Talk:Christopher Ricks

Gibberish - Round 2?
I am aware that things became quite heated, but I feel I must raise some more issues about the paragraph that was under discussion. Although it makes perfect sense, the tone is wrong: it is unclear whether it is Ricks' own idea, or whether it is a diatribe inserted by someone who dislikes a certain type of criticism. Ricks might say something like this, and he might say it in this tone, but this isn't the place for florid academic writing (unless, of course, you are quoting his work directly). Nishdani says that Ricks uses an old critical idiom with phrases such as 'instinct with'. This may be true, but it doesn't mean we should use it, too. The Shakespeare article doesn't have people beginning sentences with 'Wherefore...'

Nor should what is on this page be anything other than a dispassionate report of this man's ideas - right now, it looks like a wholesale endorsement of them. I'm leaving it because it is certainly much better than nothing, and because I am unfamiliar with the essay it discusses. If anyone who is familiar with it could make the tone neutral, maybe insert some direct quotes so we get a sense of Ricks' distinct style, then that would be perfect. Indy4ever (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Gibberish
Right, I've got a First in Eng Lit and I'm halfway through an MPhil. But I haven't a bloody clue what this means:

"By contrast, practical hands-on criticism is instinct with habits of tuning intellectual antennae to the reader's own intimately nuanced waves of correlative sentiment. In this subtle negotiation between the value-thick sensibility of the reader and the intertextual resonances of a literary work lies the tactful attunement of all great criticism, which is, and must remain, leery of coming to the text brandishing categorical schema, and the panoply of tacitly assumed precepts external to literary creativity."

I'm going to leave it a few days, then unless anyone objects I'll try to translate it into English.Bedesboy (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Be my guest--looks like a piss-take to me, or else the work of some grad student who needs to get out more. --ND (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Rewrite by all means, but I suggest you have Rick's essays, the ones being paraphrased, at hand when you do so. The passage is not up to Wiki's prosaic snuff, clearly, but is perfectly comprehensible to anyone with a knowledge of the history of literary criticism, and literature.The problem with it, is that people who need to read Wiki on this subject rarely have either. Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was taught by Ricks, and used to read his book reviews in the New Statesman, and I can easily imagine him making this sort of point. (I haven't read the essay in question, though.) So I second Nishidani's advice.  Feel free to dab hybris in the article, too! --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I deleted that section just now. Nishidani, I see that you would like me to rewrite it before deleting it. The problem is, it makes absolutely no sense, so I'm not sure what would constitute a rewrite. For example, take the following sentence: "By contrast, practical hands-on criticism is instinct with habits of tuning intellectual antennae to the reader's own intimately nuanced waves of correlative sentiment" If someone can tell me what that even means, I'll gladly rewrite it. In the meantime I'll assume it is computer-generated nonsense. If something actually makes no sense, it shouldn't be treated any differently than a random string of digits that someone has inserted: it should just be removed, not rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.76.182 (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A student of Ricks (see above) said he had no problem with the text (2) It is far from perfect, being written clearly with haste but (3) it follows Rick's essay. He is a critic whose texture of thought is so exquisitely nuanced verbally that he deserves better, but not blanking or expostulations that beg for a dumbing-down. Show me that you can contribute to the article by displaying a familiarity with several of Ricks' books, and I might begin to appreciate your point. 'instinct with' by the way is a fine old English critical idiom, and one not infrequently encountered (like 'compact of') in Ricks books, and literary criticism generally. I've indicated in a quick rewrite the kind of way to handle the provisory text. Before it had none, and no service is done to Wiki by blanking things. Rather, do your homework, and rewrite what you dislike from an informed understanding. Excuse my paternalism, but I am an old man. Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nishidani: I can see that you are going to have your way here, so let me just say some things before I move on. For one thing, I don't believe the person who claims to have been a student of Ricks. Also, you say that "it follows Rick's[sic] essay" ... so you must be familiar with that essay. Which makes me wonder: why haven't you rewritten that section yourself by now, since you said that "the passage is not up to Wiki's prosaic snuff"? I suspect that you wrote the original passage yourself. Lastly, you told me to do my homework ... well, that's what I'm doing by coming to wikipedia, now isn't it?

It doesn't take a knowledge of Ricks' original essay to see that the comments I deleted actually didn't make any sense. I'm glad that you did some minor rewrites though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.76.182 (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No one has there own way here. To write an encyclopedia requires tens of thousands of people willing to not just browse and blank what they dislike, but the patience, study and collaboration of many on the topics dealt with by articles. Cruising by and just blanking what strikes one as inadequate, poorly phrased, or badly organized is not on. What's the problem about my having written that page? There was nothing there, and I freely admit I both disliked the passage and hoped people would come in and trim, restyle it. It was a draft, and all pages are drafts. Doing one's homework on wiki does not signify just reading. Homework invariably entails, or once did, writing, doing précis etc. The world is full of consumers who complain that they haven't got what they wanted. Here you are offered a large number of products produced by others for free, and you are not obliged to pay for them by doing some work in here. But by the same token, to consider it a right to destroy the only product on the market because you dislike it, because it is not tailored to your own tastes, is a curious position. You dislike something, but it costs you nothing to possess it. Okay, throw it away by going away without accepting the freebie, but do not destroy the object you haven't yourself tried to pick up and improve. Someone else out there might find some use for it. Nishidani (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You said: "But by the same token, to consider it a right to destroy the only product on the market because you dislike it, because it is not tailored to your own tastes, is a curious position." I didn't realize that it was a question of taste. I thought it was possible to actually be right or wrong when it comes to grammar, logic etc. I guess I was just imposing my 'taste' for coherent language. How presumptuous of me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.76.182 (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We all have moments of self-enlightenment.Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Principles of theory
Is it possible to wig oneself with fig leaves? Would that not be a merkin? SterlingMorrison (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"at book length"
"an enthusiast of Bob Dylan, whose lyrics he has analysed at book length" -- what book? The one cited wasn't written by Christopher Ricks. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)