From Joseph Epstein’s review in the Wall Street Journal of The Cambridge History of the American Novel:
Only 40 or 50 years ago, English departments attracted men and women who wrote books of general intellectual interest and had names known outside the academy—Perry Miller, Aileen Ward, Walter Jackson Bate, Marjorie Hope Nicolson, Joseph Wood Krutch, Lionel Trilling, one could name a dozen or so others—but no longer. Literature, as taught in the current-day university, is strictly an intramural game.
This may come as news to the contributors to “The Cambridge History of the American Novel,” who pride themselves on possessing much wider, much more relevant, interests and a deeper engagement with the world than their predecessors among literary academics. Biographical notes on contributors speak of their concern with “forms of moral personhood in the US novels,” “the poetics of foreign policy,” and “ecocriticism and theories of modernization, postmodernization, and globalization.”
Yet, through the magic of dull and faulty prose, the contributors to “The Cambridge History of the American Novel” have been able to make these presumably worldly subjects seem parochial in the extreme—of concern only to one another, which is certainly one derogatory definition of the academic. These scholars may teach English, but they do not always write it, at least not quite. A novelist, we are told, “tasks himself” with this or that; things tend to get “problematized”; the adjectives “global” and “post”-this-or-that receive a good workout; “alterity” and “intertexuality” pop up their homely heads; the “poetics of ineffability” come into play; and “agency” is used in ways one hadn’t hitherto noticed, so that “readers in groups demonstrate agency.” About the term “non-heteronormativity” let us not speak.
These dopey words and others like them are inserted into stiffly mechanical sentences of dubious meaning. “Attention to the performativity of straight sex characterizes . . . ‘The Great Gatsby’ (1925), where Nick Carraway’s homoerotic obsession with the theatrical Gatsby offers a more authentic passion precisely through flamboyant display.” Betcha didn’t know that Nick Carraway was hot for Jay Gatsby? We sleep tonight; contemporary literary scholarship stands guard.
Old Life 
I read that review, about a week ago I think. Dead on! I don’t know whether such folks are sincere, or in the words of the late and brilliant, worldviewless George Orwell, “The greatest enemy of clear language is insincerity.”
LikeLike
I can’t recall the exact title, but I think my favorite AAR (American Academy of Religion) conference paper title of all time had to do with the Trinity as the foundation of “polyvalent erotic love.”
I kid you not.
LikeLike
“Perry Miller, Aileen Ward, Walter Jackson Bate, Marjorie Hope Nicolson, Joseph Wood Krutch, Lionel Trilling”
Known outside of the academy? I’ve only heard of Trilling and I couln’t name a thing he wrote.
LikeLike
I also had only heard of Trilling and Miller. But I think known outside of the academy here means known to ANYONE outside of the academy rather than to NO ONE, as is mostly the case today.
LikeLike
Some good reading material this Labor day weekend- stuff that has made me reflect on significant influences and events in my life; the Epstein essay, the posts by Darryl and the essays by Gaffin and Riddlebarger on eschatology. They brought back lots of memories.
The Schaeffer posts reminded me of my days spent in Traverse City, Michigan between 1975 and 1981. I had just moved into my brothers half-unfinished upstairs house that he had built on River Rd. in Traverse City. It was a Christian community of 5 separate houses after my baby-boomer brother had experimented in a Christian commune in Omena, Michigan between Suttons Bay and Northport way up in the northern sections of the lower peninsula. He and his Russian Literature major, Vanderbilt grad wife, had just had their 1st child and did not think communal living was appropriate anymore. So they moved onto the land of a fundamentalmist/arminian/slightly Calvinistic junior high school English teacher- Alan Holbrook who kind of led the ex-hippie communal groups at Omena fellowship. To get to the point, I had visited my brothers Christian community the weekend before I left for my first year of College at Wittenberg University in Springfield, Ohio. It had a profound effect on me and I ended up talking to my brother about 3 hours after the community fellowship group meeting. He shared the Gospel with me and it somehow took root in my confused soul. I lasted until about Thanksgiving break at Wittenberg because all I wanted to do was read my Bible and try to understand my new found faith. I was not into my studies- especially after taking a religious survey class that was mostly readings from contemporary theologians like Paul Tillich et. al. So, that is how I ended up moving in with my brother and then attending Northwestern Michigan Community College in Traverse City. Schaeffer was becoming popular back then among evangelicals, so my brothers wife and I began discussing the Schaeffer books quite indepthly in our after dinner conversations. A guy named Jerry Hall, a logician/philosopher type, began entering into the conversations too, but he was not too keen on Schaeffer.
