Dublin Literature? from Final Year Student.

Denerick

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I don't follow your argument here completely though I have an idea that you are attacking literary criticism while Dracula is only an after thought.
Are you saying historians are in some way superior to literary critics? If you are well that is a something that philosophers from Aristotle to Diderot to Nietzsche among many more completely disagree with and find the fictive author's account of 'history' much more illuminating.
I was only putting forward a thought which the OP may like to pick up seeing as they are doing a thesis on English literature.

I think that particular theory is unfounded and based on a few rather obvious parallels (Transylvania, rural, superstitious peasantry = Ireland?) (Dracula, aristocratic... = Parnell?) Its a load of nonsense. Its the kind of stuff someone invents so they can throw together a PHD thesis. I don't really blame them though, there is only so much you can really say about a book after all, eventually you have to create the must ludicrous arguments in order just to survive. I think cynicism is a virtue and sorely lacking in most English Literature university departments.

Namedropping philosophers isn't a substitute for proper debate by the way. I advise we drop this thing.

Mardy Bum

Denerick wrote: »

I think that particular theory is unfounded and based on a few rather obvious parallels (Transylvania, rural, superstitious peasantry = Ireland?) (Dracula, aristocratic... = Parnell?) Its a load of nonsense. Its the kind of stuff someone invents so they can throw together a PHD thesis. I don't really blame them though, there is only so much you can really say about a book after all, eventually you have to create the must ludicrous arguments in order just to survive. I think cynicism is a virtue and sorely lacking in most English Literature university departments.

Namedropping philosophers isn't a substitute for proper debate by the way. I advise we drop this thing.

Agreed yes its not the place for a debate as you seem to already have a closed perspective on it and an obvious dislike of criticism to boot. The namedropping was because I didn't really want to get into the debate either but wanted to highlight a point regardless. Nobody would consider this as a PhD thesis as it has been argued quite thoroughly at this stage by a number of high profile academics over the last sixty years. Its fine to disagree with the argument that an expert has carefully examined if you are very well versed in the area yourself, but to also claim it is ludicrous is ignorant otherwise.

If you talk to any well known and respected artist/writer (I mean proper writers i.e not Dan Brown) about their work you will soon realise there is a hell of a lot more going on than most mere mortals would ever work out.

If this comes across as tetchy it is not suppose to be.

Denerick

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Agreed yes its not the place for a debate as you seem to already have a closed perspective on it and an obvious dislike of criticism to boot.

My perspective is not closed, I just think its a rubbish theory. What I think of the various schools of thought now fashionable in English Literature departments is somewhat seperate.

If you talk to any well known and respected artist/writer (I mean proper writers i.e not Dan Brown) about their work you will soon realise there is a hell of a lot more going on than most mere mortals would ever work out.

This is the second time you've pulled out this bizarre Dan Brown thing. The lady doth protest too much. As regards to the 'hell of a lot more going on', I really have to question what you're getting at. I may find the minutae dissection of literature to be lacking in taste (Failing to see the forest for the trees) and as someone with a background in history I also get annoyed when literary theorists confuse cause with effect, but regardless.

I'll allow you the final word, I'm holding back quite a bit here, feel an undignified urge to say things that would get me banned.

Mardy Bum

Denerick wrote: »

My perspective is not closed, I just think its a rubbish theory. What I think of the various schools of thought now fashionable in English Literature departments is somewhat seperate.

This is the second time you've pulled out this bizarre Dan Brown thing. The lady doth protest too much. As regards to the 'hell of a lot more going on', I really have to question what you're getting at. I may find the minutae dissection of literature to be lacking in taste (Failing to see the forest for the trees) and as someone with a background in history I also get annoyed when literary theorists confuse cause with effect, but regardless.

I'll allow you the final word, I'm holding back quite a bit here, feel an undignified urge to say things that would get me banned.

Ok I apologise, my posts were tetchy ( and slightly pompous) on re-reading and I didn't mean for anything to be construed as an attack on you.

Dan Brown is my go to for authors that have one purpose and are not trying to create a piece of art which illuminates humanity or anything close.

What I mean by "hell of a lot..." is that you may think a work is relatively simple and straight forward but underneath this lies a world waiting to be discovered by the keen observer. Oscar Wilde's art is testament to this. Most great writers were avid literary critics and theorists and so these roots have to be examined and dissected otherwise what is the point of the work.

Hermy

The Gingerman by J.P. Dunleavy