Favourite Literary Critics

It looks like I get to be the first person to type the words

ROLAND BARTHES

after all.

If we're just talking about entertainment value, there's no one quite like Baudrillard. Restraint is a totally foreign notion to him.

Gotta love Judit Butler, though I wish someone would teach her to hold back from writing EVERYTHING in rhetorical questions.

I like Rorty as a philosopher, but I don't think he's particularly good on literature.

Frank Kermode: Search & Destroy.

Josh, I agree. A vanished approach, in a sense a bit like an ideal book report.

Brits will think me insane, but Tom Paulin is good on paper (he's good on TV too, but only because he is drunk and daft: his opinions abt are plainly of no consequence): cf piece on Defoe in the recent LRB. His essay on Ian Paisley in his collected writings is FANTASTIC.

Luc Sante is good. George Steiner used to be good, but is now shit.

Kermode's review of Pynchon's Vineland was a bit of a Pinefox-oid classic (given that its his imprimatur which still sits there on the bac of Lot 49): he knew there were abt a thousand political and/or pop cultural refs he was missing per page, but a. He still read gamely and diligently to the end, then b. Protested mildly that it might for some be a little, um, taxing, in regard to NOT KNOWING WHAT THE FUCK TP WAS GOING ON ABT HALF THE TIME (only he put it nicer than that).

Kermode: that sounds great. I've only ever seen the Imprimatur, not the review.

Steiner... I don't know - does he ever get better or worse? I mean, he's been knocking out the old [Kamp Kommandant / Beethoven Paradox] for about 40 years now.

I don't care for Bloom, I'm afraid. But he is the only critic I know of to have said that The Shadowy Waters was near the apex of Yeats' achievement.

Have been reading late Leavis. Readable, but in a way it's self- parodic (Life, always Life), and peculiarly unilluminating about actual texts (This is Great. This is not Great). I have always thought that the notional association of FRL with 'close reading' was a bit of a red herring. Much of his (worst) work doesn't contain nearly enough close reading.

Kermode Search: Romantic Image? The Classic? Some of the Modern Essays. The one on the Modern, the one on censorship. I reckon he's probably better on TSE than FRL is, too.

For strange critical spectacle of Kermode on working-class fiction, cf. History & Value (1988).

Steiner good I think before (and including) The Portage of AH to San Cristobal: eg On Difficulty, After Babel, Bluebeard's Castle. But lazy and tetchy thereafter: WHY AM I NOT AS FAMOUS AS JOHN LENNON?

Leo Bersani. Garry Wills.

Maybe he's good on Hazlitt, though. I don't know. I never got past the title of that book, which was enough.

Sure it was deliberate the way that Mark S glided from Delaney to Baudrillard. J.B. has never to my knowledge written literary crit, but all his 'theory' is not so much a meta-gag as an exercise in writing a kind of speculative science fiction abt the present ' condition' (J.G. Ballard big fan of Baudrillard, and sometimes the two of 'em sound almost identical - the long RE:search bk interview with Ballard incredibly prophetic abt 'the future', media, etc. etc.) In one interview I read with Baudrillard he almost admits that the effort of maintaining his 'theory' almost drove him mad - his best writing has the same kind of weird leaps of knowledge and logic that you find in prime Phillip K Dick, without any of the human empathy.

I can list far more critics that I don't like than ones I do. Tops are Eagleton and Greenblatt. The Introduction to Literary Theory was where I first learnt about a lot of stuff that has been very important to me since. But I haven't had much luck persuading my students that it's either readable or worthwhile. Does anyone really believe that post-structuralism is best explained as having anything whatsoever to do with what literature people think of as 'structuralism'?

Paul de Man's work is breath-taking. Not just for its intellectual commitment and responsibility, but for its own literary qualities. The effects which de Man locates -- for example the play of blindness and insight -- and then performs within his own work should be essential matters of consideration for anyone studying literature. Not least, for their generally unacknowledged and far less rigourous dissemination amongst other forms of literary analysis with little regard for their most important themes. For example: the attack on historicism; the positioning of the critic relative to the text; the questioning of the notion of the aesthetic; the rhetoric of politics and the politics of rhetoric. I should also add that as a student of Derrida, I would have to agree with Rodolphe Gasche's comment that de Man has far less in common with Derrida when he uses the word 'deconstruction' than he does when he does not use the word 'deconstruction'; further, that Derrida's reading of de Man is not particularly de Man-ian either. So there's no sense in which as a 'deconstruction'-person, if such a thing were possible, I just like de Man on that basis. I have yet to set out to discover quite how much of his work is nicked from Blanchot, however.