I took a lot of history classes at NMC- Ancient history, Medieval history and the history of Western Civilization. I also took a year long class that had a phiolsophy/logic professor, an art history professor and an English lit. professor, all giving one hour lectures on various authors from ancient, medieval and modern history. It was a great class, when I look back on it, but it confused me more than helped me at that particular time in my life, with a limited understanding of the Christian faith. I wish I could go back and take them again with what I know now.
The Epstein essay reminded me of my days in the Air Force between 1981 and 1985. I started reading Orwell and Russian literature quite heavily during this time. I read everything by Solzhenitsyn, Dostoyevski and Orwell during this time and their biographies too. Unfortunately, I have never read anything by Cathar or Theodore Dreiser, whom Epstein names as the best writers of the last century. I don’t even know what they wrote about. Are we Christians a community amongst ourselves without much understanding of what amounts to great literature in these modern times? Epstein would probably look upon us as insignificant. He does not even mention Wendell Barry. And he regards John Updike as not so worthy either. I wonder what the President of Westminster Seminary, California thinks about that assessment.
Finally, the Gaffin and Riddlebarger essays rememinded me of the days I took a ten year hiatus from church but started reading heavily from the Reformation theologians and Modern Reformation magazine. I developed some bad habits during this time but spent lots of time with non-Christians because I got disgusted with what I saw going on in charismatic/arminian/evangelical churches. I’m still fighting off the effects of those bad habits but at least I now know where to turn to get forgiveness and restoration- a good reformation church although I still believe there is a lack of good ones.
LikeLike
I failed to mention my days at Calvin College from 1990-1994 where transformational literature began filling my mind again. After my days in the Air Force I began reading Reconstructionist literature which prepared me for Calvin College. However, when I look back on those days it was the time I spent at the “happy hour” on Friday afternoons at the 28th street Fridays in Grand Rapids that had the deepest effect on me. There was a group of 5 or 6 former Calvin philosophy students who took a bunch of classes taught by Nicolas Woltersdorf years earlier and one of the guys was convinced he was destined to write the next great American novel. He was an atheist who had a deep respect for Wolterstorf. Needless to say, we had some really heady discussions in a half drunken stupor.
LikeLike
John, speaking of NMC, communal living and 60s throwbacks, did you never sit at the feet of Dr. Mark G. Ross for a dose of human communication 101? (His L’Abri was in Leelanau county between Suttons Bay and Northport.) I recall him summing up female-to-male communication with a simultaneous “come hither, go away” gesture. With apologies to the Center on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, who says faith is necessary to figure out nature?
LikeLike
Zrim,
I think I have told you before that I never took a class form Mark Ross- my English lit professors were Vermullian, Shaw and Kelly. Leelanau county is certainly a beautiful area. I watched a lot of Woody Allen movies in the Sutton’s Bay movie theater.
In regards to the faith not necessary to figuring out nature thing, I am getting a better grasp on that after reading many posts by you and Darryl and Van Drunen’s books. A book that Paul recommended also is good on explaining why it is not necessary to have faith in order to understand nature. Robert Kane’s, A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will was a good insightful read. It explained, quite convincingly, how a soul can come to the conclusion that moral responsibility is the duty of every soul capable of reflective self-control. He did not bring any ideas like Romans 7 into the discussion but showed that we all have the capability of coming to moral conclusions with or without faith.
LikeLike
Zrim,
As Darryl stated to me once after I told him of my admiration of Woody Allen’s Deconstructing Harry, that people may take me as a misogynist. With that comment of “come hither go away” you may be mistaken as one too. Does nature lead us to misogyny?
