>Well, let us look at this paragraph. For me (an unabashed lover of
>Shelley) it does not say anything at all about Shelley. It doesn't
>add to my conception of Shelley, or put Shelley in any context, except
>for the context of the author's own "scholasticism".
I have a question.
I know zippo about lit criticism or the authors mentioned here. but what I'm getting is something that went on at the the defunct pulp-culture list.
There's a fellah there, George Trail, who is a rhetorician at University of Houston. For a time, there was a lot of film discussions at the list. I discussed some film from a sociological perspective, doing what sociologists do when they view a film. e.g., looking at the film White Castle to see how the film represents working class as cluttered and dirty as opposed to upper middle class as clean, spartan, organized.
Trail said this was bullshit. This was film criticism. I wasn't appreciating the film or something like that. I can't really explain this well b/c I lost this portion of the archives, but he contrasted the way I looked at the film with the way another fellah on this list examined his favortie genre, horror films. I don't know if I ever understood Trail but what was markedly different from the way I looked at a film and the way this other guy did was that it was clear he loved the film and the genre more generally.
Does that make sense?
It's almost like this is what is going on here -- where you're asking for the author to appreciate Shelley or something. Am I wrong on this point? I'm not sure, but it seems that these are two different enterprises. I am reminded of when I mentor/tutor had to explain the difference between a book report and a book review -- because I'd turned in a report, not a review. two different things, though I suppose a review might contain a brief report.
"You know how it is, come for the animal porn, stay for the cultural analysis." -- Michael Berube
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org