This whole controversy

[C. Fields]

Thank you for taking the "you're an idiot" element out of this debate.  I
was beginning to think that I was listening in on a playground push-fight
instead of a scholarly debate--half telling teacher because "he hurt my
feelings" and the other half saying "yeah, well your feet stink too!"  Are
we grown-ups or kids.  Aren't grown-ups supposed to be able respond to
flippant criticism with something a bit more witty that "you're not
supposed to say things like that" and "that was mean you meaney!"  Are
scholarly egos to be so fragile that they can't take criticism
(deserved or undeserved) with a LEETLE bit of a sense of humor.



On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, UDUT, KENNETH wrote:

>      It would seem that American scholarship treats each case as
>      individual, self-referencial, and as a closed system.
>
>      But there are other forms of scholarship which see works as more
>      global, 'other'-referencial, and as an open system.
>
>
>      One seems to imply the question, "How does this writing compare,
>      firstly - to itself and secondly - to other texts of the same
>      nature?"
>
>      The other seems to imply the question, "How does this text affect
>      what I know about the world?  What does this text bring in from the
>      outside world?  How do these things that are brought in from the
>      outside world relate to what I know of the world?", etc.
>
>      One viewpoint is more individualistic, and the other is more
>      holistic.
>
>      Of course, the first system says to the second, "Why must you drag
>      all of this and that into this text?".  The second system asks to
>      the first, "Can't you see how these things are related?"
>
>
>      But I could be wrong :)  I'm no scholar :)
>
>
>      -Kenneth
>      kenneth.udut at spcorp.com
>