Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Turn to the Planet: Literature, Diversity, and Totality

Turn to the Planet: Literature, Diversity, and Totality COMPARATIVE LITERATURE /284 mind. In the context of the dominant practice of the Eurocentric formulation of knowledge, however, the anti-Orientalist criticism was looked on as a disturbing challenge. To the academic establishment, it was a movement of rebellion and resistance—at least at the initial stage. The East Asian field (where I have been more than an occasional sojourner) has long been organized from the colonial perspective, and thus Said’s criticism was not accepted at once, especially by established scholars. Critical categories transferred from European literature to East Asian literature—without scrutiny as to their applicability—were still very much in use at the beginning of the 1980s. Genre, form, structure, periodicity (such as “modernity” and “modernization”), intentionality, affect, authorship, originality, audience, textuality, media, plot, character, tonality, the idea of “literature” itself, and many other fundamental literary and cultural notions—as well as the terms used in describing and analyzing European literature(s) and culture(s)—were more or less randomly chosen as approximations. Even at the 1983 conference in Seoul, there were sharp divisions and disagreements among the panelists on the merit of the newly proposed transvaluation. As I reread my contribution, “Against the Native Grain: Reading the Japanese Novel in America,” I am http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Comparative Literature Duke University Press

Turn to the Planet: Literature, Diversity, and Totality

Comparative Literature , Volume 53 (4) – Jan 1, 2001

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/turn-to-the-planet-literature-diversity-and-totality-gHtQX4Ti7d

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2001 by University of Oregon
ISSN
0010-4124
eISSN
1945-8517
DOI
10.1215/-53-4-283
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

COMPARATIVE LITERATURE /284 mind. In the context of the dominant practice of the Eurocentric formulation of knowledge, however, the anti-Orientalist criticism was looked on as a disturbing challenge. To the academic establishment, it was a movement of rebellion and resistance—at least at the initial stage. The East Asian field (where I have been more than an occasional sojourner) has long been organized from the colonial perspective, and thus Said’s criticism was not accepted at once, especially by established scholars. Critical categories transferred from European literature to East Asian literature—without scrutiny as to their applicability—were still very much in use at the beginning of the 1980s. Genre, form, structure, periodicity (such as “modernity” and “modernization”), intentionality, affect, authorship, originality, audience, textuality, media, plot, character, tonality, the idea of “literature” itself, and many other fundamental literary and cultural notions—as well as the terms used in describing and analyzing European literature(s) and culture(s)—were more or less randomly chosen as approximations. Even at the 1983 conference in Seoul, there were sharp divisions and disagreements among the panelists on the merit of the newly proposed transvaluation. As I reread my contribution, “Against the Native Grain: Reading the Japanese Novel in America,” I am

Journal

Comparative LiteratureDuke University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.