My major objection to the race for theory, as some readers have
probably guessed by now, really hinges on the question, "for whom
are we doing what we are doing when we do literary criticism?" It is, I
think, the central question today especially for the few of us who have
infiltrated the academy enough to be wooed by it. The answer to that
question determines what orientation we take in our work, the language we use, the purposes for which it is intended.
"I can only speak for myself. But what I write and how I write is done
in order to save my own life. And I mean that literally. For me literature is a way of knowing that I am not hallucinating, that whatever I feel/know is. It is an affirmation that sensuality is intelligence, that sensual language is language that makes sense. My response, then, is directed to those who write what I read and to those who read what I read - put concretely - to Toni Morrison and to people who read Toni Morrison (among whom I would count few academics). That number is increasing, as is the readership of Walker and Marshall. But in no way is the literature Morrison, Marshall, or Walker create ported by the academic world. Nor given the political context of our society, do I expect that to change soon. For there is no reason, given who controls these institutions, for them to be anything other than threatened by these writers