Embracing His Inner Matthew Arnold?

      Oh, ho ho ho ho, is it indeed possible? Is even Terry Eagleton beginning to succumb to the New Boredom and recognize the idiotic superciliousness of cultural theory? It certainly seems that way. Oh yes, it certainly does. Oh, I'm getting tingly all over... Is it possible that the tide is turning, ever so slowly? Count now the number of significant critics speaking out, with increasing force but in still low numbers (may of whom have since passed on), against the current mainstream of self-important cultural theorizing: Northrop Frye was a proponent of the charge two decades ago, and since then he's been followed, in different ways, by the likes of Harold Bloom, the late Hugh Kenner, Sir Frank Kermode, Frank Lentricchia, and now perhaps Terry Eagleton, who once stood like a bulwark against those tide-turners. To a degree, even people like Derrida are relocating themselves from their previous positionings (more often than not those positionings interpreted by others than by the critics-theorists themselves). And then there's the likes of Giyatri Spivak holding like anchors to the bottom of the ocean, and no doubt another 75% of the current academic hegemony that has too much to lose in recognizing that perhaps, like the famous emperor, they are walking naked in their new clothes. But there's something deeply encouraging about all this.

      I should add this, though, that I still find Eagleton's Marxism less than satisfying (and, on the topic of academics continuing to harbour extremely pro-Marxist ideology, see Robert Fulford's recent piece here), and many of his defences of his political stances strike me as profoundly ridiculous. But I think it telling that the revolt against governing contemporary theoreticism (sometimes felonious, sometimes merely of the level of the misdemeanour) is currently gaining support from increasingly disparate corners of the academic world. Is it possible that academics are slowly starting to activate their bull-shit detectors and realize how thoroughly ensconced their heads have been in the asses? One can hope. I'll still not say I'm aligned with Eagleton, but it seems for once there's actually common cause between us. And, in many ways, the true marvel here is the extent of (partial, anyway) recantation on his part. Colour me one totally uninterested in the politics of masturbation and Friends.

      One brief aside: I can't help but wonder about the irony of Eagleton's turning, because his primary concerns, with reconciling the metaphysical with the theoretical, with the political pulls of Marxism and moralism and so forth, if Eagleton is only now finally catching up with people like Graham Greene who were writing about such matters decades ago. Eagleton, by the way, devoted much time to the study of Greene, so one-- er, I-- can't help but feel a sense of "Duh, it's about time" in our bones.

      And, yes, I know RK and perhaps the Zaniac and Arby (and of course me) may be the only ones who really give a damn about any of this (at least among people dropping by this blog), but there we are. But I imagine in the next wee bit we'll have a lot of former champions of Eagleton suddenly dismissing him completely, as if he had suddenly changed religions on his academic deathbed. Oh, ho ho ho ho, I can already sense people's backs getting up. They're craning in disbelief. RK, at the very least, has a very good idea about the sorts of folk of whom I speak. Tee hee. Pardon me a moment of snickering glee.