Now, now. Be nice.
Books are fine. They just can't get the job done about which I am talking.
Nor can communications depts because they don't deal with literature to any
significant extent (for fear of their lives, no doubt).
Eliot's CATS, posthumously, did more for the cause of literature in the
popular mind than all the scholarship of the 20th Century.
Quoting Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>:
> What "muck"? Cultural Studies is all over the place, and there are,
> after all, reviews. And Eliot wrote books, not only reviews and
> articles. This does not answer my question, though of course you
> needn't do so. Should there be no more books because they are demanding
> and longer term as well as addressing longer perspectives?
> >>> [log in to unmask] 01/08/06 6:45 PM >>>
> Oh they're all alive in their own interesting glass
> bubble alright, but where is their influence on the
> actual productions. They're the centaurs with torsos
> facing backwards. There seem to be plenty of cliche
> minded Amos and Andy reviewers on TV. Why aren't the
> people with deeper, broader backgrounds there? Eliot,
> Pound &c were commenting to the public on what the
> public was involved with. They were facing what was
> coming, not what has been. It takes three years to
> produce a half-decent book. That medium is ineffective
> when things are produced and changed so quickly. Getting
> one's name on the spine of a book feels a lot nicer
> than getting into the muck of cultural productions as
> they happen.
> Quoting Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>:
> > It would no doubt be curious if it were true. But given whole
> > departments in communication who do just this and great numbers of
> > English academics who study popular culture--including tv and
> > movies--and write about it and give papers on it, just who are you
> > talking about?
> > Given our ostensible ON topic, one might note the many references to
> > cinema, Chaplin, and television in David Chinitz's book on _T. S.
> > and the Cultural Divide_. Eliot himself--in early letters--wrote
> > descriptions of the cinema he said he planned. And the Modern Studies
> > Association has fascinating sessions on all kinds of cultural topics.
> >(invisible) One of the most interesting I attended at the last
> conference was on
> > typewriters and the way they were represented, and there was a session
> > on cinema and WWI.
> > So who ARE these oblivious, blind, and elitist but gifted folk?
> > It is an interesting fact about Eliot (a minor digression) that he was
> > interested in the new and read everything and did not idealize what
> > been said half a century before him--certainly not even in "Tradition
> > and the Individual Talent." He was deeply engaged in the new thought
> > his time and the disruption of general assumptions. Nor did he defer
> > any of his immediate predecessors: whether one agrees with him on any
> > given point or not, it was his own point and it was part of the
> > discourse of his time.
> > Nancy
> > P.S. Is it not dogmatic to state great generalizations as curious, a
> > pity, and certain? Especially when they are disconnected from any
> > evidence? My own curiousity only.
> > >>> [log in to unmask] 01/07/06 9:36 PM >>>
> > Curious that the critical faculty tends not to be exercised
> > by those who have honed it, on the cultural matters that
> > do command people's attention such as movies and television shows.
> > One gets the impression that such a pursuit is beneath those
> > gifted folk. If so, it is a pity, for the function of criticism
> > could be valuably exercised in that arena. I'm certain that
> > the followers of the hirsute clay spinner would be very
> > enthusiastic about it.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> > Quoting "Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]>:
> > > Even in Eliot's "The Function of Criticism" in "Selected Essays"
> > > he apologizes for going off topic.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Rick Parker
> > >