New arrival to the Pittsburgh blogging scene, Pinky, recently posted about a visit by literary critic/lawyer Stanley Fish. An interesting write up, and it made me think about things that I barely understand, especially literary criticism.
I also thought about the realm of literary criticism when I saw an article on technology by Anne Galloway. Galloway posted an abstract of a paper she would be giving. I almost got what she was saying about the relationship of technologies to our everyday life. Then I was laid low by the following:
This is most troublesome when we consider the sometimes fine line between the liberating potential of the carnivalesque and the oppressive tactics of the spectacular—to name just two recurring themes in our myths of pervasive computing.
I don't get what she's saying. I might get what she's saying. Maybe I should get what she's saying.
How to judge and whether to trust literary critics, fast-talkers, intellectuals, and rhetoriticians made me think of one of my favorite characters, the Beverly Hillbillies' Jed Clampett. Jed had a load of common sense and mother wit, and never let things get by him.
Literary critics sometimes remind me of Phil Silvers' character Honest John Shifty Shafer trying to put one by Jed.
If Jed needed to know something, he'd find out. He was hardly ever bamboozled by fast talkers, socialites, and big city bankers. When I hear a literary critic talk I sometimes wonder if they, like Shifty Shafer, would pass the Jed Clampett test.
Remember this is the Jed Clampett test, not the . . .
Granny test - she'd fill Stanley Fish's yankee behind with buck shot (or perhaps the rock salt with which Jed replaced the buckshot) before he could begin his rhetoric-in';
Jethro test - It wouldn't take Jethro too long to become a deconstructionist along with being a short order cook/brain surgeon/secret agent;
Elly Mae test - Disappointed they aren't literary critters;
Milburn Drysdale - No money in the humanities;
Miss Jane Hathaway - Maybe she'd understand it, but she sure wouldn't be able to explain it to Jed.
I tend to think if it were worth understanding, Jed would understand it. He'd furrow his brow, use a down-home metaphor, and a light would come to his eyes. "Displacing the terms of opposition -- the dickens you say."
Posted by mastr at September 20, 2006 12:05 PMThanks for the clarification, Anne.
For more evidence that Anne is not a pretentious writer, but a good writer working in a dense thicket of new technologies, power relationships, everyday life, etc., please go to http://www.purselipsquarejaw.org/.
Posted by: Mark at September 25, 2006 03:19 PMHow to judge and whether to trust literary critics, fast-talkers, intellectuals, and rhetoriticians...
Well, I always try to ask questions first :-) The particular phrase that troubles you refers specifically to critiques of everyday life by Mikhail Bakhtin (the carnivalesque) and Guy Debord (the spectacle). These approaches are common in the spaces where art meets technology and they continue to inform and inspire a variety of mobile tech and locative media projects.
I tend to think if it were worth understanding, Jed would understand it.
I like that! I use my mum as my personal barometer, but everyone interacts with different people in different ways. When I speak with her it's not the same as when I speak to a room full of architects or with a group of teenagers participating in a design project I'm working on. The abstract you read is for a specialised audience, although it will be open to the public and I'll adjust the details and explanations accordingly.
In any case, thanks for reminding me that my language can sometimes get very dense. I always try not to treat people as though they're stupid, but I never mean to be incomprehensible or pretentious in the process!
Posted by: Anne at September 21, 2006 11:31 AM