Reviews for Procedural Form in Postmodern American Poetry: Berrigan, Antin, Silliman, and Hejinian

The average rating for Procedural Form in Postmodern American Poetry: Berrigan, Antin, Silliman, and Hejinian based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-02-15 00:00:00 Shawn Rust Admittedly, I skimmed it, but this is one of the best works of literary criticism I've read all semester: lucid, original, theoretically grounded but sure of Linzie's own voice. American scholars should be ashamed that Swedes understand and elucidate our literature so much better than most of us do. Will be invaluable for the paper I'm writing on The Book of Salt by Monique Truong.

Review # 2 was written on 2012-10-11 00:00:00 Alex Zachary This book is racist, sexist, and ridiculous. Despite the title, it isn't insightful or subversive. It's a sarcastic, bitter attempt to re-establish traditional values in English literature. The author rejects all notions of post-structuralism and attempts to force students back into the dark ages of English studies: back when the canon consisted only of old white Christian men. Kantor laments all appreciation of literature written by minorities (including claiming that the work of Toni Morrison and Allen Ginsberg isn't "literature"), makes the absurd claim that English classes are indoctrinating students into Marxism, and confuses Communism with New Historicism. The tone of the book is hateful and, frankly, bizarre. Most of Kantor's "What They Don't Want You to Learn from . . ." boxes seem to suggest that she believes English students are taught to ignore any and all morals that a text might impart, which makes no sense at all. For example, on page 80, Kantor claims that English professors don't want to students to study Shakespeare's sonnets and come away from them having learned that "Love and sex are serious things. If you treat them lightly, someone's going to get hurt." Really? My English professor doesn't want me to know that? The book is clearly written with Kantor's own conservative politics and racist views at the forefront. "Marriage is the arrangement according to which both the man and the woman get what they want, and what's good for them, each from the other" (pg. 82) simply isn't a quote that belongs in a text discussing literary criticism, except as an example of heteronormalcy and sexism. She claims that the dismantling of the traditional canon will lead to calling the Boy Scout Handbook great literature and - somehow, again - to Communism. She states that "racial injustices have been rectified," and suggests that if "the descendants of slaves" (she refuses to use the term African Americans) were writing anything worth reading, they'd already be part of the canon, and that America is doing African Americans a disservice by valuing the works they produce instead of teaching them to write those old dead white men. She takes aim at the baby boomers, too. It's rare that I've read such an offensive book. It isn't just the racism, sexism, or conservatism that's offensive--it's the attitude of contempt for anyone who disagrees (which, by the way, is 95% of English professors). If you want to learn about English literature, learn from someone who loves it, not someone who is terrified of having her privileged place among the intelligentsia stolen from her by the uneducated masses. No wonder Kantor can't get hired as a professor.