Author Archives: projectnarr

Upcoming Events, Streaming Audio and Video

For information about upcoming events being sponsored by Project Narrative, please visit the linked page.

Follow this link for streaming audio

Visit here for streaming video 

Be sure to check here and our sister site, http://projectnarrative.osu.edu/ ,for regularly updated content.

Advertisements

The Death of the Author?

40 years ago, in his essay on “The Death of the Author,” Roland Barthes argued that “Writing is that neutral, composite, oblique space where our subject slips away, the negative where all identity is lost, starting with the very identity of the body writing.” Further, Barthes went on to suggest: “We know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single ‘theological’ meaning (the ‘message’ of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture….[T]he writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original. His only power is to mix writings, to counter the ones with the others, in such a way as never to rest on any one of them.”

Roland Barthes

 What is the status of Barthes’s claims four decades later? With benefit of hindsight, how does his essay measure up against Foucault’s contemporaneous study, “What Is An Author?” More generally, what are some of the problems and possibilities of efforts to reclaim authorial agency in the wake of poststructuralism?(Note: comments are welcome. If you would like to be able to author separate posts–recognizing, of course, the charged theoretical implications involved in the idea of authorship–please e-mail smith.5378@osu.edu)

Post Your Ideas, Announcements, CFPs, etc. Here!

Richard Dutton: The Debate Continues

My thanks to Aman and Jim for such a lively, entertaining and thought-provoking session. I just hate to let it end there …The reason I became a historicist, having trained as anything but (Cambridge Practical Criticism is about as a-historicist as it gets), is that I became increasingly frustrated  by the slipperiness of meaning both at the linguistic level and at the level of genre. Words and genres simply do not stand still, and our assumption that we can read them now as anyone read them even twenty years ago (without the utmost circumspection) is deeply suspect. We may continue to read Pride and Prejudice, but any assumption that we continue to read it with anything like the understanding brought to it by (say) the Prince Regent on its publication seems to me simply misguided. Continue reading

Jim Phelan’s Response: What’s at Stake between Historical and Rhetorical Approaches

Well, there’s gratitude for you.  You give a colleague a copy of your new book and then he goes and publicly trashes it—while you’re sitting next to him.  Still, I have no one to blame but myself—not only did I give Aman the book but I also noted in my inscription that it would provide ammunition for him in this debate.  So, who’s my real opponent here?

I think I better leave that as, well, a rhetorical question and express my  sincere gratitude.  I’m grateful to you for coming out, even if you’re more interested in the spectacle of a possible Non-Celebrity Death Match than in what’s at stake in the differences between historicist and rhetorical approaches to narrative.  And I’m deeply to Aman for suggesting this debate in the first place, for his willingness to make the first statement, and especially for his clear articulation of his historicist-oriented quarrels with rhetorical theory, and his identification of the larger stakes of those quarrels.  Since those matters are so important to this debate, let me begin by summarizing them.  Aman has two related quarrels: (1) rhetorical theory’s efforts to talk about the experience of reading are deeply flawed because rhetorical theory inevitably flattens out that experience and ends up working with what Aman calls “a kind of stunted affective response,”  (2) This flattening out is inevitable because of the particular historical situation in which rhetorical theory operates. In our situation, “academia’s particular institutional pressures . . . force one to make affect marginal in an effort to be attentive, to be smart, and to have all the answers.”  One can see the power of these institutional pressures in the rhetorical theory’s characteristic mode of expression—its use of diagrams and taxonomies, which give it affinities to the bureaucratic memo.  As he moves to what’s at stake in his preference for an historicist approach, Aman contends that the advantage of historicist criticism is not that it is any less bureaucratic but that it is more open to critical self-reflexivity, more likely to be aware of how our institutional situation constrains our accounts of reading and thus more highly attuned to the differences between our practices and those of audiences in the past.  Because rhetorical criticism denies “the particularity of professional reading” and declares “its affective vagueness as a universal norm,” rhetorical criticism actually “prevents such self-reflexive knowledge.”  Consequently, the choice for the historicist approach over the rhetorical approach is relatively easy.

Now if I believed all that, I’d be a historicist too.

Continue reading

Aman Garcha’s Opening Statement: What’s at Stake?

To begin to discuss the differences between historicist and rhetorical criticism, it’s necessary to provide some definitions.  Historicist criticism assumes that the critic has a relationship of otherness to a literary text’s perspectives, references, and value judgments.  What accounts for this “otherness,” moreover, is history, that is the temporal, geographical, and cultural differences between the critic’s immediate circumstances and those in which the text was created and/or published.  This definition refers to historicism broadly:  for instance, to New Historicism and some forms of political criticism, which are rooted in post-structuralist ideas, and to book history, biographical criticism, and philology, which are rooted in more “traditional” accounts of cultural change.  The historicist criticism I’m talking about can be thought of abstractly – it analyzes literary narratives in terms of historical narratives – or, better, concretely – it reaches its conclusions by using a lot of history’s markers: that is, references to dates, geographical locations, political events and turning points, etc.           

Continue reading

Streaming Video of PN Events

http://projectnarrative.osu.edu/events/video.cfm