 |
 |
Yup, Peter I have a similar unease about L.T., not that I'm inclined to a conservative position. As you say, it is not 'predictive', unlike S.T, well, I can accept that, where I get very suspicious is that it doesn't seem to be descriptive either. I mean, say, in the sense that Darwinian or thereafter biology is. As for Muller, best I can say is read 'Germania', it's unforgettable, and definitely not 'flip' nor 'brittle'. So it is as bad with engineers too? Jaysus! Best Dave David Bircumshaw Leicester, England Home Page A Chide's Alphabet Painting Without Numbers www.paintstuff.20m.com/index.htm http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Howard" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 8:47 PM Subject: Back on Planet Earth - theory in literature > On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, david.bircumshaw wrote... > > >Now what I'd like to hear, as I believe you have a background in the > >sciences, are your views on the status of what is peddled as 'theory' in > >literature. > > David, > > I don't know enough literary theory, and don't know enough *about* > literary theory to be able to say much that's very helpful. I don't > think literary theory has very much in common with scientific theory. A > big part of the point of the latter is its ability to predict what will > happen in the future, but I'm not sure that literary theory is very > strong on prediction, is it? I tend to be suspicious of L.T. because > it's so often inexorably linked with some political agenda. Not that > S.T. is dissociated from politics (as Galileo will probably point out > over coffee at my next dinner party) but it tends not to have an overt > political intent. > > I'm also unconvinced that L.T. is likely to be very helpful in either > increasing my enjoyment of poetry, or enabling me to write better poems, > which are the things that really interest me. > > But I'm speaking from a position of ignorance, so if anyone wants to > correct me, I'd welcome it. I always get irritated when people say > they're not interested in understanding the technical language of > poetry, and stop their ears when the a word like "dactyl" is mentioned, > so I may be pontificating in a similarly urticarious manner. > > Best, > -- > Peter > > http://www.hphoward.demon.co.uk/poetry/ >