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

Re: [mythsoc] Re: J. Chance / Marquette

Expand Messages
  • David Emerson
    ... As I recall, the question that Ms. Chance raised was about the structure of Beowulf -- how many parts it should be split into (two, three, four?). To my
    Message 1 of 57 , Nov 30 9:34 AM
      >From: not_thou <emptyD@...>
      >
      >...But does
      >anyone know the substance of the debate, and how both sides fit into
      >the larger world of "Beowulf" and Tolkien studies? And could not
      >Chance's forcefulness have indicated a passionate interest in the
      >subject?

      As I recall, the question that Ms. Chance raised was about the structure of "Beowulf" -- how many parts it should be split into (two, three, four?). To my mind, it could be any, depending on how one looks at it, and to argue that it "must" be one or the other would be fruitless.

      I believe Chance was advocating her side of the question (which I can't even remember which is was now) because it had feminist ramifications. Something about Grendel's mother being female, and whether her "chapter" got/gets less respect from the patriarchal academic establishment.





      emerdavid

      ________________________________________
      PeoplePC Online
      A better way to Internet
      http://www.peoplepc.com
    • Diane Joy Baker
      Well said; I ve little love for PoMo. Off topic, anyway, and I prefer to discuss lit crit and literature I *like.* ---djb ... From: Jason Fisher To:
      Message 57 of 57 , Dec 4, 2006
        Well said; I've little love for PoMo. Off topic, anyway, and I prefer to discuss lit crit and literature I *like.* ---djb

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Jason Fisher
        To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 11:57 AM
        Subject: [mythsoc] Re: J. Chance / Tolkien Encyclopedia


        --- William Cloud Hicklin wrote:
        > The basic procedure for PoMo critical analysis:
        >
        > Step 1) Find something in the text which might be vaguely
        > political
        > Step 2) Construct thereon a "political viewpoint" for the work
        > Step 3) Attack the author's politics
        >
        > Extra credit if the politics marginalize a recognized victim
        > group.
        >
        > Double extra credit if the "political viewpoint" is wildly
        > anachronistic.

        LOL, nicely done. I smell a new Foucault/Derrida drinking game in the offing. :)

        (This is verging on going off-topic, if it hasn't already, but I had to comment.)

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.6/568 - Release Date: 12/4/2006


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.