Tuesday, October 03, 2006
the opiate of the masses
I just finished reading Terry Eagleton's summary of New Criticism in his "The Rise of English." Before that I was reading new critics (or New Critics) Brooks, Wimsatt, and Beardsley explanations and applications of New Criticism. And all of this most likely means nothing or very little to you, my favorite reader, who was expecting some dazzling new insight from the top floor of the JFSB. Well, I'm on the top floor of the library tonight--or at least as top as they'll let us get--and joining my studies with those of the masses is doing weird things to this poor girl's head.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
It's because you're studying at the wrong extreme of the library. Everyone goes to the fifth floor. Now the first floor, that's where all the cool kids study. Or, rather, none of the cool kids. It's generally just me and the Decemberists down there.
(Also, you should be listening to the new Decemberists album when you study.)
You could be writing papers introducing yourself. I'm only saying.
.
Wait---
New Criticism is the opiate of the masses?
Marx must be so disappointed.
Ah, but I was reading a summary of New Criticism from a Marxist perspective.
Dear, dear Eagleton.
*wa-BAM!*
(He said that poetry acted as a religion, hence the opiate reference.)
Isn't this a flavor at pudding on the rice?
It seems to me that the consensus among the students and faculty in the Dept. of Humanities, Classics and Comp Lit at good old BYU is that this Eagleton fellow is kind of full of crap.
.
Ah.
Of course, my only papers on Marxism were to demonstrate how it breaks down when it's ever applied with rigor, so I would have been fine with Marx himself being the opiate.
Mmm.
Lemon-opium muffins....
Post a Comment