And I was just invited by a artsy fartsy female (a painter who makes her living by her works of art and tuturing junior high and high school students in painting techniques) to take a walk with her this fine labor day afternoon. I wonder how this will work out. She might catch on to my come hither go away attitudes.
LikeLike
John, if an egalitarian hippie can describe male-female communications that way then I don’t see why an elitist Christian can’t. Besides, some have said that there is a difference between a male chauvinist and a male chauvinist pig.
But if Paul wants to help make 2k points one does wonder what gives with this sort smear:
http://analytictheologye4c5.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/r2k-same-only-different/
LikeLike
Zrim,
I read the whole essay by Paul- did he email it to you or what? How did you go about finding it? So, we 2kers are baptizing Rawlsian political theory and philosophy (even though we do not know it). We are committing the sin of reasonableness and not bending the knee to Almighty Reason- even though Paul does try to qualify that in the end by not attributing divine qualities to Reason (whatever that means). Isn’t it the work of the Law and the Gospel that brings salvation to God’s people? Paul talks little of the Law, the Gospel, the Sacraments but places Reason, Logic and Philosophy high on the pedastal of convincing people of what ultimate truth is. It is up to Paul’s convincing powers of reason, not the work of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit in Word and Sacrament that matters the most. Paul has put quite an ambitious role on himself and others in the public square. Perhaps he is the modern day Paul of Taursus. I am not so sure he doesn’t think this about himself.
I still enjoyed his recommended book by Robert Kane- the earlier chapters were slow going but the latter chapters were very interesting reading.
LikeLike
He even mentioned your name in the essay Zrim- you should be honored to be named amongst that group.
LikeLike
I wonder where Paul is getting his ammunition from- he has to be drawing from some enemies that 2K theology has begun developing. There is starting to be a lot of animosity towards 2K theologians.
LikeLike
Gotta love the irony, Z. You mention “smearing” you, and then John Y. smears me and then shows that either he can’t or refuses to understand some of the rather simple points made. Good stuff. Anyway, Z, there was no “smear” there. The section quoted by Smith could have been written about 2K and not Rawls and public reason. It’s spot on. It’s *you* to a T, bro. I also did a follow up post addressing the only think I could imagine you thought was a smear.
LikeLike
And John, why not mention my posts on 2K and natural law? Since 2Kers don’t want to help themselves, I’ve presented some ways forward for 2K and made it’s appeal to natural law more respectable than any 2K blogger I know of. One would think you guys would be grateful, sheesj 🙂
LikeLike
Wow, Paul, no footnotes, quotes, or links for any of your bad guys? Darryl Hart, Scott Clark, et al. have a “loss of confidence in reason to solve political and social problems?” You read “From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin,” right?
Can you give us a list of your good guys?
LikeLike
MM, they didn’t loose hope in *public reason* to solve them.
LikeLike
And MM, my claims are too obvious to need citing. Read the comments at CO or GB. Also, read the ad nauseum claims that politics is about *compromise* by those like Horton (cf. uh, his books). This is all classic Rawlsianism. Also see my follow-up post. Not liking me doesn’t mean it’s mandatory to disagree with me just to disagree. John Y. has that job, anyway.
LikeLike
More evidence is shown in the ad nauseum claims by 2Kers that we should stand all wide-mouthed and dumbfounded by the mere fact that people have different opinions. Really, these things are obvious, MM. If I had a penny for every time a 2Ker thought the existence of another viewpoint backed up by some “reasons” shows that we can’t usher in “right” or “wrong” verdicts on the matter. This is pervasive. Did you see the recent posts by Stellman where he acted as if the mere existence of some atheist’s arguments against the historicity of Jesus somehow meant something? What else explains the fact that 2kers think difference of opinion somehow means both opinions are legitimate?
Also, MM, do me a favor and check out all of Zrimster’s and Hartser’s hit pieces on “worldviewism” or “transformationalism” or “Christian worldview advocates” etc., and see how many “footnotes” and “links” they have. Give me a break, bruddah.
