were false) about academia in the past. He did so with a very accusatory tone and wrapped up in what was difficult not to see as an attack on "academia". Because of this, I said that I wouldn't be suprised if he was being inaccurate here.
You've apparently taken objection to this. I've already answered your initial stated grounds for this objection (i.e. that it was pointless and I knew it was pointless). So, do you disagree with the idea that we should point out that people who have said false things in the past should have their current statements taken with a grain of salt or does the basis of your obhection lie elsewhere?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:OSC has said false things (and things that were not difficult to discern were false) about academia in the past.
Almost each and every time this subject has come up, others have disagreed with your assertion that what he has said were false. In the vast majority of those cases, you have been either taking single sentences our of context or purposely picking the more inflammatory (and usually less natural) reading of his articles. You know that those accusations have been contested. Yet you posted them as conclusions, provided no backup, and then said you wouldn't be surprised if OSC is making stuff up. It's either very rude or very lazy - as in, you wanted to get your dig in but didn't want to take the time to actually support your dig.
Whatever. I don't care to rehash those things with you, because it is as abundantly clear as ever that you have no intention of dealing forthrightly with me (see the incredibly dishonest summary of my initial post as "so maybe I'm missing how your telling somoene that they shouldn't post negative things about George Bush because people already either believe them or not before they are posted" for exhibit one). I have asked time and time again now for you to backup your contention that I wouldn't make the same kind of argument about someone else. You have refused and given the weak excuse that you haven't seen me do so because you haven't been around.
In other words, you've admitted to lacking a basis for saying I would only say this in defense of OSC but saying so anyway.
Once again, back up your assertion that this is only about OSC.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
quote:Ah. How prevalent is this type of attitude on Hatrack?
In theory, I would imagine that it is nearly universal (at least among those who have studied logic or at least Geometry) but I concede that it is, perhaps, a law more honoured in the breach than in the observance. However, honouring a law which is often forgotten is no just cause for attack, and attacking thus means loosing any moral high ground which one might have wished to have claimed.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You tried to tell me that we don't say that we doubt the accuracy of people who have said false things in the past on Hatrack.
But you didn't say any of this in your original post.
You said,
quote:seeing as it's OSC writing about academia, I wouldn't be suprised if a lot of what he said is based more on prejudice than on the acutal state of affairs.
You can only cry wolf so many times before at least some people stop believing you.
The discord here is that I see that OSC's stance on academia is a valid one-- apparently, so do many others.
You do not.
However INSTEAD of presenting the information to counterract OSC's essay, you chose instead patronism ("Oh, how CUTE! OSC thinks people still read.") and insult ("OSC is unable to be correct because he's prejudiced.")
quote:I really don't think that this is true, nor do I think you would have said anything like this with any expectation of being taken seriously if it wasn't about OSC.
:shrug:
I'm not overly given to discussing my motivations, since they don't bear at all on this discussion, and can't be proven anyway.
Since, I remind you, you don't know me.
quote:However, honouring a law which is often forgotten is no just cause for attack, and attacking thus means loosing any moral high ground which one might have wished to have claimed.
Can you clear this up for me? I don't understand.
Posted by Scooter (Member # 6915) on :
quote:Originally posted by blonsky214:
quote:As I became aware of critical theory years ago, it has been easy to see the things that OSC talked about, but I suspect that some people who buy into the theory don't necessarily see it as agenda-driven or slanted in any way because for them it is just a "normal" way of thinking, and critics of it just verify the legitimacy of critical theory in the minds of those who promote it. I realize that some of these observations can be applied to other agendas/perspectives/value systems, etc. However, that fact doesn't discount the afore-mentioned observations per se, unless I am so blind that I can't see what is really going on--but how does anyone prove that about anyone else, especially on an internet message board.
Oh I see, so you can say PoMo is still alive because you're objective and neutral while everyone else is blinded by ideology, but your perspective is inviolate because this is a message board. Nice work.
Yes, PoMo is alive and well--the point is that academia is also full of people who DON'T buy into it. The error is not in saying that Postmodernists are ideological, b/c EVERYONE has an ideology.
Hence why I stated that the same can be said of others (which could include me), but that that fact doesn't change the point. I could have been more explicit about it, but I don't pretend to be any more objective as a whole than anyone else, but I can observe some things from an outsider position and analyze it from that perspective.
Winky-smiley-faced guys usually imply some tounge in cheek; I think your tone was a little harsh in light of these points, but hey, maybe your smiley face was implied (insert smiley face of choice here).
