FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2024346887> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2024346887 endingPage "128" @default.
• W2024346887 startingPage "125" @default.
• W2024346887 abstract "Why We Do (or Don’t) Argue About the Way We Read Emily Hodgson Anderson (bio) Keywords literary theory, literary criticism, critical method, Eighteenth-Century Studies Debates about how we read—and whether we should read at or below the surface of things—are, in our field, nothing new. Take, for example, the eighteenth-century anxiety surrounding how to read people: on one hand we have the predominance of physiognomy and the popularity of the so-called “type” character. On the other hand we have anxieties about hypocrisy and the eighteenth-century fanaticism for masquerade. While the former scenarios ask readers to find personhood on the surface, the latter scenarios send readers searching for personhood beneath a mask. In the eighteenth century, the locus of personal identity shifts between the superficial and the buried, and while I’m not going to rehearse these shifts or their causation here, I do want to suggest that they make us well suited to understand the current, disciplinary debates about reading. So far, this is a disciplinary anxiety that seems to have passed us by. One of the questions motivating this particular “critical conversation” had to do with why this debate about reading hasn’t yet garnered the attention or input of our subfield. The question “why do we argue about the way we read?” morphed for us into “why don’t we (Eighteenth-Century Studies folks) argue about the way we read?” Are we, as we’ve been accused of being in the past, again behind the theoretical times? As I hope my opening suggests, I want argue the exact opposite: perhaps this debate hasn’t impacted our field as strongly as it has others because the terms of the debate are already so ingrained in us, already so familiar. But let me make these terms explicit. This forum targets the recent interest in surface reading, a theoretical response to more familiar modes of so-called “symptomatic” or “suspicious” literary criticism. These latter modes of reading, according to critics such as Stephen Best and Sharon Marcus, pitch texts as repressive and readers as paranoid.1 In symptomatic readings, we are trained to believe that what we see is not what we get; textual elements code for a deep, [End Page 125] unspoken history that the critic, through aggressive acts of interpretation, restores. To argue against this mode of reading is thus to argue against habitual paranoia and deep-seated suspicion; it is to suggest, optimistically, that we can and should take the world as it is. Indeed, one of Best and Marcus’s implications is that our entrenched culture of symptomatic reading has made us forget to read literally: surfaces have become invisible in our search for depth. Still, the habits of symptomatic reading, and the anxieties that accompany it, are hard to shake. If surface reading restores to prominence a now-occluded surface, it also, simultaneously, performs the same interpretative work that last century’s symptomatic reading did: it renders visible that which readers no longer see. Arguments about how we read thus remain anxious arguments, motivated by the fear that our current forms of analysis obscure, or fail to illuminate, certain information. Best and Marcus suggest that we must read differently in order to resist the ideological paranoia exemplified by traditional (Freudian or Marxist) strategies of interpretation. At the same time, they are deeply anxious, paranoid even, about what they see to be a growing discrepancy between the reading habits of critics, and the reading materials presented to critics by the world. We must read differently, they suggest, because the world we read has become different: more overt, more superficial. This suggestion leads to the anxiety that both motivates and undermines surface reading: if the ideologies of our contemporary political climate are so overt, then where does this leave criticism? What does the literary critic do? Surface reading is at once the new answer to this problem, and the new problem itself. As Best and Marcus put it, “if criticism is not the excavation of hidden truths, what can it add to our experience of texts?”2 Before I try to answer their question, I want to complicate the motivations that..." @default.
• W2024346887 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2024346887 creator A5061769686 @default.
• W2024346887 date "2013-01-01" @default.
• W2024346887 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2024346887 title "Why We Do (or Don’t) Argue About the Way We Read" @default.
• W2024346887 cites W1967005654 @default.
• W2024346887 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/ecy.2013.0007" @default.
• W2024346887 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2024346887 type Work @default.
• W2024346887 sameAs 2024346887 @default.
• W2024346887 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2024346887 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2024346887 hasAuthorship W2024346887A5061769686 @default.
• W2024346887 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W2024346887 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2024346887 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2024346887 hasConcept C136815107 @default.
• W2024346887 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2024346887 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2024346887 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2024346887 hasConcept C2777200299 @default.
• W2024346887 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2024346887 hasConceptScore W2024346887C107038049 @default.
• W2024346887 hasConceptScore W2024346887C111472728 @default.
• W2024346887 hasConceptScore W2024346887C124952713 @default.
• W2024346887 hasConceptScore W2024346887C136815107 @default.
• W2024346887 hasConceptScore W2024346887C138885662 @default.
• W2024346887 hasConceptScore W2024346887C142362112 @default.
• W2024346887 hasConceptScore W2024346887C144024400 @default.
• W2024346887 hasConceptScore W2024346887C2777200299 @default.
• W2024346887 hasConceptScore W2024346887C41895202 @default.
• W2024346887 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2024346887 hasLocation W20243468871 @default.
• W2024346887 hasOpenAccess W2024346887 @default.
• W2024346887 hasPrimaryLocation W20243468871 @default.
• W2024346887 hasRelatedWork W2133560781 @default.
• W2024346887 hasRelatedWork W2321756657 @default.
• W2024346887 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2024346887 hasRelatedWork W2749325606 @default.
• W2024346887 hasRelatedWork W2767435224 @default.
• W2024346887 hasRelatedWork W3036813871 @default.
• W2024346887 hasRelatedWork W3167152720 @default.
• W2024346887 hasRelatedWork W3178066739 @default.
• W2024346887 hasRelatedWork W4320494227 @default.
• W2024346887 hasRelatedWork W781782448 @default.
• W2024346887 hasVolume "54" @default.
• W2024346887 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2024346887 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2024346887 magId "2024346887" @default.
• W2024346887 workType "article" @default.