transit scholarship

You know that problem when you don't name your files systematically - you name the latest one 'new', then the next one 'new new', and the one after that 'updated new' - so you can't tell by the names of the files, which is the latest one? It becomes very confusing. I think literary scholarship has a problem like that. 

Why did they call 'modernism' 'modernism'? Modern means current, doesn't it? So, what were they going to do when modern no longer meant early twentieth century? [Assuming that's the definition you're using. Sometimes 'modernism' is used to refer to the period beginning with the enlightenment and the scientific revolution.] Well, you call the next thing 'post-modernism', which is really just deferring and exacerbating the problem, because it kind of means 'after now'. So, what do you call the next development after 'post-modernism'? Scholars have solved the problem by declaring that theory no longer exists.....yes, we are living in a post-theory world.

Another good example is the so-called 'new criticism', which isn't new at all anymore. It's actually around a hundred years old now, but it's still called 'new criticism' because that's what it was called when it was actually new. It seems like literary scholars are a lot like normal human beings. They get excited about what they are doing, and they think that no one has ever thought or done those things before, and, for some reason, they don't stop and think about what will come next. They're like the people who push and shove to get on the bus, but once they are on, they won't move down the aisle so other people can get on.