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
okay, so i'd call myself a postmodernist (i can already hear people typing on their keyboards), and i'd like to 'defend' post-modernism. first of all, from an acadmic perspective, OSC seems to be confused between Postmodernism, and post-modern critical theory. Let me illustrate: Salman Rushdie is a Postmodernist. Derrida, is a post-modern theorist. Trying to put deconstructionism (or post-structuralism), feminist theory, multiculturalism, race readings, etc under Postmodernism is beyond misleading. it's incorrect. Deconstructionism (or post-structuralism) isn't _removing_ meaning, or saying that the text has no meaning. what it _is_ saying, is that the the meaning of the text is indeterminate. Why? Because language is inherently unreliable: there is nothing "table" about a table. one person's understanding of the word will differ from another's. therefore, you can never communicate exactly what you want to say... there's always more or less being communicated. (This is why deconstructionism is often also called post-structuralism). If you're interested in this topic, read Gerald Graff's essay "Determinacy/Indeterminacy". Graff isn't a deconstructionist himself, but he explains the theory pretty well i think. However, OSC's main issue seems to be the liberal values that accompany Post-modernism. I dont think this is a critique of pomo theory, but is his political perspective. "One of the worst sins of postmodernism is that it has cut us off from our cultural roots" epitomizes the cultural arrogance that permeates the entire essay. So writers of color are taking the place of dead white men in the canon. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The canon should comprise of writings based on their quality and impact... not on their race. OSC also seems to take issue with Modernism... of course, he forgets that Modernist writers like Eliot were instrumental in putting Donne in the canon, and were obssessed with the Romantics. Also, fyi, the "New Critical Theory" was popularized by Modernists too. So yeah, I guess if we want to set literary theory (and literature) back about two hundred years, we should throw Modernist and Pomo theory out of the window. But that seems like a pretty stupid move.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I guess if we want to set literary theory (and literature) back about two hundred years, we should throw Modernist and Pomo theory out of the window. But that seems like a pretty stupid move.
Your description of postmodernism does nothing to help me understand why it should be kept around. Literature at its most basic is about communication-- your definition of postmodern critical theory undermines this.
Literary theories are not like scientific theories; if I completely forsake postmodernism, I'm not going to loose the ability to speak. Indeed, if I forsake postmodernism, I shall GAIN clarity...
quote:So writers of color are taking the place of dead white men in the canon. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The canon should comprise of writings based on their quality and impact... not on their race.
Oh, certainly. 'Their Eyes Were Watching God' is, to me, more valuable than 'Tess of the D'ubervilles.'
That said, OSC's actual charge was more serious-- that postmodernist professors are only allowing serious study of literature that fits a certain agenda, and excoriating literature from a different era that does not fit their agenda. He charges that postmodernists are not concerned with quality at all, but with religion. And in the postmodernist church, being dead, white and male is apparently a mortal sin.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by KidB: I think the very first thing that needs to be grasped here is that Postmoderism is in no way the originator of empty jargon, snobbery, dogmatism and academic elitism in literary studies. These things were around many decades before the big pomo onslaught of the Reagan years. Before the 80's there was psycho-analytic theory (Freudian, Jungian, Lacanian, etc.), Marxist lit theroy, Modernism (totally different from Pomo), and a host of other "critical theories". So pernicious have all of these competing voice been that, even by the 1960's, people were able write parodies of them. Ever hear of the Pooh Perplex? The author parodies no less than 12 equally absurd types of lit crit jargon - two decades before the Po-Mo era.
So, please, let's stop acting like this is a recent phenomenon. There have always been elitist jargonistas.
Very true, jargon has always been around, in any field. But has it ever been carried to the dadaesque pinnacles of absurdity that postmodernism has done? I agree with Card that much of modern literary criticism is rampant with obscurantism as a masque hiding fuzzy thinking, obvious truths, and obvious nonsense.
quote: Finally, I've got to object to this characterization - I hear it so much and I'm getting sick of it - of college literature departments being "taken over" by the pomo bots.
So some Postmodernist bots finally got tenure? Good, their stuff will probably have more relevance than the human deconstuctionalists.
Good posts, KidB, and Abhi. Abhi, I also liked your post in the last Iran nuke thread.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:I agree with Card that much of modern literary criticism is rampant with obscurantism as a masque hiding fuzzy thinking, obvious truths, and obvious nonsense.
I'll third this, or fourth it, or whatever. I was in a graduate program for literature for four years. It was not a good experience.
Although I was introduced to a lot of literature that I still love, I found nothing meaningful in the way in which we were "supposed" to be processing said literature. It was rather like taking a bunch of delicious ingredients such as chocolate and pineapples and flinging them all over the kitchen or rinsing them down the sink, as opposed to making something good to eat from them.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Scott, if literature were, at its most basic, about communication, life would be boring. Technical writing is about communication, but good nonfiction is about provoking thoughts. Good fiction is much harder to define, but I would hazard say that it is usually about the meaning of life, and the characters search thereof. Not that he or she (or it for that matter) nescarily finds this meaning, but they spend an awful lot of time looking for it. In many cases, the meaning is clear, "must defeat bad guys," but clever authors, like Tolkien and OSC, show the aftermath of defeating the "bad guys," which often leads to a lack of purpose in the lives of the character.
