John M. Ellis

A beautifully written, exceedingly well argued lament. In particular, Ellis laments the way we have lost faith in literature as a means to connect with the past, and with one another. He is not saying it's wrong to read a book from a feminist perspective or a Marxist perspective or a Post-colonial perspective, or whatever other perspective you may want to grab ahold of, when you read and experience great literature. But he IS saying that insisting on a narrowness of vision, or demanding that a work (what deconstructionists would call "the text") conform to a given set of ahistorical standards, is terribly wrong, and moreover it's disconnecting us from the best traditions of the past. He argues that the modern academic approach to literature is at its heart illogical, unlearned, and above all antithetical to the reasons we read literature to begin with. He decouples his arguments neatly from the edgy concern that a lot of us get, whenever someone criticizes feminist or other nontraditional approaches to literature--that criticizing these approaches is a manifestation of racism/misogyny/cultural imperialism. He allows the reader to get past the fear of being any of these things, and to look at the Humanities and how they are currently taught with fresh eyes.

I felt enlightened by this book. I felt enlightened in particular by the historical threads Ellis weaves together to argue that contemporary literary criticism, with its self-reflective, deeply critical take on works of literature, is merely the latest manifestation of a culture of self-criticism that the West has embraced, and passed through, from Tacitus to Rousseau to Marx to Derrida.

I was persuaded. This is a nuanced argument, unlike other books (The Closing of the American Mind comes to mind) that seem fueled primarily by reactionary backlash.… (más)

Although Ellis does make some very good points about how gender/race/class scholars are negatively affecting literature and history, his argument strays into essentially saying that all gender/race/class scholars are destroying the university system as a whole. That basically denounces all of social science (sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics, political science), not a wise move.

Perhaps he didn't intend to come off that way, but he should have narrowed his focus more on the specific discipline of literature, since that's where his main concern lies, and it's a legitimate concern. Why should Shakespeare classes revolve entirely around Shakespeare's portrayal of women or the lack of representation of lower classes? Of course his writing is a product of his time, but literature classes should go beyond an author's biography and social context. Such instances have only occurred because pure gender/race/class scholarship is currently in vogue in literature departments.

However, Ellis, in the end, lays blame at gender/race/class scholars in general, and those who are in culture-specific departments, like African American Studies or Chinese Studies, and he seeks to discredit them as a whole. That's too far, in my opinion. Yes, we shouldn't necessarily judge literature from the Western canon by today's gender/race/class scholarship, but we should conduct research on the gender/race/class situation of modern times, and we should encourage students to study canons other than the Western canon.

Ellis' arguments are clearly written and insightful at times, but he shouldn't condemn the entire enterprise of gender/race/class scholarship, which can be conducted quite legitimately and for useful purposes.… (más)