Reason I stopped reading TE: In "The Ideology of the Aesthetic" he cites a comment by Gramsci referring to Paul de Man's uncle as if it referred to Paul de Man himself. I only know it refers to his uncle not to him because TE cites it properly in an earlier text. This is not scholarship but fraud.

The TE ref. to Henri de Man is a *********JOKE********. 100% a JOKE. There is a serious point here (as there often is with jokes), but he is NOT trying to get anyone to think that Gramsci was on about Paul de Man. Gramsci's work is mainly c.1920s, de Man's c.1970s!!! Who could possibly imagine that TE was committing 'fraud' here?? It is just a typical TE joke. I'll say that word in big letters one more time:

*****JOKE*****.

For what it's worth, I thought TE's review of Spectres of Marx was brilliant and spot-on. It's not about 'old Marxists banging on' - it's really about pointing out, in terms which you needn't be in the least 'partisan' to accept, why the book is a bad book. If JD's defence was to pretend that TE was just banging an old drum, rather than making cogent criticisms of him as a writer, then that reflects badly on JD.

I am not trying to defend everything TE has ever done or said, or say that one must endorse his political views, or anything. He is a hate- figure for many, and that can't be reversed. But his work has taught me more than that of a lot of other writers, of any kind.

Other points: I found myself agreeing with a lot of what Andrew L said. Yes, of course Benjamin was a literary critic. It would not be far wrong to say that he was more a literary critic than anything else (though 'intellectual' would do as a portmanteau word).

Is Calvino a better critic than novelist? I think so, but then I don't like If On A Winter's Night A Traveller....

TE on "Specters". I'd have to re-read all the relevant material. I personally think "Specters" is one of JD's least successful books, but as so often with all these things it's a question of context. (il n'y a pas dehors de la contexte, perhaps). If I recall correctly, TE's review was originally published in New Left Review, ie one for the boys in his club. The collection put together by Sprinker was generally at least respectful if not always accurate so JD just sounds surprised to have been given TE's piece to read. (What surprised me was how much he and Jameson agreed with each other.) "Specters" was originally an invited conference paper and really doesn't stand up that well to the scrutiny it has received; "Politics of Friendship" for example is much better, because it proceeds in a much more roundabout route. Sadly, "Specters" doesn't make much sense unless read in the context of Derrida's other work of the time.

Which brings me back to my mis-reading of TE on PdM. I think my mistake is to have taken TE seriously, which is not often a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. Fraud was certainly too strong, but his book was published at a point in time when de Man's final lectures were already on the publishing schedule for U Minnesota Press, even if they didn't actually appear until 1996 (?). Without wishing to be a conspiracy theorist, I feel from the juxtaposition of the titles ("The Ideology of the Aesthetic" / "Aesthetic Ideology") that TE implies some kind of death-match -- in the same way that he explicitly pre-empts the deconstruction-influenced reading of Benjamin in his own book on WB. (And note that all the subsequent readings by writers literate in both Frankfurt School and recent French thought are a lot better works (A-G Duttman, Beatrice Hansenn, Eduardo Cadava etc., the Osborne and Benjamin collection 'Destruction and Experience', JD's "Force de loi".))

So back to context -- as an undergrad (from whence this misunderstanding dates) I obviously got TE wrong, which leads me to query not only my own reading competence, but also how well he signals this stuff. Maybe it just depends what side you're on. Again, I don't think there should be a taking of sides necessarily, but TE's work positions the work I am most sympathetic too as "the enemy" so I feel forced into it.

Thanks for the correction!

1. I agree with you that in a way, de Man may have been the ultimate antagonist - the hidden enemy - in TE's IA. I'd forgotten that.

