Power and credibility: two concepts attached at the hip yet
always seeking to be greater than each other.
We unintentionally throw ourselves into a Catch-22; we gain credibility
to establish power yet seek it to become credible in our desires. While endless sources could be plundered and
scoped for this paradoxical conjoining, I have chosen to examine the English
Literary History Journal (ELHJ) article “The Cosmic Synthesis in Doctor
Faustus” by Robert Ornstein. Thus, I
believe Ornstein’s article shows itself as a creature of a hyper-competitive
environment in the need to be a superior argument.
Understanding
the argument requires understanding the environment it was created within. At a first glance of the ELHJ on the John
Hopkins University website, the journal’s foremost concern is that “ELH publishes
superior studies that interpret the conditions affecting major works in English
and American literature” (John Hopkins University Press). Three words into this description and we’ve
hit a snag: superior. We’ve stumbled
upon a measurement of worth, an enigmatic concept that freezes us in our
tracks. As we read further, we are
dismayed to realize the statement gives no clarity into how the journal
establishes this “superiority.” Does it
mean the most creative or most provocative?
Are we judged by how comprehensive the article is, or by how many
thoughts the author can fill into each sentence? This entire page could be riddled with
potential questions without receiving a single answer. All potential contributors have to go on is
this abstract concept of superiority and “wing it.”
Given
context, we can now follow Ornstein’s approach to the superiority complex. His article on the various character
relationships in Marlowe’s play is deliberative and inspires unique
understandings of “King” and “Clown” characters found in numerous medieval
dramas. While I personally find some of
Ornstein’s arguments to be dense and sluggish, I give him credit in using less
group-specific jargon in displaying his thoughts. Until the final two paragraphs, most of the
essay appears to be standard pomp and flair, as far as University-level
analyses go. Then, from way out of left
field, he busts out the big guns: “Marlowe adds new dimension to the Morality
framework” (Ornstein 172). Where the
majority of the essay dealt with character development, we’ve drastically
switched gears into the religious/philosophical ramifications of the play. Even so, the status of Doctor Faustus as a Morality play has been debated for years. Why pull this aggressive curveball? One word: superiority. By claiming the work creates a new level to
the common understanding of Morality plays, Ornstein attempted to one-up
previous notions of the drama, and obviously succeeded.
Essentially,
we find ourselves in a system that prides itself so heavily on having the most
superior analyses of literature that elitism is the only mode of understanding
in which these contributors work. Rather
than seek new and potentially brilliant comprehensions of texts, these authors
bind themselves to dig in the same old holes, each time going “deeper” than a
previous contributor. The more we
observe, the more we realize this isn’t a vehicle of expressive thought but a
coliseum of words and claims. Otherwise,
we could argue the competitive work asks contributors to delve further into
their arguments, creating more powerful pieces.
Also, a compelling counterargument could be made that the environment
these papers exist within are a particular niche and hold themselves to a
stronger standard. Then it becomes
important to ask: do these standards promote greater thought or greater
limitations?
 |
| Above: Competitive authorship |
-Matthew R. Otto
No comments:
Post a Comment