Well Michael Bérubé sure gets this right:
But the truly astonishing thing is not that we continue to study the literature and culture of the British Isles; outside of Shakespeare, who remains extremely popular on campus and off, most undergraduates aren’t doing too much reading in British literature before 1800. Rather, the astonishing thing is that we devote so little time and energy to the study of contemporary world literatures in English. I say this not out of self-interest—I know far too little about the field, so little that if I had the capacity for shame I would be ashamed of myself—but simply out of the recognition that while we “English” professors are sitting around squabbling about theory here and rhetoric there and tweaking the undergraduate curriculum just so, the English-language writers of Asia, Africa, and Australia have been coming up with all kinds of stuff. I hear there’s even another English-speaking country on this very continent, but I don’t remember its name.
A question of priorities then, indeed. In addition to which, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Bérubé––as someone who has actually taken the time to understand Derrida––is here defending close reading per se or as traditionally understood. It may be politically propitious to turn the rhetorical tables with the slogan that, well, "Derrida was really the closest of close readers, you know." But the post-structuralist take-down of the New Critics, in the broadest sense, is still as relevant as ever. That is, the best close readings, as any good deconstructionist knows, also take place at a crucial, if also non-essential distance. Or rather, as if at a distance from themselves, with a fierce concern for the ways in which they are always, inevitably, re-inscribing distance, or for that matter, proximity. Recognizing maybe, that true proximity only ever comes from distance. As in carressing sands, not sledgehammering wood. Ok, I'll stop. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Kuddos to anyone who deigns to comment on such a trite post. The last thing we need around here is some kind of "mission."
Update: Just in case you didn't follow that first link in Bérubé's post, I'll go ahead and kindly encourage you to do so here. It even references an REM lyric––you can probably guess which one.
matt,
reading and distance-proximity, fort-da...
" reading is dancing with an absent partner over an open tomb." (blanchot)
doesn't the really interesting interview above with CM, make you want to reread blanchot and "the law of genre"...
Posted by: hum | July 01, 2005 at 10:43 AM
Bérubé is right about this, but then again, a stopped clock is right twice a day. As a consistent and energetic Nader/3rd party basher, he's objectively pro-triangulation and anti-anti-war. To say nothing of the fact that he looks like a total dork in those shades. I guess he can't afford an eyebrow tuck.
It's be interesting to see how much he supports Hillary Clinton (and/or Joe Biden) come '08. It's a given he'll still be whining about Nader's '00 performance as the proximate cause for Bush.
Posted by: et alia | July 01, 2005 at 11:12 AM
Hum,
yes.
Et,
Right, because Nader was such a laserbeam of hope, and he always looked so cool.
Posted by: Matt | July 01, 2005 at 05:45 PM
So the other day at The Weblog, I commented that you guys didn't seem to be posting very much lately, and it turns out it was just because Bloglines wasn't picking up your new posts off the RSS feed. I got a week's worth of fascinating stuff just this morning. I apologize for unintentionally slandering you.
Posted by: Adam Kotsko | July 02, 2005 at 06:22 AM
And again, the Bérubé strikes:
http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/comments/674/
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, or get 'em to join you, eh Valve? Ah well.
Maybe we should start discussing T.S. Eliot and Robert Nozick around here. Sure to make the sparks fly. Anyone have any good recipes?
Posted by: Matt | July 07, 2005 at 02:33 AM
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us -- if at all -- not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.
Posted by: another | July 07, 2005 at 04:47 PM
Who's the hollow man, then?
Posted by: Matt | July 07, 2005 at 07:16 PM
Hi, et alia! And thanks for Bush. We're all really enjoying him.
But tell me again what this has to do with teaching world literatures in English?
Posted by: Michael Bérubé | July 10, 2005 at 07:41 AM
Michael, while you're here...I must ask.
How did they grease it to you from The Valve? And do you think they regretting it quite yet?
You're no doubt aware that asking Holbo about "Theory" is like asking Et Alia about pigs and goats.
Posted by: anon | July 10, 2005 at 08:39 AM
The Valve is paying me with a suitcase full of unmarked Bradley Foundation scrip, of course. And I could use it.
Seriously, I think Holbo is a fine interlocutor, and I like many of the writers for the Valve. Case in point: he asked me to chime in so that the group review of TE wouldn't be uniformly positive. Among other reasons.
Posted by: Michael Bérubé | July 10, 2005 at 05:01 PM
"he asked me to chime in so that the group review of TE wouldn't be uniformly positive."
...scratching my brain trying to remember what the word for that is.
Well give 'em hell, anyway.
Posted by: another | July 10, 2005 at 06:36 PM
http://lmergner.blogspot.com/2005/10/re-franzen-on-slate.html
http://pasaudela.blogspot.com/2005/07/thinking-about-genre.html
Posted by: Lyra | October 28, 2005 at 07:29 PM