2. The Spectres / Specters review I'm thinking of appeared in Radical Philosophy, early 1996, and was reprinted, I think, in The Eagleton Reader (which - hey!- I don't own).

Can't stop, have to go to the, um, Adorno reading group.

Was given the Eagleton to borrow from my prof when I expressed critical frustration in my first lit class as an undergrad. Book make me frustrated and angry, thought TE was a FULE. I doubt reading him now would improve my opinion, though it would probably make me more informed about how he is a fule.

Don't get me started on Jameson. Both of em approach radical critics the way smaller kewler foax approach pokémon. Neither of em are proper marxists. (Jameson reviewed SoM in NLR, didn't he?)

Did the pinefox somewhere say he had been taught by TE?: curiously — but why curiously? — I have always imagined TE might be a very GOOD teacher, in person. Possibly even grate fun.

I think you guys are wrong about TE and FJ. It makes me sad to see such invective from people like you (ie. highly intelligent people whose thoughts I read very frequently) against two bodies of work which have meant a lot to me. I would like it if you could be more measured, but I don't expect it. I hope I don't sound too irritated: it's just that I have something of a personal investment in their work, a little like TE used to say he had in RW's. It did something to help to teach me 'how to think', if I ever learned (or started learning).

I'd still rather read Barthes though.

I came on him somewhat late (did Maths and Philosophy when a student, then 10 years Applied Music Crit), so got caught up in the bad backwash, never had the unalloyed benefit of the Earlier Years.

My major response to these criticisms, and I'm elaborating / drawing on Derrida's own response ('Marx and Sons'; see also _Marx en Jeu_) here, is a question of context. This is the text of a lecture which Derrida was invited to give. Yes he decided to accept, but the timing -- and the conference title 'Whither Marxism' -- were not his choice. Yes, Derrida himself comments in _Specters_ on the untimely timing of the lecture, but it is at least in part an attempt to re- invigorate "a certain spirit of Marxism" for precisely this reason. It is not, as TE implies, an attempt to claim Marx for deconstruction. Yes, the political position is sketchy, but a convincing context for _Specters_ can be constructed with the aid of the texts around it -- _Politics of Friendship_; 'Force of Law'; 'Passions' -- and Derrida's continued contestation of Heidegger. On this basis, _Specters_ can be made to make sense. I personally don't feel that the ideas are put over particularly clearly in this text, but there is a seriously interesting sketch of a deconstructive politics emerging in it, even if the questions of justice, hospitality, democracy-to-come, hauntology and the critique of historicism are all better presented elsewhere. TE concerns hinself with none of this, relying on anecdotal evidence and polemics instead.

TE is also slightly wrong about Yale deconstruction. I agree with the thrust of his argument, but Derrida has never disowned *anything* done under the name of 'deconstruction.' To do so would precisely undermine his claim that there can be no *proper* inheritance -- of Marxism, of Heidegger, of deconstruction. It's become common to oppose 'French' deconstruction to 'American' deconstruction, but this is generally too crude a division. Besides, the work of Nancy and Lacoue-Labarte, for example, while 'deconstructive' also diverges significantly from that of Derrida. There is certainly a Marxian problematic buried within de Man's work -- there is an essay missing from _Aesthetic Ideology_ on Marx; PdM's debt to Benjamin is crucial; there are interesting correlations between de Man and Althusser on 'ideology'. Moreover, you may not agree with Hillis Miller (I can't stand his work) but there is *a* politics to it.

The sad fact is that there is generally very little useful secondary commentary on Derrida's work. . I'm generally appalled by the standards of mis-representation from those unsympathetic to his work, and obfuscation by those who are sympathetic to it. _Specters_ is a frustrating but powerful text, but it should be approached with caution.

I still don't have an adorno reading group (though would prefer a benjamin one).

I like de Man. It's funny how no-one mentions here the sort of books and essays you read when you're doing an English degree - the awesomer readings in those always amazed me more even than the sweeping general Bloom/ TE / Nabokov stuff. I love: Linda Charnes, Caroline Dinshaw, Robert Douglas-Fairhurst, Kenneth Gross, Empson of course, Sos Eltis, too many more.

