Talk:Close reading

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is that really fair about Derrida? Though technically accurate, I fear the portrayal is less than honest.

J. Hillis Miller is a great supporter of Derrida's, so I don't see a need to doubt the fairness of his description -- in any event, he probably meant it as praise. By the way, please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~). -- Rbellin|Talk 04:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A close reading of the article

Re DEFINITION. In literary criticism, close reading describes the careful, sustained interpretation of a brief passage of text. An excellent definition that will no doubt inspire German Literaturprofessoren. We can look forward to a new chapter of Höhere Deutsche Textkritik called "Sustained Interpretation", which will be defined in Wikipedia as follows: In literary criticism, Sustained Interpretation describes the close reading of a brief passage of text. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 11:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re DERRIDA. To take an even more extreme example, Jacques Derrida's essay Ulysses Gramophone, which J. Hillis Miller describes as a "hyperbolic, extravagant… explosion" of the technique of close reading, devotes more than eighty pages to an interpretation of the word "yes" in James Joyce's great modernist novel Ulysses. Yes, if we take the eminent J. Hillis Miller as a source, that is the extreme knowledge we get. We might of course take Derrida himself as a source, in which case we'd come to slightly different results. His essay is an extravagant explosion of the technique of loose reading and even looser writing. Derrida devotes the essay to discussing Derrida, the adventures of Derrida (Derrida bought a postcard in Tokyo, Derrida nearly had an accident when leaving the airport in Paris etc etc), and above all the opinions of Derrida on everything in the world, e.g. translation: What remains untranslatable is at bottom the only thing to translate, the only thing translatable. What must be translated of that which is translatable can only be the untranslatable, and so on. And on. Yes. This has nothing to do with close reading. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Derrida isn't reading Joyce at all; he's aping him. The essay is a parody of Molly's monologue. An involuntary parody. Oui, oui.
So how do we account for the differences between J.Hillis Miller and J.Derrida? Ah we must be talking about two different essays. Derrida's essay, which I have in front of me, is only 50 pages long. So the close reading mentioned in the article will probably take place in the extra 30 pages that Miller and the editors have found somewhere. Yes. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that Talk pages are for discussion directly related to improving the article, not for airing personal opinions of its topic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and much of what you've written constitutes original research. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Re AIRING. I find your ruminations somewhat difficult to follow, Rbellin. Why bring up Derrida in the article, if you don't want his personal opinions aired? And what exactly makes you feel that I questioned Derrida's originality in my commentary? --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If your discomprehension is genuine, please read the policies that I linked. I have no desire to get into a long off-topic derail about Derrida here; as should be clear, the problem with your comments is not that they discuss his opinions and originality, but that they represent your own original research and irrelevant personal opinion. Please use Talk pages to improve the article, not to create endless irrelevant discussion of your personal views. -- Rbellin|Talk 14:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)