January 18th, 2010 / 10:04 pm
Web Hype
Christopher Higgs
Web Hype
Where the critics at?
John Domini has an interesting (and, I think, provocative) essay in the new issue of The Quarterly Conversation called “Against the “Impossible to Explain”: The Postmodern Novel and Society,” in which he discusses Aureole by Carole Maso, Zeroville by Steve Erickson, and Michael Martone by Michael Martone by Michael Martone. It begins:
Here’s the problem. You decide to try some reading outside the ordinary, a novel that doesn’t have the usual earmarks, and it proves interesting, satisfying, but you don’t entirely understand why, and when you look for help, an illuminating review or something, you can’t find any.
Tags: john domini, michael martone
domini’s essay is a good start, DIY is a great way to solve any problem
also a more experimental approach would be if the writers of these great non-mainstream novels would write really great mainstream novels too, then they could achieve the press and attention from the hot shot critics they want so desperately to be understood and reviewed by – then they could write their crazy experimental novels once they were famous and everybody would give a shit — but that’s probably too hard or painful and involves too much manipulation or whatever else is unpalatable to writers – but that’s what i would do if a) i wanted more rigorous critical consideration and b) had the talent to pull it off
domini’s essay is a good start, DIY is a great way to solve any problem
also a more experimental approach would be if the writers of these great non-mainstream novels would write really great mainstream novels too, then they could achieve the press and attention from the hot shot critics they want so desperately to be understood and reviewed by – then they could write their crazy experimental novels once they were famous and everybody would give a shit — but that’s probably too hard or painful and involves too much manipulation or whatever else is unpalatable to writers – but that’s what i would do if a) i wanted more rigorous critical consideration and b) had the talent to pull it off
This was really illuminating, thanks.
This was really illuminating, thanks.
The “critics” all be suckin that corporate teat.
The “critics” all be suckin that corporate teat.
“Too many critics follow the money, uncritically; that’s not my whole argument, but that’s a lot of it. Not enough critics will cock an ear to any noise beyond New York, or take time to sample twenty pages of a novel that comes out of nowhere and demands extra effort. Too often reviews fall back on clichés about “characters that live and breathe” and “packed with Dixie [or Down East, or DUMBO] detail.” It’s as if everyone selected from the same menu in the software – a program that functions best with the social-novel template. But if the interface of individual and society takes an unfamiliar form, it robs far too many reviewers of their apparatus for passing judgment.”
Absolutely. Although the money is maybe too simple a motive on its own. It’s also, perhaps more, about being in the thick of things. Certain writerly-critical cultures – especially NY’s – provide a sense of being arbiters of relevance itself. That’s powerful stuff. It’s also why pleas like this again and again fall on deaf ears. The neglect of truly obscure experimentalism is less about ignorance – or let’s say the ignorance is the effect not the cause – and more to do with a self-satisfied, gooey-eyed writer-publisher-critic interface that is more oriented toward rating the sellability of books than reviewing them in a way that would try to win over readers by connecting the delight of reading to perplexity. However, I also find this review to be a manifestation of the very problem it diagnoses and, in being so, it highlights how pernicious this inward-looking “criticality” is. I found this review to cite instances of the unconventional are hardly names that the critical establishment have never heard of nor have freezed out of all praise. Are Carole Maso, Steve Erickson, Percival Everett, Tom McCarthy (with guest appearances by Richard Powers, John Barth, Robert Coover, Zadie Smith and Gilbert Sorrentino) really the subaltern Domini kind of plays them as, without quite saying it that way? And do the critics express an outright distaste for them (sometimes they do: there are tedious woolly-headed snoozers like Menand, for instance)? Or is it more the case that there’s a sort of haughty cynicism at work here where it’s generally understood that these writers are for critics only, simply too complex, by gum, to put out there as literature for the public? With the possible exception (maybe) of Michael Martone, I don’t think one of the books mentioned in this review would be unknown to most academics active in literature programs. And Domini seems to have found Dalkey and Fc2, which is awesome, but – I mean, they’re both supported by the academy. My point being here that these are not small, obscure publishers so much as they are they are publication houses of sorts with their own field of notice and support. I love both of them immensely – and Dalkey’s pick-up of Joshua Cohen, for instance, demonstrates the cross-pollination between small press and academy press, of which we need more intersection – but nonetheless the article stops at the door of the academy. It sort of doesn’t think to look for what the academy also looks for (when it’s looking). To achieve a certain currency in literary programs, writers already need to have been subject to a process of gentrification in which it is slotted into the disciplinary concerns of literature. I don’t use the term ‘gentrification’ here in a negative way at all. It stands to reason that in mobilizing new materials into a field of knowledge, like literary studies, those materials will be situated in relation to the ongoing concerns of the discipline. But it is exactly this that the NY critics and such turn their nose up at, and view as an inner circle of readerliness they posit themselves as being more socially sensitive against. In fact, this is garbage but the university is their known enemy and these texts