(no subject)

[felis_ultharus]

Have arrived. Continue to believe. These are good things.

Looking out the window at a rainstorm, from my parents' fairy-tale cottage in Saanich.

Looking forward to seeing node357 tomorrow :)

EDIT: I meant "live" instead of "believe". I have heard of "Freudian slips" before, but that was almost a "Jungian slip" :)

Comments

[scottevil.livejournal.com]

I understand completely, but do you think I'm a post-modernist? I just wanted to be in his conference because we get along and he's been able to make boring material more interesting. That's what I'm really going to need for this upcoming course.

But really, isn't this post-modernist thing getting old? When's pre-post-post-modernism going to arrive on the scene?

The important thing I've learned from my courses this semester is that it's not necessary to concern myself with biographical and historical etc. details when writing about a text. If I can back up my readings with textual evidence, then it's valid, and so far I've been getting As. I don't know what you call what I describe, but it's liberating because it allows me to do some real independent thinking when writing a paper. And the thinking part is where I really do well.

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

Sorry. I thought that's what you were trying to tell me in very diplomatic fashion.

*embarrassed*

I wouldn't mind sharing the scene with postmodernism. There ought to be room for a variety of approaches to keep things moving in English Lit. Problem is, there's no diversity. I don't like to think of my Saulist humanism as post-postmodernism, merely an equal alternative I happen to prefer.

I understand. And there is a kernel of truth to what Barthes says -- you can't really know for sure what someone is thinking, and some authors conceal their intentions. Queer authors throughout history, for instance, afraid of persecution.

My problem is that it ties the hands the other way. I'm almost not *allowed* to quote the author on their work, when it supports my point.

And at the grad level where everything has to be heavily researched, that means ignoring all the interviews, and only reading the work of other critics -- the death of the author means the tyranny of the critic, not a return to my own thoughts, which would have to be there either way :/

(I hope I don't come across as strident or anything in my views. It's so hard to tell iin cyberspace, where there's no tone of voice. I guess I'm just in the habit of over-explaining :/)