-----Original Message----- >From: Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Sent: Feb 14, 2009 4:57 PM >To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Fan Fluttering 101 > >>but people currently seem to think it indicative. > >Indicative of what? Your ability to follow instructions? Your willingness >to follow instructions? Your committment to standards they feel important >to the field? Your understanding of the concepts of scholarship as they >define it? Or is it just a power play? That whole world is alien to me, so >I'm asking. > A couple of examples: In a thesis exam a student did as well as any I can recall, synthesizing ideas from wide reading, showing some originality of thought. I was not on the panel of examiners. It occurred to me that those who were on that panel may well not have read half of what the student was using as source material. Their criticism was legitimately visual--they objected to the color of the extension cords used in the installation--but it did occur to me that they were concentrating on form because they did not want to tackle the substance. Certainly this is true of one of my daughter's teachers, who is not the brightest bulb and is struggling with the fact that she has half a dozen national merit scholars in her class. She concentrates not on the arguments they make in their essays but on whether the title is in proper MLA format etc. The thesis I was spinning out of thin air was that the PoMo attack on collective agreements about what constitutes good and bad has led to a nervousness about making any judgments at all concerning the substance of an argument or the merits of an art work. Instead we focus on whether the outward form is correct, something that is much easier to assess. Hence, "fan fluttering." David Ritchie Long Beach, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html