their foil. They will tip their hats in the direction of such novels but tend to downplay or sideline them as exercises in academia, not the sterling stuff of fiction. The complacency in the world of critical reviews is so out of touch it think it’s the most in touch critical apparatus about. It thinks its mediocrity is and profound, anti-institutional and iconoclastic. In truth, the university should be able to look to the culture’s critics to be able to discover the newest and most truly formally-socially innovative literature there is. Public intellectuals of the likes of Susan Sontag used to mediate recommendations of worthwhile literature to the university and translate ideas out of the university to the public. This breed of critic is still around, sort of, but is in peril, to say the least. Instead, our new public intellectuals think Ian McEwen the (anti-)avant-garde. Our literary programs take up the slack the best they can but not professors are not reviewers. They are dedicated to a discipline of literary analysis that by definition is designed to advance theorization, just as they should be. And meanwhile, great work wallows.
“Too many critics follow the money, uncritically; that’s not my whole argument, but that’s a lot of it. Not enough critics will cock an ear to any noise beyond New York, or take time to sample twenty pages of a novel that comes out of nowhere and demands extra effort. Too often reviews fall back on clichés about “characters that live and breathe” and “packed with Dixie [or Down East, or DUMBO] detail.” It’s as if everyone selected from the same menu in the software – a program that functions best with the social-novel template. But if the interface of individual and society takes an unfamiliar form, it robs far too many reviewers of their apparatus for passing judgment.”
Absolutely. Although the money is maybe too simple a motive on its own. It’s also, perhaps more, about being in the thick of things. Certain writerly-critical cultures – especially NY’s – provide a sense of being arbiters of relevance itself. That’s powerful stuff. It’s also why pleas like this again and again fall on deaf ears. The neglect of truly obscure experimentalism is less about ignorance – or let’s say the ignorance is the effect not the cause – and more to do with a self-satisfied, gooey-eyed writer-publisher-critic interface that is more oriented toward rating the sellability of books than reviewing them in a way that would try to win over readers by connecting the delight of reading to perplexity. However, I also find this review to be a manifestation of the very problem it diagnoses and, in being so, it highlights how pernicious this inward-looking “criticality” is. I found this review to cite instances of the unconventional are hardly names that the critical establishment have never heard of nor have freezed out of all praise. Are Carole Maso, Steve Erickson, Percival Everett, Tom McCarthy (with guest appearances by Richard Powers, John Barth, Robert Coover, Zadie Smith and Gilbert Sorrentino) really the subaltern Domini kind of plays them as, without quite saying it that way? And do the critics express an outright distaste for them (sometimes they do: there are tedious woolly-headed snoozers like Menand, for instance)? Or is it more the case that there’s a sort of haughty cynicism at work here where it’s generally understood that these writers are for critics only, simply too complex, by gum, to put out there as literature for the public? With the possible exception (maybe) of Michael Martone, I don’t think one of the books mentioned in this review would be unknown to most academics active in literature programs. And Domini seems to have found Dalkey and Fc2, which is awesome, but – I mean, they’re both supported by the academy. My point being here that these are not small, obscure publishers so much as they are they are publication houses of sorts with their own field of notice and support. I love both of them immensely – and Dalkey’s pick-up of Joshua Cohen, for instance, demonstrates the cross-pollination between small press and academy press, of which we need more intersection – but nonetheless the article stops at the door of the academy. It sort of doesn’t think to look for what the academy also looks for (when it’s looking). To achieve a certain currency in literary programs, writers already need to have been subject to a process of gentrification in which it is slotted into the disciplinary concerns of literature. I don’t use the term ‘gentrification’ here in a negative way at all. It stands to reason that in mobilizing new materials into a field of knowledge, like literary studies, those materials will be situated in relation to the ongoing concerns of the discipline. But it is exactly this that the NY critics and such turn their nose up at, and view as an inner circle of readerliness they posit themselves as being more socially sensitive against. In fact, this is garbage but the university is their known enemy and these texts their foil. They will tip their hats in the direction of such novels but tend to downplay or sideline them as exercises in academia, not the sterling stuff of fiction. The complacency in the world of critical reviews is so out of touch it think it’s the most in touch critical apparatus about. It thinks its mediocrity is and profound, anti-institutional and iconoclastic. In truth, the university should be able to look to the culture’s critics to be able to discover the newest and most truly formally-socially innovative literature there is. Public intellectuals of the likes of Susan Sontag used to mediate recommendations of worthwhile literature to the university and translate ideas out of the university to the public. This breed of critic is still around, sort of, but is in peril, to say the least. Instead, our new public intellectuals think Ian McEwen the (anti-)avant-garde. Our literary programs take up the slack the best they can but not professors are not reviewers. They are dedicated to a discipline of literary analysis that by definition is designed to advance theorization, just as they should be. And meanwhile, great work wallows.
