Anghraine

An anon said:

I don’t have a dog in this fight but I am absolutely fascinated at the evidence that academia has these kind of hot takes about P&P. Not that having a PhD makes one infallible, but I kinda expected people who were taught to think critically about literature and have certainly read more literature than I have have these kind of wrong analyses.

I responded:

It’s really odd.

I think part of it is the culture of academic literary studies that heavily prioritizes theory and thus selects for people who are deeply grounded in theory, which can lead to perceptive and valuable insights into texts, but can also create a square peg/round hole problem. I think a lot of academics get so attached to their pet theories that they apply them to literally everything without considering whether they’re the most appropriate or relevant lens for a given situation or text.

Moreover, readings of texts frequently become vehicles for application of the pet theory more than … well, readings that really attend to the details of the text (sometimes very basic details). I think that’s also part of the reason that you get the problem that my fave Richard Strier talks about in Resistant Structures; a lot of critics spend so much time digging beyond the obvious that they disregard what is plainly stated and can’t seem to countenance the concept of authors actually meaning what they say.

It’s not that sensitivity to subversion and the like, and application of theoretical paradigms aren’t ever appropriate! Some texts really benefit from them. But (twist!) critics can be kind of uncritical in their approach to and application of their preferred theories and information.

Tagged: #i got seriously into fandom bc i was so frustrated with academia so i have my bias #but i do think texts as vehicles rather than primary subjects of study leads to a lot of this #it's led to really important insights too but can go astray #if not handled with care #(fandom also has its frustrations that sometimes overlap #but also often don't #it's just... academia has its problems)

One of the critics I’m reading is talking about the underrated importance of the obvious in literary criticism, and criticizing the tendency towards the incessant “it might seem like xyz, but a truly sophisticated/knowledgeable/insightful/whatever reader will see that actually…”

That is, the idea is that if your readings constantly ignore or dismiss the obvious … maybe it’s a you problem.

He’s talking about early modernist lit-crit, but tbh I’m really reminded of fandom.

Tagged: #lol especially silm fandom