Dear Nancy, I still fail to see how you see the essay the way you do. Don't bother replying right now I'm still trying to get thoughts and words for a better response. The words are the tough part (though they'd be easier if I left out the thought portion.)
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:02:36 -0400, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I realize that the move to the criticism and thinking about it was
>important, and I assume you may feel I ignored the following:
>Regardless of whether one truly believes in the purported empathetic
>possibilities of Eliot’s third voice, it seems evident, at very least, that
>consciousness of poetic voice, and the development of a new voice, allowed
>Eliot to explore new ways of perceiving and expressing the world as he saw
>it. And this very possibility of a third voice — a voice which influences
>one’s capacity for world-building — is an incredibly exciting one.
>Thus I urge a question: How might the third voice manifest for me, for you,
>for us — an “us” which includes not just writers, but students of all
>disciplines, people of all life trajectories? How will we break out of the
>bounds of self-containment, and leap into a world of difference, of
>But my point remains: the writer bases the analysis on whether it evoked a
>personal response for the author, or not. The idea that Eliot was aiming
>for including "difference" is very questionable, but that is not at issue.
>My point is that the argument is only that finding a personal response is
>Compare, for example, Eliot's idea that one need not agree with a writer to
>appreciate it. That is why I separate Eliot from what he wrote, and my own
>personal experience from what is in the text.
>On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Dear Rick,
>> I should have been clear why I said that about rereading. It was not
>> because I did not recall my concern or remember what she said. It was that
>> I would have preferred to be more specific about my comment. It is an
>> increasing concern: more and more students seem to come to class thinking
>> that what they "feel" is the same as critical thinking. It is not.The
>> overall problem will remain with or without rereading, thought I can't take
>> time to do that right now.
>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Rickard A. Parker <[log in to unmask]>
>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 12:56:46 -0400, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >I think we should consider a couple of problems raised by the
>>> >student paper. It is clearly written by a smart undergraduate who writes
>>> >very well. But it illustrates what I think is an increasingly serious
>>> >issue, not only in academia but in the country: evaluating a text (or
>>> >anything) on how it makes one feel. I deleted the text, but now I think I
>>> >should have reread it. Nonetheless, the writer has apparently been
>>> >asked--or has chosen--to respond to TWL on the basis of its effect on her
>>> >personal experience and feelings. And I do not mean reader-response,
>>> >requires careful analysis. Rather, it simply "shares" her feelings of
>>> >exclusion or inclusion.
>>> >That can be an effective way to start an examination of the text but
>>> only a
>>> >start; as a conclusion, it does not really honor the text itself or the
>>> >importance of studying the voices in it.
>>> Yeah, I think you should reread the essay.
>>> Rick Parker