Stephen Burt in The New Yorker:
The name we’ve been using for this stuff is anachronistic. Here’s a better name.
Truth-claims from our discipline cannot be properly judged without expertise that almost no one in our discipline has.
Our discipline should study its own disciplinary formation; that study proves that our discipline shouldn’t exist.
An old, prestigious thing still deserves its prestige, but for a heretofore undiscovered reason.
This feature of modern life began slightly earlier than you thought, and my single text proves it.
Please adopt my buzzword.
This author, normally seen as opposed to certain bad things, in fact supported them without realizing it.
This author, normally seen as naïve or untrained, is in fact very self-aware, and hence more like us.
That obscure, élite thing once had a popular audience.
This short text, seen rightly, reveals the contradictions of a whole culture.
A supposedly fanatical, militant movement that readers have been taught to fear makes perfect sense to those who support it.
The true meaning of a famous work can be recovered only through juxtaposition with this long obscure historical moment or artifact.
I found a very small thing in an archive, but I can relate it to a big thing.
Read the full post here.