Criticism anymore is hard for me to swallow. Not that it ever was "easy" to read or understand. But there's something much more accessible and honest in the pre-theoretical criticism of Edmund Wilson or Lionel Trilling, or even Samuel Johnson for that matter, than there is in, say, the Freudians or the post-structuralists who all seem to write criticism for the sake of criticism as opposed to writing criticism for the sake of the reader. So much of what passes for "literary criticism" embraces that technical jargonistic gobbledy-gook of the theoretical sciences that it's entirely unreadable by anyone outside of the handful of academicians who have read each other's papers. The entire enterprise smacks of career advancement chicanery.
Why does contemporary literary criticism feel compelled to explain and defend it's methods so rigorously? Is it because the humanities in our universities do not receive the kind of funding the sciences receive and, therefore, must "raise" themselves to the level of specialized science? I come away with the feeling that the high priests of literary theory are just groping for stuff to say so they can hold onto their jobs for another semester.
What I like about Zunshine is her ability to explain in more-or-less accessible language certain contemporary trends in cognitive science. What I don't like is her insistence that this be applied to our reading of the "classics." Yes, perhaps for some readers this can lead to a more fruitful reading than they otherwise would have found. And in that vain, perhaps these same readers come away with a more satisfying reading. But this kind of reading also insists that we learn an entirely new language in order to re-read a work that supports itself exceedingly well on its own terms. Shakespeare didn't have to read Lacan in order to write Hamlet and Jacobean audiences didn't have to be versed in the ingot of New Historicism in order to be moved.
This is the same shit that pisses me off about the wine industry. Its like they've developed an overly elaborate, enticingly difficult structure of "the tasting process" that completely devalues personal aesthetic experience - like, somehow, if I don't taste loganberry and chestnut when I sip a syrah, I'm not getting the entire wine-tasting experience and I need to read more articles in Wine Spectator and come back with a tasting guide and a sniffing cork. And perhaps there is a simple economic reason behind it: make people feel stupid so that they buy a bunch of stuff to "help" them taste our products. But what ever happened to "It's good because I like the way it tastes?"
Giving me a "Mad Libs - Wine Taster's Edition" and telling me there's peanut butter and eggs benedict in my chardonnay is the same thing as telling me there's five or six levels of "intentionality" in Mrs. Dalloway. No there's not. It's grape juice that gets you drunk and makes you feel sexy. That's why its good.
Comments (3)
Hi, Andrew. Love your post. I was a little more charitable, perhaps, in my response to Zunshine, but I totally get where you are coming from. While I think there is a place for literary criticism, I, like you, think that "the play's the thing."
You might also take exception, though, to my elavating art to a religious expression or experience.
Maryellen
Posted by Maryellen | October 21, 2007 1:50 PM
Posted on October 21, 2007 13:50
Everything needs to be explained in great detail today. No one can simply like something anymore, there must be reasons behind their enjoyment, and if they can't argue their liking, then they might be misinformed, and only thought that they liked a book, movie, or wine....because these literary theorists, critics,and wine enthusiasts have been published...so what do we know?
Posted by Jessica | October 22, 2007 2:23 PM
Posted on October 22, 2007 14:23
I really enjoyed your post. Although you are pragmatic and cynical (which is all too needed), I disagree with your overall tone as if it's useless. I did find her application of cognitive science to literature interesting and one more prism at which to distort an image (in this case the way we read and write). Although I often drink cheap "grape juice that makes me feel sexy" I enjoy wading in the depths that other wines offer from time to time. It creates that binary opposite experience (I know something from which it is not). Do I love to dissect the flavors and sniff corks, no... but there is a distinction and my tongue does notice. Graphic novels and Mrs. Dalloway are different. Whether or not you want to know why is also a personal choice that maybe for once we don't need to push ourselves to meditate on. But, if someone does care then Zunshine's book may be for them.
Posted by Valerie | October 22, 2007 7:26 PM
Posted on October 22, 2007 19:26