Passage - General Questions

[avengingangel]

Hello! Can someone please help me out in understanding this passage ?? A couple of lines threw me off that made it that much more difficult for me to complete my VIEWSTAMP analysis.

I have no idea what the passage is trying to say, in lines 30-35 when it says: "Movement leader James Wright, for example, in his discussion of arguments in the Iliad, barely touches on law, and then so generally as to render himself vulnerable to Posner's devastating remark that 'any argument can be analogized to a legal dispute.'"
1) What does "and then so generally" and "render himself vulnerable" mean here?
2)Why/how is the remark "devastating?"
3)Why would Posner say "any argument can be analogized to a legal dispute?" That does not seem to fit with the rest of his critique of the movement.

Also,

I have no idea what the author of the passage meant by "...while leaving it to others to draw the conclusion from his cogent analysis that it is an entirely factitious undertaking, deserving of no intellectual respect whatsoever." That's so confusing -- that made me think that Posner was only saying those few positive things about it because he felt like he had to because of the growth of the movement but that ultimately he thinks (& the author agrees) it's totally worthless. It makes it sound like he's almost being sarcastic about confirming the actual integrity or intellectual merit of the movement. But the explanation in the Course book says that Posner "finds flaws" but "recognizes the success."

Help, anyone, please ! Thanks.

[David Boyle]

Hello! Can someone please help me out in understanding this passage ?? A couple of lines threw me off that made it that much more difficult for me to complete my VIEWSTAMP analysis.

I have no idea what the passage is trying to say, in lines 30-35 when it says: "Movement leader James Wright, for example, in his discussion of arguments in the Iliad, barely touches on law, and then so generally as to render himself vulnerable to Posner's devastating remark that 'any argument can be analogized to a legal dispute.'"
1) What does "and then so generally" and "render himself vulnerable" mean here?
2)Why/how is the remark "devastating?"
3)Why would Posner say "any argument can be analogized to a legal dispute?" That does not seem to fit with the rest of his critique of the movement.

Also,

I have no idea what the author of the passage meant by "...while leaving it to others to draw the conclusion from his cogent analysis that it is an entirely factitious undertaking, deserving of no intellectual respect whatsoever." That's so confusing -- that made me think that Posner was only saying those few positive things about it because he felt like he had to because of the growth of the movement but that ultimately he thinks (& the author agrees) it's totally worthless. It makes it sound like he's almost being sarcastic about confirming the actual integrity or intellectual merit of the movement. But the explanation in the Course book says that Posner "finds flaws" but "recognizes the success."

Help, anyone, please ! Thanks.

Hello,

As for "1) What does "and then so generally" and "render himself vulnerable" mean here?", it means that White touches on law in such weak or vague terms that he makes himself vulnerable to criticism. (If something doesn't really relate to the law, then why compare it to the law?)
As for "2)Why/how is the remark "devastating?" ... 3)Why would Posner say "any argument can be analogized to a legal dispute?" That does not seem to fit with the rest of his critique of the movement.", it seems to fit reasonably well with Posner's critique. Posner thinks that "Legal questions per se, about which a lawyer might instruct readers are seldom at issue in literature." So, something as weak as merely analogizing some argument to a legal dispute, is a subject of Posner's sarcasm or scorn, since anyone can compare any argument to a legal dispute. That doesn't quite reach the intellectual level of actual legal questions.
And: "Perhaps, recognizing the success of a movement that, in the past, has singled him out for abuse, he is attempting to appease his detractors, paying obeisance to the movement's institutional success by declaring that it "deserves a place in legal research" while leaving it to others to draw the conclusion from his cogent analysis that it is an entirely factitious undertaking, deserving of no intellectual respect whatsoever. As a result, his work stands both as a rebuttal of law-and-literature and as a tribute to the power it has come to exercise in academic circles." Maybe there is a sarcastic tone here, as you note. But Posner can recognize the success of the movement in that the movement is powerful, without thinking that the movement is actually "intellectually successful" in the sense of being true or accurate. Astrology is a very powerful movement, still--horoscope are in lots of newspapers--; but does that mean that astrology is successful at telling the truth about what influence the stars have (or don't have) on human life?

David

[blade21cn]

I've difficulty comprehending the last sentence in ¶1 (Lines 13-19), "Indeed, one indication of the movement's strength is the fact that its most distinguished critic, Richard A. Posner, paradoxically ends up expressing qualified support for the movement in a recent study, in which he systematically refutes the writings of its leading legal scholars and cooperating literary critics." Specifically, in reference to "refutes the writings of its leading legal scholars and cooperating literary critics," what does "its" refer to? The movement's? Are these "leading legal scholars and cooperating literary critics" critics of the movement, advocates of the movement, or just practitioners of law-and-literature? Based on the context that Posner systematically refutes their writings, these people seem to be the movement's critics, just like Posner himself. Does "cooperating" have a special meaning other than assisting? Also, in the reciprocal relationship between law and literature, the author seems to include both literature writers and literary critics as literature practitioners, the equivalent of lawyers as law practitioners. Anyway, I'm especially confused about which side these people are on and the author's choice of words for reference.

In addition, lines 48-49, "Perhaps, recognizing the success of a movement that, in the past, has singled him out for abuse ...," what does "for abuse" mean - Posner often abuses the law-and-literature movement or his detractors picked on him and abused him?

Thanks!

[Christen Hammock]

Hi Blade!

You are right about the "its"—that is referring to the scholars of the law and literature movement. In other words, Posner tries to discredit the movement but ends up expressing qualified support for the scholars and literary critics. "Critics" in the phrase "literary critics" doesn't have the connotation of criticizing, but of being critical.

As to the "abuse..." line, that refers to the fact that the law and literature movement has "abused" Posner in the past and that he's trying to appease them, even as he critiques their method of reasoning!