Back-paddling towards your goal

In Robert Schole's book Textual Power, he asserts that a fate should be avoided. "Since the nineteen-sixties we have been losing our congregations, and we are scared to death that our temples will be converted into movie theaters or video parlors and we will end our days doing intellectual janitorial or custodial work." In this statement, he is talking about losing students, and professors in some cases, since the inception (roughly the 1960's) of what is now called 'literary theory'. He goes on to state, “What went wrong with the idea of literature as secular scripture can be described simply as the loss of faith in the universality of human nature and a corresponding loss of faith in the universal wisdom of the authors of literary texts." Isn't this what literary theory espouses? That the author doesn't know what he or she is writing and the meaning can be ambiguous?


To me, he is saying that we want literary theory to continue, albeit revised, but since we have been teaching it, it is pushing away students. He then goes on to show that a 'universal wisdom of the authors' is in declining faith among students. Yet, the non-wisdom of authors is exactly what is promulgated by the very teachers that want to increase their attendances. This is extremely evident in the classes that we are taking here at ECU. Even Professor Grasso made the statement relating to 'nonauthorial ownership'. I further believe that the deconstructionist approach Schole's and many more take, adds to the problem of losing students.

On reading Montaigne

My thoughts from the reading of "Of a Monstrous Child":

You can draw a conclusion of Montaigne's belief system from this reading. That would be his belief in a higher power--God, if you like. The references he makes refering to a child that is disfigured in any way is not seen in the same light when viewed by this entity; it is perfect, it is complete. Mankinds fascination with a perfect physique has skewed our perception of what the Creator has accomplished.

My thoughts from the reading of "Of Books":

There were several passages that I felt were thought-provoking. Some I will discuss in small measure and some I will not either due to the brevity I wish to accomplish or due to the fact that I found the passage simply had an aesthetic value.

1. "Whoever is in search of knowledge, let him fish for it where it dwells..."
2. I enjoyed his hint to the reader when he mentioned, "Let attention be paid not to the matter, but to the shape I give it." This is a signpost for the reader to notice the slant or the way he presents his material.
3. "I should certainly like to have a more perfect knowledge of things, but I do not want to buy it as dear as it costs." I think this would mostly pertain to the time involved spent pursuing such an endeavour. In today's society, it could also relate to cost. A common statement made by young freshmen is the distaste of having to learn about many different subjects not necessarily pertaining to their major. Even some seasoned students may not relish the fact of the 'waterboarding' affect of being mandated to pursue a particular discourse they find distasteful or irrelevant.
4. "O foolish and dull-witted age!"--Catullus (After 500 yrs of Montaigne adding this in his essay, it still is applicable.)
5. When criticizing other writers he make this analogy, "They mount on horseback because they are not strong enough on their legs." I think the meaning is self-evident.
6. I liked his comparison to two particular writers; Plutarch and Cicero. Of Plutarch, he stated, "Plutarch...contents you more and pays you better. He guides us..." Of Cicero he mentioned, "..what life and marrow there is , is smothered by his long-winded preparations. I find nothing but wind." This too is self-evident. I liked his word usage when describing these two contemporaries.