LikeLike
Oh, MM, I have a quote from Zrim saying politics and all political viewpoints is “adiaphora.” Now, how ’bout ‘dem apples? You know what adiaphora is, right? To call all politics and political viewpoints “adiaphora” is to lose confidence in reason in the poitical realm. However, there’s still an air of “reasoning” that goes on, as the Smith book diagnoses.
I’m hear to help, keep reading the blog, thanks 🙂
LikeLike
MM, when I tried to show Hart that Christianity had something to say to mathematics, he said 2+2 equaled a different value depending on what base you added in. As I point out in my latest post, this desire to distance oneself from Christianity having anything to do with matters outside salvation has resulted in an abysmal record on reasoning.
LikeLike
But, Paul, to hyperventilate at the suggestion that liberty applies political outlook seems to imply, to me at least, a higher estimation of political and legislative endeavor than is warranted. And this is the point. To say that there really is such a thing as political liberty isn’t to “lose confidence in reason in the political realm.” Instead it’s to take the estimation of politics down a few notches. So this may be a disparity between those of us who are political agnostics and others who have a faith that can move mountains, between those of us who aren’t as convinced that to be political is to be personal and others who are more willing to fuse the personal and political kingdoms. It may also be between those of us who prize liberty and others who think it’s great and all but aren’t as willing to go to the mat for it as they are to write different rules for liberty when it comes to politics.
LikeLike
MM, thanks for getting Paul wound up. He’s off his meds again, flying solo on worldview.
LikeLike
Paul, view this. Trueman and Aristotle both talk about politics as compromise. And while you’re thinking, have you ever considered that different opinions exist even in the church?
LikeLike
Paul, but doesn’t 2+2 equal something different if you don’t use a base 10 system? Um, I believe I am using reason. (And by the way, why is a neo-Calvinist interested in worldview defending reason? Did you forget the cliff notes on antithesis? It’s God’s word vs. man’s reason.)
LikeLike
“Not liking me doesn’t mean it’s mandatory to disagree with me just to disagree.” Not to get all mushy, Paul, but I actually do like you. If I didn’t like you I would coolly ignore you. Don’t you feel my cool radiating towards all the people I don’t like? Maybe the world is in a temperamental balance, and, in the big scheme of things, my cool balances your heat. I just think it’s cool to be cool, but to each his own; it’s adiaphora.
Speaking of which:”To call all politics and political viewpoints “adiaphora” is to lose confidence in reason in the poitical realm.” I’m not ready to adopt “all” but, in general, the concept of adiaphora is linked to a healthy view of Liberty of Conscience and a respect for the church when it does speak with divine authority. Surely you’ve seen explicit statements or implicit pressure by some churches for its members to vote for Huckabee or whatever. I know nothing about your practices so I will assume you are a regular church goer, etc., but I don’t see the church being as important in your thinking as it is in the thinking of your blog-opponents. But I’m not a PM scholar, so feel free to correct me.
LikeLike
Paul,
It is not like you haven’t smeared me before- I do not have time to respond this morning, I have to get to work. I will respond tonight. I do not like having enemies if it can be prevented.
LikeLike
First things first, MM, here’s an email I recived today from a 2Ker (has as many letters after his name as Hart):
He quoted me: “lack of confidence in the efficacy of reason”
Then wrote: “Why should we (as Christians) have confidence in the efficacy of reason? I agree in general with your comparison of Rawlsianismaciousness — the shoe seems to fit — . . .”
So, was I right or was I right?
Darryl, view this: I don’t have a problem with compromise *per se*, but I bring it up as part of a *cumulative case* to demonstrate the point made in the post. You seem to think that if Aristotle liked mushrooms, and Trueman likes mushrooms, then both like stuffed portabella.
And, no, 2+2 does not have a different value output depending on the base you add in. You’re confusing symbols/numerals with values or numbers.
