Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Digest Number 33

Expand Messages
  • Nagy Gergely
    ******************************************************************************* NAGY GERGELY a/k/a Sir Lamorak de Galis Szeged, Hungary Attila Jozsef
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 2 3:11 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      *******************************************************************************
      NAGY GERGELY
      a/k/a Sir Lamorak de Galis Szeged, Hungary
      Attila Jozsef University, Institute of English and American Studies
      and Department of Classical Philology
      lamorak@....u-szeged.hu or h534394@....u-szeged.hu
      'Pantes anthropoi tou edenai oregontai physei.'
      *******************************************************************************

      On 2 Mar 1999 mythsoc@onelist.com wrote:

      >
      > Let's see if I understand you. You'd like to look at fantastic texts
      > like Tolkien's using current literarary criticism. I have to admit out
      > front that I don't like post-structuralism much, especially dislike the
      > deconstructionists, and think that the seamless integrity of a work like
      > Tolkien's is especially unsympathetic to such readings. Perhaps if you
      > could explain a little about your own literary critical / philosophic
      > stance, we might be able to begin a discussion. ---djb.
      >
      Hopefully you understand me. I don't like poststructuralism myself, indeed
      sometimes I feel very grateful that some of those guys are dead so I
      don't have to kill them; but nevertheless what I'm saying is that we
      cannot ignore what current issues are coming up. I, prsonally, am with
      Gadamer's hermeneutics, and don't ever want to apply deconstruction to
      TTolkien's texts; deconstruction, by its nature, would only ruin those
      texts and not tell you a thing about them. My point is that we have to
      engage in a kind of 'discourse' with those other methods we wouldn't like
      to apply, and, knowing what they would bring out of these texts, counter
      them with theoretically grounded arguments. That's why I said we have to
      work out a terminology legitim in those contexts. Basically this has to do
      something with the examination of mythopoiesis and mythopoietic literature
      as such, not with separate texts, or interpretation of them; as I've said,
      I'm more interested at the moment in some general aspects of these texts
      than their particular interpretations. See how Randel Helms did a joking
      psychanalitic reading of the Hobbit in _Tolkien's World_ (perhaps you
      already know that bit) - that's what he admits can be done but shouldn't
      be done, and that is a kind of starting point for theory. My opinion is
      that as long as we are not able to provide a consistent theoretical
      background or framework (which includes legitim terminology, not just
      loftily talking about 'the human essence what we are seeking' or the
      classics, as 'they stand' [sorry, no offence is meant, I emphasize!]) we
      cannot expect to be taken seriously and there's not going to be a
      breakthrough in the field.
      Any point you want me to clarify? I'll do it lateer on today, if you havee
      questions,
      cordially,
      G
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.