The point of literary criticism in anthropology is not to replace research, but to find out how it is that we are persuasive.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Literary theory has become a parody of science, generating its own arcane jargon. In the process, tragically, it discourages love of literature for its own sake.
The function of literature, through all its mutations, has been to make us aware of the particularity of selves, and the high authority of the self in its quarrel with its society and its culture. Literature is in that sense subversive.
I do think that part of literature's job is to comment on and participate in the social issues of the time.
If people aren't creating literature, there would be nothing for people to criticize.
Mostly, research is much more fun than the actual writing.
Anthropology never has had a distinct subject matter, and because it doesn't have a real method, there's a great deal of anxiety over what it is.
I enjoy research; in fact research is so engaging that it would be easy to go on for years, and never write the novel at all.
I cannot say how strongly I object to people using other people's writing as research. Research is non-fiction, especially for horror, fantasy, science fiction. Do not take your research from other people's fiction. Just don't.
I dislike literary jargon and never use it. Criticism has only one function and that is to help readers read and understand literature. It is not a science, it is an aid to art.
I've often been accused of making anthropology into literature, but anthropology is also field research. Writing is central to it.