EVDebs
enthusiast
Reged: 07/10/05
Posts: 272
|
|
Roger Shattuck, died recently. Shattuck "became an opponent of postmodern trends in the study and teaching of literature, including deconstructionism and semiotics, which he contended stripped literature of its intellectual, moral and human environment. In particular, he lamented that the literary world increasingly failed to celebrate the works of classic writers"-- from NYTimes obit.
Eco is a professor of semiotics and the late Shattuck, a professor at Boston University, disrespected that line of research apparently. That would make for some boring writing, as you can imagine
""One of the great reductionist hermeneutical schemes, however, which is still influential--indeed in many quarters of the academy and elsewhere it enjoys the status of an unquestioned assumption--is the idea developed by one of Nietzsche's most acute students, Michel Foucault, who has followed up on his master's insistence that all cultural expressions, however represented, have to be reduced to a basic fundament, namely, the conflict of powers. The methodology employed by Foucault's latter-day disciples is startlingly simple: look for evidence of oppression. All other questions of style, content, beauty, and truth are not only irrelevant, but probably camouflage. The core issue is power; nothing else really exists. Frank Kermode writes witheringly of the "Foucauldian" school: "It is held to be axiomatic that all knowledge, being socially constructed, has no objective validity--though the knowledge on which this belief is founded is silently excluded from the censure. Professors who are willing to admit that they care very little for literature (it is now quite usual for some of them to do so) will seek in it the one thing that interests them, a political content of which the significance is predetermined, thus committing what Ellis calls "the fallacy of the single factor." They take away from the object of study only what they bring to it....
This said, the problems faced by literary study today as articulated above, are real ones, which I have not exaggerated. The pendulum has swung to an extreme position and the situation has been exacerbated, not ameliorated, by the "hermeneutics of suspicion." In the time remaining to me, I would like to suggest that Christian scholars of literature are in a unique position not only to observe the impasse, but to point to solutions that are distinctively Christian.""
from "The Hermeneutics of Innocence:
Literary Criticism from a Christian Perspective"
Carl P.E. Springer PhD
http://www.leaderu.com/aip/docs/springer.html
Foucalt's pendulum, indeed, has swung. But back to my conspiratorial mind...isn't Boston University where Shattuck taught a Catholic school ? Oh, darn, poor Shattuck wouldn't have wanted THAT information tied to Springer's article ! Egad !
Hermeneutics defined "the theory of interpretation and understanding of a text through empirical means"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
The conflict between the Templars real secret vs. what the Jesuits wish to keep 'control' of...to my researched 'empirical' testing reveals to me to be the necessity for a Third Temple according to Jesuit-contrived eschatology done in the 1500's by Francisco Ribera, in order to protect the Papacy.
More on Michel Foucault
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault
who, attended a Jesuit school "the Jesuit College Saint-Stanislaus" for what it's worth...
Edited by EVDebs (12/11/05 10:57 AM)
|
EVDebs
enthusiast
Reged: 07/10/05
Posts: 272
|
|
Dazzle
Is this what Eco had in mind when he mentions 'being in the periscope' while being Causabon in Foucault's Pendulum ?
Military Periscope http://www.periscope.ucg.com/index1.shtml
|
Splackavellie
stranger
Reged: 05/27/07
Posts: 2
|
|
My main problem with Dan Brown is that he takes his readers to be stupid, feeling the need to explain nearly anything, even the things that are obvious to everyone with a fullgrown head on their shoulders. On top of that, the reader is required to make generic leaps of faith that allow Brown to stall his "epiphanies" for several pages. Umberto Eco never does this, allowing his readers to think for themselves and never downplaying his audience.
I think the main difference between Eco and Brown is displayed in the differences between The Da Vinci Code and Foucault's Pendulum, where the latter succeeds in being both a highly insightful parody and a perfect example of the genre in which the former is simply 'one of many'. The overall tone of Foucault's Pendulum (and pretty much all of Eco's novels) are decidedly more playfull than that of The Da Vinci Code, which illustrates not only the difference in intellect, but also in approach. Eco is a scholar, someone who lives and breathes the subjects and writes novels as a way of entertaining himself. I reckon Umberto Eco writes the kinds of novels that he himself likes to read, full of inside information that he (and by extension his peers) appreciates. I've read both his novels and many of his nonfiction books, and his novels really are lighthearted and even fun compared to his sometimes very dense semiotics books (A Theory of Semiotics as best example). I can imagine writin a novel like Foucault's Pendulum, for a man like Umberto Eco, is relaxing and simply 'having fun'.
Dan Brown, on the other hand, seems to be driven by pretentions. He comes across as an english teacher trying for intellectual recognition by means of writing 'smart novels'. He seems to me someone who researches for the trivia in his book (whereas Eco writes from what he already knows), making his books feel forced more than anything else. Sure, some of the trivia is moderately interesting, but the bigger 'facts' his books bring, can also be read in other popular books (his main influence for The Da Vinci Code obviously was Holy Blood, Holy Grail). Brown is not as immersed in language, logic and his subject matters as Eco is, and makes this painfully obvious in his books. It doesn't speak in the authors favor when a twenty year old reader deciphers the 'age old codes' before the supposed expert codebreakers. It just doesn't make sense!
Nevertheless, Dan Brown's books are entertaining enough, and I'm sure I'll read his next one. If nothing else, it'll keep me entertained for a day or two. As long as you don't take Dan Brown as seriously as he does himself, and don't think too much, his book'll suit you well.
As for Eco.. I personally think Foucault's Pendulum is the greatest novel of the last couple of decades, and one of the greatest masterpieces ever written. Had he written nothing else but this one, Eco still would've been one of my favorite authors. Considering the man has written The Name of the Rose and many other great things too, makes him second to none in my opinion.
|
|