Zrim Again, you’re not taking the distinction between reason and public reason into account. You’ve lost confidence in the former, but that doesn’t mean you have for the latter. In any event, I’ll do another post explaining what I mean on this score. But since the Bible doesn’t offer a “thus sayeth” on this matter, and since the Confession doesn’t confess anything having to do with my post, isn’t it possible that I’m right? You sound like those worldviewers who won’t give an inch on matters outside Scripture or the confession. Your Kuyperian slip is showing again.
John, you don’t need to respond, I was just firing back with the level of substance you fired. I actually probably won’t read your response since you’ve convinced me you’re not a valuable dialogue partner.
MM I blame it on global warming, which, as we know, is Bush’s fault.
On adiaphora: that’s like watching an R-rated movie, or like eating meat sacrificed to idols. There’s nothing *objectively* wrong about those activities or viewpoints *per se*, so we’re free to act as we wish. For Zrim to say that *all* political viewpoints and policies etc. fall in that domain shows that they’re not something we can say is *objectively* wrong.
On my view, though, I definitely don’t think it’s right to demand people vote for Huck, but that’s not because voting for Huck is “adiaphora.’
LikeLike
But Paul, you missed the forest for the trees. Why do you have confidence in reason? I thought you were a worldview guy who distrusted autonomous reason. In base five 2+2 may look the same, but not 3+3. Is your reason okay?
LikeLike
Paul, just notice that you say voting for Huck is not adiaphora. According to Reformed teaching, if it’s not adiaphora, it’s either commanded or forbidden. So if you can’t demand voting for Huck, and if it’s not adiaphora, then it must be forbidden.
LikeLike
Paul, at some point I would like to hear your thoughts on philosophy & the church. It may seem self-evident that the church has a place in theology but not in philosophy, but let’s think outside the box. If philosophy doesn’t have a place for something as important as the church, does that say something about the limits of philosophy? Every discipline has its limits. And, then, maybe you butt heads (not to be confused with buttheads) with people who have a view of the church that is just outside the circle of philosophy’s domain. Because that’s what I see: a zeal for the church butting against your zeal for certainty in politics. And perhaps a historian has seen problems with the church binding outside its proper authority, and that should be factored in the quest for political certainty.
LikeLike
Paul, I am as flummoxed over how anything I have ever said means I’ve “lost confidence in reason” as I am that because I take a dim view of protesting abortion clinics means I have lost faith. Speaking of showing slips, yours looks very Baylyish. I am also flummoxed over what is so bleeping hard about battling politics politically instead of ecclesiatically, the latter being the upshot of all your philosophical labors. One might say you’ve lost confidence in the political realm to take care of itself, so it needs help from the ecclesiatical, which seems like a variant of “general revelation is insufficient to govern common life, so let’s consult special revelation.” No wonder the neos love you.
LikeLike
At the risk of quickly getting out of my depth, not to mention the lack of time I have to participate in such a discussion, If Rawlsian is an apt descriptor of 2k’s philosophy of cultural/political discourse( I’m not convinced it is, but for the sake of argument…..) could it not be also argued that Paul’s side ‘smuggles’ in an hegalian idealism as it regards the ability to influence culture via strict rational/reasoned grounds(not reasonable in an intuitive sense but literally, argumentation)?
LikeLike
I’m deeply wounded Paul- I don’t value you as a dialog partner either so we will leave it at that. BTW, Kane writes about Free Will and Moral Responsibility much more clearly than you do and does not speak with a condescending tone to his audience either. I already forgot, I am unworthy of you.
LikeLike
Zrim does’nt get your simple points, Darryl does’nt get your simple points, Scott Clark does’nt get your simple points- maybe Einstein would’nt get your simple points either; hmm- there seems to be a pattern here.
LikeLike
I was traveling for work and didn’t see this discussion until now.
But I’d suggest that few, if any, 2k or r2k advocates would favor Rawls. I’d guess that most of us probably tend to embrace something along the lines of the legal pragmatism of Judge Posner or Justice Holmes.
Of course, in my experience, truth is something of an empty concept for advocates of worldview thinking…or at least it’s a concept with little connection to the real world. After all, once someone assures himself that Christians add 2 and 2 differently (and better) from everyone else, it’s probably not surprising that such a person is prone to flights of grandiosity.
LikeLike