Talk:School of Resentment
 | The contents of the School of Resentment page were merged into The Western Canon and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Orphaned article
[edit]The fact that this article is orphaned is completely natural. The article clearly and intelligently communicates concepts that oppose current policy and attitudes. Therefore, it is "given the silent treatment." This is an age–old, effective tactic that has been used by academics for many centuries.Lestrade (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
- This article is no longer orphaned. Of course, that happens with time. It is cited in Harold Bloom, The Western Canon, Literary Theory and New Historicism.Olsonist (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Olsonist
Confusion: Postmodernism = Marxism?!!
[edit]Postmodernism and poststructuralism (as seen in Derrida and others) are apolitical and relativistic, not a leftist and activist intellectual current. They are also extremely pretentious, and that's what people like Sokal have criticized, but that's quite irrelevant for this article. This has nothing to do with the American right-wing hysteria about lefties in academia or alleged attacks against "the West" or "the established values". To the extent that there is a connection, it's that the Postmodernists, while rejecting the Marxist narrative, do not embrace Christian and nationalist narratives either - and the rabid Right-wing feels that all those who are not 100% on its side are against it. If Bloom was stupid enough to equate the two, that should be sourced.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that this article has a skewed bent toward supporting Bloom and weakly inferring, without many clear and direct references, that some people simply do not belong here in America, where "we" abide by the "canon". It is a part of the larger lack of initiative on many people's part, a failure of nerve really, to allow for the full debate to be heard, as to allow the argument on both sides to be aptly articulated would cancel some of the "truth" that those putting vast energy into maintaining control over the definiton seek to profess.
- It is an intentional oversight in the war over meaning, eg. the cultural war. Why not just explain it all objectively? There is a difference in perception see Derrida's Différance. We can simply allow difference to exist, rather than seeking to negate "reality", but NO, "the other", (ie. the Real Americans) won't have that. Edunoramus (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Bloom did not equate the two, he said their effects on literary criticism are similar, and so they are: winning debates by screaming "that's racist!".--75* 18:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- What a trite straw man. Naturally, your opponents are always biased, while you yourself are not, you're supremely objective and neutral; a conceit I see particularly on the right. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Kate Who?
[edit]Citation required for 'feminist Kate Ellis'... who is this person and why is she singled out as an example in this article? No context is given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenFBanham (talk • contribs) 04:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"This school deserves to be taken seriously"
[edit]I think this comment by Rorty comes from an error on his part. I think he has misunderstood the context.
Feminism (for example) - *in itself* - certainly deserves to be taken seriously. Any feminist individual who happens to study literature deserves to be taken just as seriously as all others who study literature. But a specifically-feminist interpretation of literature is as unhelpful and as destructive as a specifically-religious interpretation of feminism, or a specifically-Latvian interpretation of chemistry. Whether some individual Latvians are making a significant contribution to the study of chemistry is only for chemists to decide (not other Latvians), and changing the content of chemistry instruction to make it more like Latvia would be nonsense, because Latvian identity and the study of chemistry aren't relevant to each other. Similarly for religion-based decisions about what the content of feminism ought to be, and similarly for feminism-based decisions about what the content of literature ought to be. TooManyFingers (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)