Living: James Wood

Youn: I think he is from Lincolnshire, if that's what you were getting at. He told me that he still comes back quite often to see his mother. That surprised me somewhat - I would hardly have guessed that she was alive. For his age, too, is perhaps deceptive in his writing - or so JtN has said.

JtN it was, too, who pointed us all towards Elizabeth Bishop, years ago. If only we'd heeded him then!

I am interested in the Kenner comment, but in a sense to paraphrase him is to lose a lot, for his style is distinctive and an important part of his critical identity. I suppose I am saying, I wish I had read the passage that Ryan is referring to.

OK, so I've not really kept up on such matters and I have a general question regarding, not necessarily "literary," but media theory / philosophy in general: Have there been any useful developments in the area of rhetorical theory (of the Aristotalian model)? A short time ago, I was led to believe that there was a general trend toward such in certain circles and I am curious about the topic in general? Opinions? Suggestions?

This was the one thread where we discussed Kermode. This review -
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n19/kerm01_.html
- I never liked it, but gosh, it's worse than I remembered.

as for Gregory Henry - a) I think lots of them said interesting and insightful things; b) not sure I get your second question. hey, it was 2006, everything was obscure.

Samuel Johnson
Keats' letters
T.S. Eliot
Edmund Wilson
Lionel Trilling
Edward Said
W.H. Auden
Cynthia Ozick
James Wood
Helen Vendler

Some great people for sure, though I really did not like Vendler's little book on Heaney at all. I've not read much Ozick, might like her (started reading her on James once, in a bookshop in Rye I think), though I read an LRB review (of her novel?) once that made her sound like some kind of religious nut (as most religious people sound to me).

Barthes
Woolf
Kenner
Eagleton
Wood, M
Wood, J
David Thomson, when he ventures into this terrain
Connor
Wilson & Trilling, yes, why not?

am kicking myself for never mentioning Janet Malcolm on this thread before

In 2000 or so, I met Dale Peck at a reading and told him that I would love to read a book of his literary criticism, having particularly liked his Pynchon/Wallace essay in the London Review of Books. Wasn't a marketable idea then, but I'm definitely a fan of his essays.

Ozick as well. Adam Gopnik, actually.

I kind of went off Kermode when I read his memoir, can't remember what it was called.

lionel trilling fans might like this passage from james fenton, on poetry that puzzles:

The trilling wire in the blood
Sings below inveterate scars
And reconciles forgotten wars.

What is a trilling wire? Some people have to know the answer. Others don't. (I think a trilling wire is a telegram people used to send to Professor Lionel Trilling, begging for his help in elucidating passages like these.)

I once dated an English professor that wrote herself a little singsong about all of her fave pomo/litcrits - I can still hear here weird vocal inflection whenever I see 'Derrida' 's name. That said - I'll second Sam Delany above as a good example of a writer who takes analysis elsewhere. Eagleton is a boring twit.

Once my friend's kid mispronounced our other friend's wife Julia's name so it came out "Derrida."

I think my tastes in fiction roughly boil down to George Steiner and Edmund White.

Love to read Sam Delaney's criticism.

Kermode: Not Entitled.

Surely not offensive but not that fascinating either really.

I would like to use this place to express my amazement that as he approaches his 91st birthday Frank Kermode is still popping out articles on the regular.

yeah, idk how he does it. i saw him give a talk a few months ago -- like an hour-long talk -- and he str8 murdered it. for all the hype about people working and living longer, 91 is still hell of old, and most people i know of that age can't write a cogent post-it note.

Susan Sontag? Sure she wasn't an academic and didn't specifically focus on Lit but oddly unmentioned in this thread.

I would like to use this place to express my amazement that as he approaches his 91st birthday Frank Kermode is still popping out articles on the regular.

― Merdeyeux, Sunday, 8 August 2010 19:39 (1 week ago) Bookmark

sadly not any more. r.i.p.

aw man

:-(

Kermode's Shakespeare's Language is probably one of my favorite books on Will. r.i.p. dude...

I need a crash course in literary criticism: what it aims to do, what it can do (& what I can do with it). What should I read?

Posting before reading: https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-difficulties-of-george-steiner/