I meant to write: “It thinks its mediocrity is on point and profound, anti-institutional and iconoclastic.”
I meant to write: “It thinks its mediocrity is on point and profound, anti-institutional and iconoclastic.”
This was also illuminating.
This was also illuminating.
Thanks for this. The issue of a necessary criticism is a hard one for me; I certainly read more than I write, and I’ve more often than not encountered the problem of finishing something and then not being able to read any more about it, and part of me wants to push myself to do something for specific experimental lit in the same way I founded my esotika erotica psychotica film project; i want more people talking about something so I ought to be talking about it myself. but with E.E.P. I eventually got burnt out, found myself uninspired to write about anything, felt obligated…
I don’t know. I certainly will seek out experimental lit criticism fairly voraciously, but I also spend 40 hours a week at a library. It’s always exciting to discover various Richard Kostelanetz anthologies of criticism (Dictionary of the Avant-Gardes was life changing), Federman’s Surfiction, Elliott Anderson’s In Wake of the Wake (which I stumbled upon completely by accident, finding a post-it note with the call number written on it), Roudiez’s French Fiction Revisited, etc., etc. There is actually lots to be found written on interesting texts, it seems to me, just not by mainstream critics. This is frustrating, but can we expect it?
I don’t know where I was going with this comment.
Thanks for this. The issue of a necessary criticism is a hard one for me; I certainly read more than I write, and I’ve more often than not encountered the problem of finishing something and then not being able to read any more about it, and part of me wants to push myself to do something for specific experimental lit in the same way I founded my esotika erotica psychotica film project; i want more people talking about something so I ought to be talking about it myself. but with E.E.P. I eventually got burnt out, found myself uninspired to write about anything, felt obligated…
I don’t know. I certainly will seek out experimental lit criticism fairly voraciously, but I also spend 40 hours a week at a library. It’s always exciting to discover various Richard Kostelanetz anthologies of criticism (Dictionary of the Avant-Gardes was life changing), Federman’s Surfiction, Elliott Anderson’s In Wake of the Wake (which I stumbled upon completely by accident, finding a post-it note with the call number written on it), Roudiez’s French Fiction Revisited, etc., etc. There is actually lots to be found written on interesting texts, it seems to me, just not by mainstream critics. This is frustrating, but can we expect it?
I don’t know where I was going with this comment.
Hi Mark,
I think part of the problem being identified in Domini’s essay is the divide between what you’re calling “great non-mainstream novels” and “really great mainstream novels.” That you would suggest experimental writers should adopt the dominate approach to novel writing in order to gain critics, rather than questioning why critics tend to favor the dominate approach, only works to reinscribe the distinction and the hierarchy.
One thing I take away from Domini’s essay is this idea of asking: how come? How come you must write in the dominate fashion in order to garner critical attention? How come I should have to acquiesce to what the masters of literature demand in order to earn the right to critical attention?
And furthermore, what does it say about our culture that what is valued enough to be written about critically are those works of literature that regurgitate the formula?
Instead of writing mainstream novels in order to earn the attention of critics, what if writing experimental novels could earn their attention? How can we make that happen? How can we begin to cultivate a society in which conventional realism shares the spotlight with experimentalism in terms of critical attention?
Wow, this is beginning to veer dangerously close to the beginnings of a manifesto or something. I better take a breath and go get some coffee.
Thanks for your thoughts, Mark.
Hi Mark,
I think part of the problem being identified in Domini’s essay is the divide between what you’re calling “great non-mainstream novels” and “really great mainstream novels.” That you would suggest experimental writers should adopt the dominate approach to novel writing in order to gain critics, rather than questioning why critics tend to favor the dominate approach, only works to reinscribe the distinction and the hierarchy.
