I was reading "The Road Not Taken" by David Orr and at several instances I wanted to shake Mr Orr by the lapels and shout "the concept you are describing is a probability distribution!"
(It was a very good book, TBC, otherwise I would not have bothered yelling at it.)
On the one hand, literary critics should really know about the Kolmogorov Axioms; but on the other hand, many statisticians could stand to learn a thing or two about negative capability.
The Trilling line on Austen is the one that stays — irony as a method of comprehension rather than a matter of tone. That distinction matters for fiction as much as for criticism. The novels that last are the ones that defer judgment the same way Oliver describes Trilling deferring it — not out of indifference but because the contradictions are doing the actual work. Once you resolve them into a position, the novel becomes an argument, and arguments date. Austen never dates because she never tells you what to conclude about her characters. She shows you everything and lets the discomfort stand. That's what "by no means detached" really means — you can be fully inside the mess without pretending to have sorted it out.
In the Victorian age of rampant industrialisation & materialism great thinkers, Arnold in particular, continually asserted the value of culture and the arts. Drawing on Swift's metaphor of the nectar-collecting and wax-producing bee, he coined the phrase 'sweetness and light': 'sweetness' (being the flowering of literature and the arts / beauty) and 'light' (representing the candle / moral and intellectual clarity). Perhaps, tragically, those fruitful concepts have become so degraded as to be unrecognisable…even to scholars ?
I like a critic who can think broadly about the nature of criticism.
An open mind is a magnificent achievement, a magical power. Even if only for moments at a time.
I know I always say this, but this really really sounds like Bayesian statistics.
I don’t think that’s so off base honestly
I was reading "The Road Not Taken" by David Orr and at several instances I wanted to shake Mr Orr by the lapels and shout "the concept you are describing is a probability distribution!"
(It was a very good book, TBC, otherwise I would not have bothered yelling at it.)
critics prefer to talk about ambiguity and negative capability but yeah
On the one hand, literary critics should really know about the Kolmogorov Axioms; but on the other hand, many statisticians could stand to learn a thing or two about negative capability.
Excellent! Thanks.
The Trilling line on Austen is the one that stays — irony as a method of comprehension rather than a matter of tone. That distinction matters for fiction as much as for criticism. The novels that last are the ones that defer judgment the same way Oliver describes Trilling deferring it — not out of indifference but because the contradictions are doing the actual work. Once you resolve them into a position, the novel becomes an argument, and arguments date. Austen never dates because she never tells you what to conclude about her characters. She shows you everything and lets the discomfort stand. That's what "by no means detached" really means — you can be fully inside the mess without pretending to have sorted it out.
‘Does anyone know what “sweetness and light” means? ‘. Yes.
can you tell me
Is the Knight book worth it?
In the Victorian age of rampant industrialisation & materialism great thinkers, Arnold in particular, continually asserted the value of culture and the arts. Drawing on Swift's metaphor of the nectar-collecting and wax-producing bee, he coined the phrase 'sweetness and light': 'sweetness' (being the flowering of literature and the arts / beauty) and 'light' (representing the candle / moral and intellectual clarity). Perhaps, tragically, those fruitful concepts have become so degraded as to be unrecognisable…even to scholars ?
‘