>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.
> 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.
>
>
No, I don't think that you are completely wrong. But part of my point in the above about Shelley is that the author is "using" the "Defence of Poetry", for a very limited purpose, and not really saying anything about the work itself, and not being quite "open about her use. She claims to be saying something about the work, but doesn't. She wants to use it as illustration but also wants us to believe that she is telling us something about what Shelley is saying. In fact, I am pretty sure that her comments detract from Shelley's work and misunderstands it. And part of the "function" of the style of such pieces is that we don't notice the slight of hand. I am not sure that the author notices herself. If she is caught in the tangle of thought, then it is easy to not be careful about the work you are reading.
Your example of "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle" (which I think I saw at _your_ suggestion) is not the same. I think that you can say something about how this film represents the working class. You can do this as a sociologist and still remain honest about what the film actually does. You can show how the movie is a classic "quest" film in a modern context, and then discuss the genre in relation to the working class, or any number of things about the film while, illustrating your notions about social reality. All of this may very likely add to our understanding or the film and and never detract from it, unless you fool yourself into thinking that things are "there" that aren't there. If you then fool yourself about it and then proceed to hide from your self in the tangle of your own words, then you should be called on it. Here is the problem. Sometimes the tangle of words and jargon can "reveal" but this is very rare, mostly because it is very hard to say anything truly new about any work of art. For this reason the tangle of words often tends to hide the fact that you are not saying anything new or necessarily related to what you are writing. (Note: What I am saying here is not new, but I am not embarrassed about it either.)
I am not the type to believe that you must analyze a work, only as a work of art. And I certainly do _not_ believe, if you don't do it my way then you are not analyzing at all. I can imagine writing an article that has something of the theme that Rajan's article seems to have. This article might "use" Shelley in a way that also helps to understand Shelley, but at the same time also states (explicitly) that my intention is to "use" Shelley for other purposes. I would try to be careful about his works and other works I use. Care is important, I think.
Another thing, it is possible for a person to write in a mode informed by deconstruction in a way that takes care of the work (text) one is writing about. I don't really think that it matters that much what method you adhere to, as long as you try to comprehend what the subjects and texts you are using. The funny thing is I consider myself informed by deconstruction, though it only shows up in my "ideas" and not my attempt at style. My real complaint is not the method of deconstruction, but rather how certain institutions and journals are biased toward the jargon surrounding it, for mostly reasons, that scholars "have" to publish something and the institutions have to justify their existence.
Finally, it is also possible, to write philosophically (or sociologically) and to use a movie and poem in the way that Zizek uses Rossellini. I do this all the time. Plutarch did it when writing about "lives." Machiavelli did it when writing about politics. I have a book on my shelf called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer [BtVS] and Philosophy", which uses BtVS to illustrate philosophical points. If your point is illustration, then what is the problem.? But your point in this case isn't really understanding "BtVS", though this may come abot but using "BtVS' to illustrate a philosophical point. I would ask that you don't in effect claim that there an episode of "BtVS" is about "Spike" when it is really about "Zander". (This is analogous to what I am claiming that Rajan is doing to Shelley; the essay has somehow become "about" language and hermeneutics.) But I would also ask that you don't do the rather funny thing that Zizek does, and "relate back" the philosophy you are illustrating to the "origins" of the work, unless it is possible to show how in someway something in the philosophy or in the phenomena you are discussing actually did help to create the work.
There is of course another way to write about "imaginative works" and philosophy. Martha Nussbaum does it and Stanley Clavell does it. I am trying to do it when I write about Aeschylus and the "Oresteia". It is to show how a philosophy or world view is immanent in a work -- is both represented by the work, and projected by the work into the "world" of social relations around it. About such a project some people would say "that's not film criticism." Fair enough.
But there are some respects in which I am interested in the same project as many post modernists, in how a work such as the "Oresteia" is somehow constitutive. This might give you another insight in why I "fight" over these issues with so much zest.
Jerry