FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2787734342> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2787734342 endingPage "485" @default.
• W2787734342 startingPage "485" @default.
• W2787734342 abstract "How Should We Read Now?1 Matthew Mullins (bio) Elizabeth S. Anker and Rita Felski, eds., Critique and Postcritique, Durham: Duke UP, 2017. 329 pp. The title of Elizabeth S. Anker and Rita Felski's new book, Critique and Postcritique, sets the tone for a thorough study that charts the changing landscape of literary studies without throwing out the old maps. While the post- in postcritique might seem like a rejection of critique, the and at the heart of the title indicates from the outset that these two concepts can and should be understood together as consonant categories of reading. The primary purpose of this volume is to develop nuanced views of these categories. Anker, Felski, and their contributors offer a comprehensive view of critique as both a method and a mood, answering a broad range of questions: What is critique? How is it practiced? What is its history? What are its politics? Why has it become so ubiquitous in the field of literary studies? The authors are also interested in ways of reading that are not coterminous with critique. These are the modes they would call postcritical, and their sources are found in such disparate figures as Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bruno Latour, Donna Haraway, Jonathan Swift, Eve Sedgwick, and Walt Whitman. Finally, many of the essays, including Anker and Felski's introduction, explore the implications of the critique-and-postcritique phenomenon for the disciplines of literary studies in particular and the humanities in general. Why has this conversation picked up steam at this moment? What are the implications for research in the field? How does it relate to the crises the humanities face at the apex of neoliberalism? Before questions of such scope can be addressed, some may object to the very notion that critique, as Bruno Latour has claimed, has indeed run out of steam. In a well-known 2004 essay, Latour asks whether the critical equipment of the humanities might need to be updated periodically like the physical and intellectual apparatuses of other fields. He goes on to analyze critique itself as a process whereby antifetishists debunk the objects they mistrust by way of objects they do trust without ever making the connection: We explain the objects we don't approve of by treating them as fetishes; we account for behaviors we don't like by discipline whose makeup we don't examine; and we concentrate our passionate interest on only those things that [End Page 485] are for us worthwhile matters of concern (241). He finally argues that we need a critique that gathers as much as it debunks, that we need something more, not less than, critique. Latour is certainly not alone in questioning the vitality of critique. Paul Ricoeur saw the need to pair suspicion with faith in the 1970s. Eve Sedgwick explored the restrictions of paranoid reading and the promises of reparative reading in the 1990s. Stephen Best and Sharon Marcus examined the dominance of symptomatic reading and the need for alternatives in their oft-cited Surface Reading issue of Representations in 2009. And in her 2015 book The Limits of Critique, Felski argues that critique has become synonymous with a hermeneutics of suspicion and that it has become so preeminent in literary studies that literary scholars are confusing a part of thought with the whole of thought (5). Add to these the many influential voices gathered in this volume, and the chorus grows quite loud. While these critics do not all agree on what the problem is, there does seem to be a consensus that we are experiencing what Caroline Levine calls in her endorsement of the book a moment of methodological upheaval. In their introduction, Anker and Felski begin by surveying the various generic forms of critique. They explore critique as theory, critique as rhetoric, and critique as metafiction. The commonality across these various forms is that critique is always diagnostic in nature, whether it is demystifying or calling attention to its own status as discourse. But for Anker and Felski, we misunderstand critique if we think of it exclusively as a method, for it is also a mood. The best place to go for a more detailed discussion of the affective..." @default.
• W2787734342 created "2018-02-23" @default.
• W2787734342 creator A5026903591 @default.
• W2787734342 date "2017-01-01" @default.
• W2787734342 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2787734342 title "How Should We Read Now?" @default.
• W2787734342 cites W1967005654 @default.
• W2787734342 cites W2344967523 @default.
• W2787734342 cites W2601044089 @default.
• W2787734342 doi "https://doi.org/10.5250/symploke.25.1-2.0485" @default.
• W2787734342 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2787734342 type Work @default.
• W2787734342 sameAs 2787734342 @default.
• W2787734342 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2787734342 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2787734342 hasAuthorship W2787734342A5026903591 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConcept C202444582 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConcept C2777200299 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConcept C2780583480 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConcept C554936623 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConcept C9652623 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConceptScore W2787734342C111472728 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConceptScore W2787734342C138885662 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConceptScore W2787734342C144024400 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConceptScore W2787734342C17744445 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConceptScore W2787734342C199539241 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConceptScore W2787734342C202444582 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConceptScore W2787734342C2777200299 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConceptScore W2787734342C2780583480 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConceptScore W2787734342C33923547 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConceptScore W2787734342C41895202 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConceptScore W2787734342C554936623 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConceptScore W2787734342C94625758 @default.
• W2787734342 hasConceptScore W2787734342C9652623 @default.
• W2787734342 hasIssue "1-2" @default.
• W2787734342 hasLocation W27877343421 @default.
• W2787734342 hasOpenAccess W2787734342 @default.
• W2787734342 hasPrimaryLocation W27877343421 @default.
• W2787734342 hasRelatedWork W1498302406 @default.
• W2787734342 hasRelatedWork W1555518567 @default.
• W2787734342 hasRelatedWork W2005072066 @default.
• W2787734342 hasRelatedWork W2021048944 @default.
• W2787734342 hasRelatedWork W2347690225 @default.
• W2787734342 hasRelatedWork W2523123211 @default.
• W2787734342 hasRelatedWork W2604714892 @default.
• W2787734342 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2787734342 hasRelatedWork W3033679312 @default.
• W2787734342 hasRelatedWork W3096754228 @default.
• W2787734342 hasVolume "25" @default.
• W2787734342 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2787734342 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2787734342 magId "2787734342" @default.
• W2787734342 workType "article" @default.