One thing I take away from Domini’s essay is this idea of asking: how come? How come you must write in the dominate fashion in order to garner critical attention? How come I should have to acquiesce to what the masters of literature demand in order to earn the right to critical attention?
And furthermore, what does it say about our culture that what is valued enough to be written about critically are those works of literature that regurgitate the formula?
Instead of writing mainstream novels in order to earn the attention of critics, what if writing experimental novels could earn their attention? How can we make that happen? How can we begin to cultivate a society in which conventional realism shares the spotlight with experimentalism in terms of critical attention?
Wow, this is beginning to veer dangerously close to the beginnings of a manifesto or something. I better take a breath and go get some coffee.
Thanks for your thoughts, Mark.
Glad you dug it, Tim.
Glad you dug it, Tim.
Indeed.
Indeed.
I hear you, Magick Mike. I also feel this nagging urge to do something about the dearth of critical material on experimental writing out there. I keep toying with various ideas, none of which have yet to grasp me by the throat. I mean, if I started an online journal of critical responses to experimental literature, would that help? Would people read it? Would it be a valuable resource? Or would it be just another online journal in the sea of online journals? I’m not sure.
I hear you, Magick Mike. I also feel this nagging urge to do something about the dearth of critical material on experimental writing out there. I keep toying with various ideas, none of which have yet to grasp me by the throat. I mean, if I started an online journal of critical responses to experimental literature, would that help? Would people read it? Would it be a valuable resource? Or would it be just another online journal in the sea of online journals? I’m not sure.
“Who gives a fuck about a goddamn Grammy?”
“Who gives a fuck about a goddamn Grammy?”
Hi David,
Really excellent and insightful comments. Thank you.
I especially think you’re on to something regarding your point about the list of writers discussed in the essay. Coover, Barth, et al. are hardly lacking critical reception. and certainly there is a difference between Dalkey Archive and, say, Les Figues Press, in terms of public awareness (which raises a whole host of other issues, not least of which you have pointed out being the relationship between Dalkey and FC2 and their university benefactors) But the fact that even these bigger figures of experimental literature can only boast a few measly reviews/critical appraisals means that the horde of lesser-known experimentalists are going totally unnoticed.
I also think you make an excellent point viz the academy. Not sure I’ve thought about or read much about the relationship between contemporary critics and the academy. Partly this is because it seems to me that much of what literature programs are interested in is literary history rather than contemporaneity. Your example of Sontag is a really good one. Do we have a Sontag? You suggest there still exists critics like her — who are you thinking of?
Hi David,
Really excellent and insightful comments. Thank you.
I especially think you’re on to something regarding your point about the list of writers discussed in the essay. Coover, Barth, et al. are hardly lacking critical reception. and certainly there is a difference between Dalkey Archive and, say, Les Figues Press, in terms of public awareness (which raises a whole host of other issues, not least of which you have pointed out being the relationship between Dalkey and FC2 and their university benefactors) But the fact that even these bigger figures of experimental literature can only boast a few measly reviews/critical appraisals means that the horde of lesser-known experimentalists are going totally unnoticed.
I also think you make an excellent point viz the academy. Not sure I’ve thought about or read much about the relationship between contemporary critics and the academy. Partly this is because it seems to me that much of what literature programs are interested in is literary history rather than contemporaneity. Your example of Sontag is a really good one. Do we have a Sontag? You suggest there still exists critics like her — who are you thinking of?
It’s hard to argue with Flavor Flav.
It’s hard to argue with Flavor Flav.
It is certainly the authors themselves who are doing the thinking about their own work. I learned more about Martone’s work from his readings (have seen many) and interviews than elsewhere, and he’s good at breaking apart his own material and ideas. For him, it adds another layer to an already layered art: Martone to discuss Martone on Martone on…
I think for a site to work, it would have to be collective, but there are certainly minds keen enough here (and elsewhere) up to the task. I would read it, esp after reading the primary text.
Thanks for this post,
It is certainly the authors themselves who are doing the thinking about their own work. I learned more about Martone’s work from his readings (have seen many) and interviews than elsewhere, and he’s good at breaking apart his own material and ideas. For him, it adds another layer to an already layered art: Martone to discuss Martone on Martone on…
I think for a site to work, it would have to be collective, but there are certainly minds keen enough here (and elsewhere) up to the task. I would read it, esp after reading the primary text.
Thanks for this post,
How do y’all feel about people “breaking apart” their own material or ideas?
