Cheerskep I remember this interview now. Read it some time ago. I dont subscribe to everything he says of course. I seem to remember reading bits of his Literatures Lost for example and not agreeing with his views on Rousseau.
But as for his views on language I think they are very interesting indeed. He is a truly original thinker not a blind follower. One needs to read his book to get a better idea. He writes very well which is a bonus. DA -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 25 March 2008 2:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: "Signs", "meanings", and associations Derek writes: > The best book I have ever read on language is 'Language, Thought, and Logic > (Rethinking Theory)' by John Ellis. Among other things, his book shows that > the different major theories of language are only partial solutions at best. > He offers a kind of synthesis but even if you don't agree with him, his book > is excellent. I am always amazed that it is referred to so seldom. Possibly > because he isn't a disciple of any particular school of thought - always a > serious error. > > You surprise me Derek. Go to the following url. It belongs to The Atlas Society, and Ayn Rand website. The url brings you to an extended interview with Ellis. To me, the thinking he advocates seems badly defective -- certainly the section on his language book is. It surprises me that you of all listers would feel the following exaltation of "analysis" is excellent: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=85&h=51 Navigator: Now what is the role of the literary critic? Ellis: Critics of literature, like most people, have a number of related functions; there is no need to make one of them exclusive. They can deepen the understanding and appreciation of readers; they can interpret the meaning of complicated texts; they can produce knowledge about literature and its traditions; and so on. Contemporary academic critics seem to think that their major role is to judge whether the great writers fall short of moral purity as measured by their own highly unrealistic and in any case modern standards. This is a self-obsessed kind of criticism. It is hard to see why anyone would read Shakespeare if all they had in mind was to see how much of a sexist or homophobe he was. Navigator: Given that the function of literature requires an author and is facilitated by a critic, what is the role played by a theorist of literary criticism? Ellis: Theorists in the field of literature should be essentially the same as theorists in any other field: they are people who re-analyze other people's work, looking at general ideas or large patterns of significance, at basic methodological questions, or at unexamined assumptions. The skill they need above all others is analysis. The problem with theory in the field of literature right now is that that those who call themselves "theorists" are actually dogmatic proponents of exceptionally rigid views. In other words, they are anti-theorists. They are not good at analysis, ************** Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom0 0030000000001) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.8/1340 - Release Date: 23/03/2008 6:50 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1341 - Release Date: 24/03/2008 3:03 PM
