I loved Lorentzen’s article. His main target, to my mind, wasn’t necessarily Sinykin’s argument but rather his approach, an approach that you rightly point out has become dominant in English departments. This is the material, or the sociological, or the cultural approach, the approach that looks to the book as a product which can reveal …
I loved Lorentzen’s article. His main target, to my mind, wasn’t necessarily Sinykin’s argument but rather his approach, an approach that you rightly point out has become dominant in English departments. This is the material, or the sociological, or the cultural approach, the approach that looks to the book as a product which can reveal something about the society that produced it, rather than regarding the book on its own terms as an aesthetic object to be analyzed.
Both approaches have merit, but the issue is that Sinykin’s mode has become so, dare I say, hegemonic in English departments that there’s barely any room left for close reading of the text, as well as analysis of style, form, and language. I was an English major and trying to explain this to non English majors was incredibly difficult. I’d tell them that we don’t really read books as English majors, but we talk about postcolonialism, Marxism, feminism, psychoanalysis…Usually they’d say, oh that sounds cool, and I’d say, well, actually I just want to read books and talk about them, but apparently there’s nowhere to do that anymore in the university! I’m exaggerating a bit, but anyone who has studied English knows what I’m talking about. The best way to deeply engage with novels at the university is probably via a Comp Lit major or by studying a foreign language. Or, outside of academia, via the local library and substack.
This is true. There’s no close reading any longer. But what would close reading do? It would appreciate quality – or lack thereof. So if you believe that Craft is a Trojan horse that conceals hegemony, hierarchy, and various other gremlins, why would you study it?
The rejoinder to this, I think, is to point at Picasso’s Guernica and say yes, it’s an anti fascist work of art. It’s also a great work of art. Now over here on the other hand is another anti-fascist painting, but it sucks. See the difference?
I loved Lorentzen’s article. His main target, to my mind, wasn’t necessarily Sinykin’s argument but rather his approach, an approach that you rightly point out has become dominant in English departments. This is the material, or the sociological, or the cultural approach, the approach that looks to the book as a product which can reveal something about the society that produced it, rather than regarding the book on its own terms as an aesthetic object to be analyzed.
Both approaches have merit, but the issue is that Sinykin’s mode has become so, dare I say, hegemonic in English departments that there’s barely any room left for close reading of the text, as well as analysis of style, form, and language. I was an English major and trying to explain this to non English majors was incredibly difficult. I’d tell them that we don’t really read books as English majors, but we talk about postcolonialism, Marxism, feminism, psychoanalysis…Usually they’d say, oh that sounds cool, and I’d say, well, actually I just want to read books and talk about them, but apparently there’s nowhere to do that anymore in the university! I’m exaggerating a bit, but anyone who has studied English knows what I’m talking about. The best way to deeply engage with novels at the university is probably via a Comp Lit major or by studying a foreign language. Or, outside of academia, via the local library and substack.
This is true. There’s no close reading any longer. But what would close reading do? It would appreciate quality – or lack thereof. So if you believe that Craft is a Trojan horse that conceals hegemony, hierarchy, and various other gremlins, why would you study it?
The rejoinder to this, I think, is to point at Picasso’s Guernica and say yes, it’s an anti fascist work of art. It’s also a great work of art. Now over here on the other hand is another anti-fascist painting, but it sucks. See the difference?