I like Carroll's somewhat irreverent definition of lit crit: This type of "discourse" is a commodity -- an "elite-consumable" that (presumably) has some value-added, "entertainment" component. Thus lit crit fits the Benthamite ultilitarian calculus: just as poetry is of equal value to the game of push-pin (in that both produce approximately equal pleasure in different people), so is lit crit of equal value to said game.
Maybe this helps explain the natural enmity between the creative writer and the critic: the latter capitalizes on the creative work, and often diverts attention from it -- or at least this was the case with deconstruction, an era when criticism dominated over the text. Cf. Blake's dichotomy of the Prolific and the Devourer (in this case writer vs critic; in this analogy the critic devours the created work). -- Jim
James Loucks, Ph.D.
Ohio State University-Newark
1179 University Dr.
Newark, OH 43055-1797
[log in to unmask]
From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. on behalf of Carrol Cox
Sent: Sun 01-Jan-06 11:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: OT - Plagiarism and Literary Criticism
I guess I should be clearer. My point is that publishing executives are
_not_ literary critics. Neither are censors literary critics. Of course,
"literary criticism" is a pretty sloppy concept, and I actually don't
have the slightest idea as to what we should consider it to be.
Something like the good SC judge and obscenity: he knew it (he claimed)
when he saw it, but couldn't define it. I would think the most useful
but imprecise characterization would be "public discourse on publicly
Happy 47th Anniversary of the Cuban Revolution. Vive Fidel!
Tom Gray wrote:
> From: "Carrol Cox"
> > What relationship is there between Publishing executives and literary
> > criticism? I don't see any relationship at all.
> I suppose that this is part of the more general question of the relationship
> between literary criticism and the reader. Books that are not published will
> not be read.