Moira’s Reviews > Emily Brontë: Heretic > Status Update

Is that a good thing, or a bad thing, Moira?

Yeah, curious as well. I actually quite liked Emily Davies' book, though it's certainly not flawless.

Christopher wrote: "Is that a good thing, or a bad thing, Moira?"

I just don't do at all well with shit like 'the narrator displays Linton's and Heathcliff's natures as a dynamic antipathy incorporating the universal oppositions on which nature, human nature, and society are dialectically constructed' &c &c. I grew up reading mainly intelligible criticism (_not_ New Criticism, altho I did read some of that) - Randall Jarrell-type stuff - the prose is alternately leaden or quirky and I find it irritating, because it's not a pleasure to read _and_ it makes the ideas harder to get to. It's a style that seems really popular in academic prose written past the 1980s which is why I don't go for much of it.

Jamie wrote: "Yeah, curious as well. I actually quite liked Emily Davies' book, though it's certainly not flawless."

I saw you did! (Stevie Davies actually - humorously enough one of the negative reviews here assumes it's a man.) I can see how it would be good if you were reading research material for a paper; there are some interesting ideas. But to me they're just very clumsily expressed, and that alternates with a kind of look-how-clever-clever-I-am wordplay that permeates late 20th century academic prose which makes me break out in hives. I understand she's trying to reclaim Emily from the typical 'virginal visionary who starved herself to death' Gaskell-Gerin viewpoint but like most people writing revisionist criticism she goes overboard. Lucasta Miller actually summarized Davies' main points a lot more fluently and skilfully.

Moira wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Is that a good thing, or a bad thing, Moira?"

I just don't do at all well with shit like 'the narrator displays Linton's and Heathcliff's natures as a dynamic antipathy incorpo..."

and isn't this what drives Byatt 'freaking' crazy too?

Christopher wrote: "and isn't this what drives Byatt 'freaking' crazy too? "

Yeah, I actually liked a lot of what Byatt had to say about litcrit in Possession. I read that right around when I was in the depths of grad school, so it meant a lot to me. - I just really don't like criticism that has to be deciphered and slogged through rather than read.

Oops, Stevie-yes. Hm, perhaps I should re-read this one; I recall really enjoying it, but maybe I'd be a horse of a different color upon another perusal. Lucasta Miller? May need to check that out, too, then--I know you're quite the expert on all things Bronte, so I tend to trust your judgment. :)

Lucasta's book was really good but rather the opposite of this one - rather poppy, not much theory. I really do mourn the loss of the litcrit-not-written-for-academics genre.