I used to assume people thought it was really uncool, maybe overdetermines the reader’s experience (I think maybe I sat through too many courses as an undergrad that rejected entirely the notion of authorial intent??) and that to in any way explain your writing somehow reduces or degrades it.
I feel like I am just beginning to feel comfortable talking about what I’m trying to accomplish with stuff, but it still makes me really nervous and I also worry abt sounding pretentious and/or stupid (or worst of all — both simultaneously).
How do y’all feel about people “breaking apart” their own material or ideas?
I used to assume people thought it was really uncool, maybe overdetermines the reader’s experience (I think maybe I sat through too many courses as an undergrad that rejected entirely the notion of authorial intent??) and that to in any way explain your writing somehow reduces or degrades it.
I feel like I am just beginning to feel comfortable talking about what I’m trying to accomplish with stuff, but it still makes me really nervous and I also worry abt sounding pretentious and/or stupid (or worst of all — both simultaneously).
Just want to add that I really appreciate this thread, the thought behind it, the engagement w/ the problem. A number of the misgivings about my essay are things I fretted about myself. For instance, I swore I *wouldn’t* waste everyone’s time w/ another long consideration of first-wave postmodernists like Barth, Barthelme, etc. But on the other hand, mainstream criticism is so far behind the curve, I couldn’t leave those guys out of the argument entirely. Best I could do, then, was keep the emphasis on people still in mid-career, the children of the first wave. Even doing that, I had to leave out a lot, no question.
Plus, thanks for the many kind words, thanks deeply.
Just want to add that I really appreciate this thread, the thought behind it, the engagement w/ the problem. A number of the misgivings about my essay are things I fretted about myself. For instance, I swore I *wouldn’t* waste everyone’s time w/ another long consideration of first-wave postmodernists like Barth, Barthelme, etc. But on the other hand, mainstream criticism is so far behind the curve, I couldn’t leave those guys out of the argument entirely. Best I could do, then, was keep the emphasis on people still in mid-career, the children of the first wave. Even doing that, I had to leave out a lot, no question.
Plus, thanks for the many kind words, thanks deeply.
not saying that’s what experimental fiction writers should do, that’s just what i would do. i like the proactive approach of aggressively wresting the attention you seek from the people you seek it from – not sitting around and hoping for that attention to fall on you like manna from the sky, because i don’t think that’s ever going to happen, no matter how obstreperous or persuasive experimental fiction’s cheerleaders are. any attention i have ever wanted, has never come without a price – my own active pursuit of it. i don’t think anybody has a right to any kind of attention. you either wait for the manna to fall (don’t hold your breath), or you build a ladder into the sky and grab the manna. that’s how critical attention happens to me. my opinion is unfortunately based on just my own experience, which is hugely limited. i think if you’re a genius, and you’re so secure in you’re genius, maybe you can afford to sit back and wait for critical attention to find you, if people like the writer of the article are plentiful and clever enough, they can build a ladder for you into the pantheon of cultural relevance (don’t hold your breath). those who are not a genius probably want to hedge their bets and pay for whatever attention they need for their egos to feel good by sacrificing their artistic integrity. the bottom line, i ought not to want attention. but it’s too late. i do. now where is the devil so i can deal with him?
not saying that’s what experimental fiction writers should do, that’s just what i would do. i like the proactive approach of aggressively wresting the attention you seek from the people you seek it from – not sitting around and hoping for that attention to fall on you like manna from the sky, because i don’t think that’s ever going to happen, no matter how obstreperous or persuasive experimental fiction’s cheerleaders are. any attention i have ever wanted, has never come without a price – my own active pursuit of it. i don’t think anybody has a right to any kind of attention. you either wait for the manna to fall (don’t hold your breath), or you build a ladder into the sky and grab the manna. that’s how critical attention happens to me. my opinion is unfortunately based on just my own experience, which is hugely limited. i think if you’re a genius, and you’re so secure in you’re genius, maybe you can afford to sit back and wait for critical attention to find you, if people like the writer of the article are plentiful and clever enough, they can build a ladder for you into the pantheon of cultural relevance (don’t hold your breath). those who are not a genius probably want to hedge their bets and pay for whatever attention they need for their egos to feel good by sacrificing their artistic integrity. the bottom line, i ought not to want attention. but it’s too late. i do. now where is the devil so i can deal with him?
