Trashing Caryl Emerson's recent book on Bakhtin?

[Dmitry Khanin]

Dear Anja,

    It's great you decided to throw your support behind the "senior members
of the list." In fact, they may be in need of getting more help from their
graduate students. You are right! Irony and rhetoric can be dangerous tools.
The problem is that usage of those illicit means also measures the degree of
civilization's sophistication. I have to admit that Caryl Emerson thoroughly
enjoyed my previous ironic attacks against Western Postmodernists and
Western Marxists. She even quoted them in her book on Bakhtin I reviewed as
an example of a peculiarly Russian reaction to those Western trends.
Furthermore, she told me that she included one of those artciles in her
course taught to graduate students at Princeton (no fees to John Hopkins
University Press, I suspect, but who's counting?) In fact, Anja, you could
be reading those subversive articles next semester if you are at Princeton.
So, if I were you, I wouldn't throw out all this irony and rhetoric just
yet. Some of "the senior members of the list" may like them. Caryl Emerson
wrote to me that she "loved" my ironic articles. I am sure she is enjoying
this discussion, too. She seems to have a taste for it.


Dmitry Khanin

Irony and rhetoric that appear
----- Original Message -----
From: Anja Grothe <Agrothenyc at aol.com>
To: <SEELANGS at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 1999 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Trashing Caryl Emerson's recent book on Bakhtin?


> As a Ph.D. candidate about to enter the profession, I have been following
the
> recent discussion over Dmitry Khanin's review of Caryl Emerson's
skeptically.
> Issues of accuracy, cultural division and appropriateness with regard to
the
> book and its review have been eloquently discussed by senior members of
the
> list (and now seem to drift to topics such as address and salary). I would
> like to add a more general comment.
>
> In the very beginning of my studies I have been taught that thesis and
> antithesis are essential parts of a well-crafted argument.
> Development of the discipline, discoveries, progress, can in my opinion
only
> be made by such argument, and criticism, for which respect of a
colleagues'
> research and stance is a prerequisite. And while irony well used is a
great
> rhetorical device for adding spice to an argument, it certainly spoils its
> taste when intended for personal attack only.
>
> As a Slavist, I am inspired by enlightening, learned criticism based on
> original texts (by that I mean texts in their original language). As a
> Comparatist, I am also aware of the limits of linguistic proficiency and
> thank those scholars like Caryl Emerson, who, via analysis AND translation
> "tries(y) to move between two languages/cultures and inform each about the
> other" (HG). This is essential to comparative studies, this gives other
> disciplines an option to use a wide range of critical thought (how they
> choose to apply it, is a different matter).
>
> I would like to enter the profession with the conviction that it is
governed
> by sharp, ethical criticism and personal respect. If battles beyond the
> critical argument become the focus of discussion,  and if this is the
> reaction to intellectual difference and tight monetary resources in
academia,
> it does not appeal as a lifetime consuming occupation.
> Rhetoric is a sharp tool: As much as it is needed to open packages
containing
> intellectual treasures, and cutting through layers of meaning/(differing)
> opinion to get to what lies beneath or beyond, it can also be, wrongfully,
> applied to hurt and 'trash' what is meant to blossom and grow.  I would
not
> choose to enter a battlefield. I'd rather 'cultivate our garden'
(Candide).
>
> Anja Grothe
> City University of New York