For example, if I may slander OSC by means of oversimplifying the Ender Sage: Ender/Andrew 's first purpose is to defeat the Buggers, his second purpose to get out of battle-school/that asteroid, his third purpose is to find a place for the Hive Queen, his final purpose is to save Lusitania while at the same time keeping his marriage together. Most characters don't grow as much as Ender/Andrew does.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
Aaah! Now we're getting to some interesting talk! Pomo Religion! Well, it just so happens that Religion and Literature are my two main areas of interest. So hold tight! Since we've already talked about Postmodernism vs. post-modernist theory, and OSC is talking about critical theory, let's take that first. Deconstructionists are not really interested in 'culture' as much as they are interested in how language works. Can deconstructionism (or any other critical theory) be used as blunt object on religion? of course. But that's not a flaw in the theory, only in the application. Even in the pre-pomo era, Freudian Psychoanalysis, etc, were used in a "vulgar" (in Freud's own words) manner. But to discard critical theory because a couple of people misused it is naive. Does post-modern critical theory help us understand texts better? Yes. Take Huck Finn for instance, with the advent of post-modern criticism, valid questions are being raised on the race representation in the novel, and i think that kind of dialogue adds to not only literature, but also contemporary culture. A more 'contemporary' text: "Midnight's Children". A basic education in post-modern theory introduces many more levels of meaning to Rushdie's text. As far as elitism is concerned, pretty much every generation of great thinkers has been elitist. From Blake (poetic genius), to Wordsworth, to Byron, to Eliot, Pound, Derrida. Anything technical can be reduced to 'jargon', but jargon provides a useful standardized vocabulary for people to start from. Derrida's "differance" thus, is similar to Baseball's "short-stop" in it's utility. A person who has never watched baseball could describe the same thing jargon-free, but for those who are familiar, "short-stop" is a concise way to present the idea.
Pomo Religion: well, i'm not quite sure what is being said here about this topic. all i've gotten so far is vague attacks on the left for corrupting "our kids in college". Please be aware that the "kids" you send to school are between 19 and 22... and thus adults. let them make their own decisions. i go to a liberal arts college in the midwest, where the faculty is mostly liberal and the student body is overwhelmingly conservative. so it seems to me that the conspiracy theory about literature departments brainwashing our innocent kids doesnt seem to hold much water.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Good fiction is much harder to define, but I would hazard say that it is usually about the meaning of life, and the characters search thereof.
Well, I agree with this particular statement, removed from context. In fact, that's what I had thought literature was ABOUT -- searching for the meaning of life, which is why I went to grad school in the first place.
In grad school, they attempted to teach me that literature is really about games with words, and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything important in life. It's all about seeing how many French theorists you can quote in a paper and how clever of a subtitle you can think up.
[ February 25, 2006, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Good fiction is much harder to define, but I would hazard say that it is usually about the meaning of life, and the characters search thereof. Not that he or she (or it for that matter) nescarily finds this meaning, but they spend an awful lot of time looking for it.
I should have said 'The purpose of literature is communication,' rather than 'Literature is about communication.'
With that thought in mind, I don't think your definition precludes mine.
Posted by jd2cly60 (Member # 450) on :
Having been in school in a liberal arts program (and therefore not posting much in the last four years) I thought I'd post my thoughts.
First off, I've learned a lot of literary theory and been exposed to a lot of new literature by the program here. And I learned how to construct a killer strawman argument from OSC, which made some classes more fun because I was playing a game most of the time.
Take for instance my first class at USC, you know the one with the reading list of: Medea The Aeneid Ovid's Metamorphoses Orlando Furioso A midsummer Night's Dream Much Ado about Nothing Hamlet Paradise Lost Invisible Cities
in which I learned the basics of deconstruction, along with several other versions of literary analysis. But a majority of the class revolved around teaching the texts themselves (this is entire texts, not excerpts, non-annotated, all in fifteen weeks) and the greater part of the remainder of the class was teaching all of us former AP English students how to conceive, cite and defend a proper thesis based paper and to never ever write a five paragraph essay (which is all you're taught to write in AP lit and comp). Deconstruction in the form of close reading was the method of choice for discussing many texts, but it was not agenda based, it was more along the lines of unpack the metaphors and allusions in this Milton passage of your choice and encapsulate the overall concepts as it relates to your thesis, cycle and repeat.
