The Dregs of Deconstruction
So, conceptually, Derridean deconstruction has been useful for quite a few different scholars using quite a few different theoretical methodologies. In terms of producing actual literary criticism, though, deconstruction is a train wreck . . . as I've recently (re-)discovered when browsing through Donald Burleson's Lovecraft: Disturbing the Universe (1991).
Didn't take me long to see how completely useless the book was. No argumentative thesis, nothing but academic stream-of-consciousness and erudition. And so, blah.
But!!
Having merely written a bad book isn't enough to merit attention on this blog, however. Out of curiosity, I looked up a review of the volume. Well, turns out that none other than my old undergraduate thesis director, Donald M. Hassler, had produced just such a review, and he considered the Burleson book "such a travesty of criticism that I find it useless—except for fun" (339). Which I guess means that I picked the right thesis director.
EDIT (3-29-2019): I should add that if I had been writing the review, though, I would have been kinder -- although I can't see the point of a deconstructive, Burleson does do it well enough, I suppose. Also, I would have mentioned that his other essays on Lovecraft do demonstrate useful scholarship.
Didn't take me long to see how completely useless the book was. No argumentative thesis, nothing but academic stream-of-consciousness and erudition. And so, blah.
But!!
Having merely written a bad book isn't enough to merit attention on this blog, however. Out of curiosity, I looked up a review of the volume. Well, turns out that none other than my old undergraduate thesis director, Donald M. Hassler, had produced just such a review, and he considered the Burleson book "such a travesty of criticism that I find it useless—except for fun" (339). Which I guess means that I picked the right thesis director.
EDIT (3-29-2019): I should add that if I had been writing the review, though, I would have been kinder -- although I can't see the point of a deconstructive, Burleson does do it well enough, I suppose. Also, I would have mentioned that his other essays on Lovecraft do demonstrate useful scholarship.
Comments
Post a Comment