Reviews for The Madness of Epic: Reading Insanity from Homer to Statius

The average rating for The Madness of Epic: Reading Insanity from Homer to Statius based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-12-30 00:00:00 Jane Doe Frantzen argues for greater use of literary theory in Anglo-Saxon studies, both in academic work and in the classroom. Anglo-Saxonists have been slower to introduce contemporary critical methods into their discipline than just about any other field in literature, but in the span of the last two decades since Frantzen's book, this has largely been corrected. Cultural materialism, feminism, and poststructural theory have all made headway into the field. So in this respect, Desire for Origins is an outdated work. But in its call to certain postmodern literary studies, it is still relevant in my view. In highly simplified form, Frantzen's argument is that politics have always played a role in AS studies. Only since the late 19th century have scholars placed themselves in a position of scientific objectivism. But even for those scholars who claim objectivity, there is latent and guiding political viewpoints being espoused. Therefore, Anglo-Saxonists should have no qualms about adopting contemporary literary theory, with all of its political implications. His call is aimed at making AS studies, and the humanities generally, more applicable and desirable to students, with the assumption that critiquing a text from a feminist viewpoint, for example, is more engaging and rewarding in our current situation than holding to German high philology. In this claim, Frantzen certainly has a point, but I think he overestimates the practical felt benefit or students of literary theory. For me, and I'm sure for many students, contemporary theory can often suck the life out of literary study. Moreover, I take issue with the fact the politics that are necessitated by Frantzen's call to literary theory. Like him, I do not believe that any scholarship is free of political implications--there is no view from nowhere--but what I object to, and what I find frustrating and quite frankly wrong about contemporary theory, is the fact that 99 percent of it requires the adoption of more or less radical leftist politics. The dominance of postmodern methodology in the academy is the dominance of 60s ear leftist politics. It is nearly impossible for a scholar to be accepted in current academia, particularly in the English department, without holding onto such views. The result of course is a paucity of views within departments and a disconnect between academic work and the actual population. Frantzen, for example, bases his reading of the history of Anglo-Saxon studies and his examples of how to reinvigorate them primarily on Foucauldian power structure analysis and then deconstruction. And while this is certainly a valid reading of texts, it cannot be used as an approach for then proving the importance of using literary theory in the classroom. My response is then, "Thank you, sir, but I do not agree with your theory." And then I dismiss his whole argument. Politics can be in the classroom, but scholars that bring to bear only politically radical and leftist theory into their classroom are providing skewed pictures to their students, and an academy that presents only these same perspectives will still be out of touch with a vast swath of society, and will ultimately run out of students.

Review # 2 was written on 2014-10-01 00:00:00 Terry Evans This book brings up many important questions for the study (and teaching) of Anglo-Saxon. My focus area is not A-S, but I may very well be teaching it in the future alongside Middle English, so many of the concerns are issues I should be thinking about. Even so, I think many of the ideas Frantzen brings up can be applied to Middle English studies. I shall have to ponder this book much more.