My first introduction to deconstruction, structuralism and bits of post-structuralism came in a class that assigned Agatha Christie and William Gibson alongside Thomas Pynchon and Henry James along with a whole lot of Barthes. In fact for this class, for the main group project I was in, I led a thousand ideas in a hour session to demonstrate the versatility of science fiction in illuminating modern culture and how it is not just about technology, but that the milieau you can create allows you to explore these ideas in a different manner free from the cultural restrictions of writing about them in a standard literary way. I got an A.
A year or two later, I got a proper introduction to deconstruction in a class entitled 'the perils of common sense' and the goal of this class was not to tell us that everything we know was wrong, but to expose the ways we rely on certain 'common sense' assumptions and conclusions (often about culture, but also religion, race, gender, sexuality) without ever realizing the possibility of questioning them. The class ended up being a very 'know thyself' type of excursion, and most of it came out of it understanding better how we ourselves think. Our reading list for this class: Lolita Cement Garden Ender's Game Among the Thugs (about soccer hooliganism in England) On the Origins of the Family Trainspotting Virgin Suicides
And a few others I don't remember as well. To a degree the ideas of the professer were presented, but they were not foisted, since the make up of the class was about 80% liberal-moderate most students grabbed onto his ideas to either adopt them or play with them. We had some amazing discussions in that class, mostly student based and led. Unfortunately the students were very good at questioning the way conservatives think, but not necessarily questioning the way they thought, the teacher sometimes played devil's advocate here, as did I, the true conservatives in the class were often quiet but the libertarian gave us a ton of interesting debates. This professor also focused big on community building, taking us on academic retreats two weekends of the year (one on campus, with us supplying the presentations, for the first I used Battle Royale followed by the card game mafia)
Pretty terrible for one of the 100 most dangerous professors to teach a class on how to analyze the way you and others think on an individual and cultural level and use the class as a forum for creating a tight knit community rather than just a lecture class.
So pretty much every experience I've had in liberal arts fields, with the elite professors that control the departments (because that's who these three were) has had absolutely nothing to do with the world OSC describes. As someone else said, it seems anachronistic, and personally it feels like an example of seeing what you want to see (which he proves with the usual strawman), something we're all guilty of.
Even in the cinema department, deconstruction is hardly an ideology, in fact, some professors expressly prohibit its implication in the forms of feminist, queer, racial, gender exclusive viewpoints in their classes. This would have been in the Hitchcock class, taught by a legendary professor (his wacky commentary is on the Lifeboat DVD) who also happens to be a flamboyant old queen (think James Gardner in Victor/Victoria) whose favorite book is C.S. Lewis' the Four Loves. Think about it, the leading professor of cinema at USC, the man who defines the entire scope and focus of the curricula, expressly prohibited empty discourse in his premiere class because he desired serious analysis, critique and discussion of the films, rather than agendas and intellectual superiority to the material nonsense.
Adam
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Kids, if y'wanna know something about human nature, y'got to read the greats first: The Greeks, Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, etc. Reading modern writers is okay, but mostly, there is nothing new under the sun.
Books I strongly recomend:
The Bible The Bhagavad Gita The Koran
Rumi is one of my favorites.
Eveything else is soup from the soup.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
All this postmodernism stuff...
Umberto Ecco... Stuff like that.. A philosophy of lack of knowledge of the spiritual.. A moral and ethical background trying to stear clear off spiritual foundations.
I rather listen to music! Nietzsche is about as far as I am willing to 'deconstruct' philosophy. Why worry so much about words? Get to the point!
Just more ways to waste time reading useless stuff. Get to the heart of the matter, time is too preciouss to waste on nonesense. If you read an OSC book and it uplifts your spirit, you don't worry about how or why it was written... You just soak in the good vibe.
Besides Scott, Michael Moorcock and Olaf Stapledon do it for me... How can you 'deconstruct' stuff like that? Bah... Academic Mafia!
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Hy? ooghygmdç tÿrhø. Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Just trying to point out that words matter, feel free to post now.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
I think it is very important to realize that Mr. Card's's criticism of postmodern music is not necessarily a critique of postmodernism (if I missed a thread or essay, let me know...).
I think the crux of his arguments centers less on the structure of the music, but rather its pervasiveness: after so many years of atonal and cacophonic music which only appeals to a select few, posmo music still permeates much of academic music theory to the point where such composers are heavily encouraged. It seems to me that Mr Card's criticism is based upon the music academia's obstanence regarding supporting and teaching old and protoypically classical styles of music, and more importantly, their absolute disregard for a lack of audience aside from each other. This, naturally, leads to a stiffling environment for young composers.
To me, it appears that he personally does not like the music, but what he finds most troubling about postmodern music is that the field claims to be "new and revolutionary", but is neither new, nor open-minded to the change they find so vital in promoting their own compositions!
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
Haha, and after I write that, I read it was from a different column. Oops. Well...um yeah, that's my opinion on Mr. Card and postmo music
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)