academic commentary

Thomas Bitterman · 30 Nov 2010, 02:22 · from 2010-November.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: tom at bitterman.net (Thomas Bitterman)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:22:15 -0500
Subject: (urth) academic commentary
In-Reply-To: <4CF437C9.6000707 at gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W90C362128623D2A57C5AACF240 at phx.gbl>
	<964735.56099.qm at web37604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<4CF3D13D.1020405 at verizon.net> <4CF3D50C.20400 at gmail.com>
	<4CF3ED73.2020900 at verizon.net>
	<AANLkTikbgXyJTts_02R7sw7sa3f1jd07tMqW-KwdEa+8 at mail.gmail.com>
	<4CF4297A.9090302 at verizon.net> <4CF437C9.6000707 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikt_fnrdZS8CUPjeT3P9HRXwPfC-2BHXpjNbRvp at mail.gmail.com>

2010/11/29 Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>

> David Stockhoff wrote:
>
>> I'm confused. Whose argument?
>>
>> I don't think Antonio meant to say anything negative about Wright as a
>> person, if in fact he meant Wright's atheism blinded him to certain
>> interpretations. It's certainly possible---happens all the time, I'm sure.
>>
>
> Just to clarify things a bit, I only said it would be an uncomfortable or
> inconvenient leap. I can't understand how that got construed as an attack,
> personal or not.
>

My apologies if I have imputed uncharitable motives where none existed.
Allow me to explain my reasoning.  On the non-fiction side of things (which
is where I think Wright's thesis is meant to be) a researcher who is
unwilling to follow the evidence wherever it leads is considered a poor
researcher.  It is akin to intellectual dishonesty.

Another way of looking at it.  The question is "How did Wright miss/not
include an obvious (and likely superior) interpretation that any careful
reader would read?".  The answer is "Because it made him feel
uncomfortable".  This looks like a clear case of arguing against the author
rather than the thesis.

Perhaps literary criticism works differently.

(I think at this time and place everyone can read Wolfe both with and
> without Wolfe and/or Wolfe's motivations.)

I agree.  Fiction works differently.

-- 
Perfection is what happens when you're not looking closely enough: it's a
perceptual mistake on the operator's end of the equation.
   - Dr. Quandry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20101129/2b9957d6/attachment-0001.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net