Hi Chris. Thanks for the kind words. Yes, I agree that the bigger figures of experimental lit tend to get fewer critical appraisals. They get the attention of academic inquiry placed on them but, as I say, this takes time for a sort of gentrification (again, NOT a criticism) of the material into the disciplinary concerns of literary studies. So the lesser-known experimentalists (even innately provocative ones you’d think would surely draw attention like say, Peter Sotos) remain unknown. In terms of contemporary literary public intellectuals, an exact equivalent to Sontag today is hard for me to come up with but I do believe Michael Silverblatt is performing the same kind of critical project of discovery and analysis that she was in her own time. However, radio is his medium so it’s both interesting and difficult to think of, or to qualify, his impact in terms of critic review in the sense of the written word we’ve been implicitly discussing here. In an odd way, authors themselves have been required to take up the slack. Writers have always written non-fiction, and especially reviews – it’s a structural necessity of the craft, almost. But William Vollmann, David Foster Wallace, Anders Monson, Nicholson Baker, William Gass, Eileen Myles, Gary Indiana, Dodie Bellamy, to toss a bunch of north American names both big and small(ish), perform a critical project both tied to but surpassing their fiction that can only be likened to the inquiries which should be conducted by public intellectuals. I suppose also their is a tendency for readers nowadays to turn straight to the materials of the academy itself – reading Deleuze directly, say – but what’s being junked is that role of the public intellectual as a sort of interface between academic critique, literary innovation and social matter. Because of that, while figures like Zizek or Naomi Klein immediately leap to mind in relation to politics and public intellectual standing, where they are both communicants to the public as well as sophisticated theorists and researchers in their own right, it’s very difficult to find that figure in literature anymore. Instead, we have Louis Menand. Or Stanley Fish’s reinvention at the NYT as fretful gadfly, in order to be “relevant” to the social conversation. Or the faux-iconoclasm of the literate Christopher Hitchens. All quite different as one another and yet, how can we deny it, all somehow blandly the same.
Hi Chris. Thanks for the kind words. Yes, I agree that the bigger figures of experimental lit tend to get fewer critical appraisals. They get the attention of academic inquiry placed on them but, as I say, this takes time for a sort of gentrification (again, NOT a criticism) of the material into the disciplinary concerns of literary studies. So the lesser-known experimentalists (even innately provocative ones you’d think would surely draw attention like say, Peter Sotos) remain unknown. In terms of contemporary literary public intellectuals, an exact equivalent to Sontag today is hard for me to come up with but I do believe Michael Silverblatt is performing the same kind of critical project of discovery and analysis that she was in her own time. However, radio is his medium so it’s both interesting and difficult to think of, or to qualify, his impact in terms of critic review in the sense of the written word we’ve been implicitly discussing here. In an odd way, authors themselves have been required to take up the slack. Writers have always written non-fiction, and especially reviews – it’s a structural necessity of the craft, almost. But William Vollmann, David Foster Wallace, Anders Monson, Nicholson Baker, William Gass, Eileen Myles, Gary Indiana, Dodie Bellamy, to toss a bunch of north American names both big and small(ish), perform a critical project both tied to but surpassing their fiction that can only be likened to the inquiries which should be conducted by public intellectuals. I suppose also their is a tendency for readers nowadays to turn straight to the materials of the academy itself – reading Deleuze directly, say – but what’s being junked is that role of the public intellectual as a sort of interface between academic critique, literary innovation and social matter. Because of that, while figures like Zizek or Naomi Klein immediately leap to mind in relation to politics and public intellectual standing, where they are both communicants to the public as well as sophisticated theorists and researchers in their own right, it’s very difficult to find that figure in literature anymore. Instead, we have Louis Menand. Or Stanley Fish’s reinvention at the NYT as fretful gadfly, in order to be “relevant” to the social conversation. Or the faux-iconoclasm of the literate Christopher Hitchens. All quite different as one another and yet, how can we deny it, all somehow blandly the same.
Chris, I’d be very interested in trying to get something like this journal of critical responses up and running. Especially in a way that would press through the ether effect of the internet and perhaps achieve stripes of promotional notice. Maybe we could discuss? If you want to brainstorm or something sometime maybe, my email is trackingbackward [at] yahoo [dot] com [au]. Thanks, man.
Chris, I’d be very interested in trying to get something like this journal of critical responses up and running. Especially in a way that would press through the ether effect of the internet and perhaps achieve stripes of promotional notice. Maybe we could discuss? If you want to brainstorm or something sometime maybe, my email is trackingbackward [at] yahoo [dot] com [au]. Thanks, man.