On Mar 22, 2010, at 2:52 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> Insofar as that's so, it stems from the now-deceased pomo's being
> much more a mood and an attitude in various lit & social science
> faculties, than a defense of certain texts and ideas therein
> contained.
That's just what Eagleton said, and it's nonsense. I often found the atmosphere in the graduate lounge at the UVa English department annoying - a friend decided to drop out of the program after he heard someone described in a conversation there as "doing interesting new work on Tennyson's letters - but I never wrote a book about it. What kind of critic doesn't engage actual texts, and prefers instead to go after a disembodied "mood"? A lazy one? Or worse?
Doug