PN Review Print and Online Poetry Magazine
News and Notes
PN Review Prize winners announced
Carcanet Press and PN Review are delighted to announce the winners of the first ever PN Review Prize. read more
Most Read... Drew MilneTom Raworth’s Writing
‘present past improved’: Tom Raworth’s Writing

(PN Review 236)
Vahni CapildeoOn Judging Prizes, & Reading More than Six Really Good Books
(PN Review 237)
Alejandro Fernandez-OsorioPomace (trans. James Womack)
(PN Review 236)
Kei MillerIn the Shadow of Derek Walcott
1930–2017

(PN Review 235)
Kate BinghamPuddle
(PN Review 236)
Eavan BolandA Lyric Voice at Bay
(PN Review 121)
Poems Articles Interviews Reports Reviews Contributors
Gratis Ad 1
Gratis Ad 2
Next Issue CELEBRATING JOHN ASHBERY Contributors include Mark Ford, Marina Warner, Jeremy Over, Theophilus Kwek, Sam Riviere, Luke Kennard, Philip Terry,Agnes Lehoczky, Emily Critchley, Oli Hazard and others Miles Champion The Gold Standard Rebecca Watts The Cult of the Noble Amateur Marina Tsvetaeva ‘My desire has the features of a woman’: Two Letters translated by Christopher Whyte Iain Bamforth Black and White

This review is taken from PN Review 48, Volume 12 Number 4, March - April 1986.

Martin Dodsworth DISCRIMINATION, IMAGINATION AND POLITICS

Is there a 'new orthodoxy' in literary criticism? There are, of course, tendencies of the kind that PN Review's manifesto suggests, but a set of tendencies does not add up to an orthodoxy, and especially not when one tendency, toward the sceptical idealism of deconstruction which is hit off in the fourth proposition, is in conflict with another, toward politics, the outward sign of the 'revolutionary desires' which are the concern of the sixth proposition. Attempts have been made to link deconstruction with radical politics, but it would be hard to find a single view of that relationship that could fairly be called orthodox.

Like most manifestos, this one trivializes intellectual debate by souping it up into drama. Journalistically, a single repugnant orthodoxy which inspires common resistance is more appealing than the congeries of divergent ideas making for confusion and disorientation in literary studies at present. Words like unthinking, contemptuous, self-righteous and absurdity are part of a knockabout ritual which has little to do with criticism. This manifesto makes a plea for discrimination among literary texts, but it is undiscriminating in its abuse. Indeed, since there is no attempt to identify what authors, what books, are under attack, the whole enterprise takes on an air of redundancy, for it is self-evident that no one would wish to be associated with unthinking rejection of traditional critical approaches, no one would want to foster a self-righteous sectarianism, and so on. The lack of specificity in these formulations is regrettable. ...


Searching, please wait... animated waiting image