Erminia Passaninti:
>You cannot dismiss critical theory once it is universally understood that
>theory starts from a pragmatic consideration about literature as such (that
>is, the Sartrian dilemma: What is Literature?'
What, exactly, do you mean when you say that "[I] cannot dismiss
critical theory"? I don't, in fact, dismiss critical theory; simply,
as I suggested earlier, I find it of limited utility, falling far
short of the claims its proponents frequently make for it. But that's
another matter. I'm curious about the imperative tone of your
statement: "[I] cannot dismiss . . . " Of course I can, if I choose
so. What power binds me to such dogmatics?
I find this an oddly authoritarian mode of argument, akin to the
theology I was forced to digest, in lieu of philosophy, in university
in the late sixties. I've since toyed with the notion of independent
thought and practice . . .
>As for the neo-Platonic idea, as being emanation theory ante literam, see
>Yeats distinction between dancer and dance. Which can be read, with proper
>alertness to the poet's use of metaphorical language.
Once again, you seem to read dogmatically, implying that there is a
single correct interpretation, if only I could master a "proper
alertness to . . . metaphorical language" and decode the message
correctly. What happened to Yeats' question mark, to his careful
dialectical, antithetical balancing of poem against poem in his
published volumes? Shot to hell, all of it.
Yeats was, frequently, a pompous portentous git (not simply my own
impression, I've spoken with many who knew him, not a few of whom -
and good poets too - detested him), but he knew enough to keep his
system dynamic, not to allow it freeze to dogma. I think you've left
this particular bird flying on only one wing, Erminia. I hope he has
life assurance.
Trevor
|