But, Chaouli counters, the flat earth theory is useful to literary scholars.

Such a critique, he says, misunderstands his arguments. For the purposes of literature, certain questions can be posed more shrewdly or more interestingly with recourse to terms that are no longer acceptable in scientific disciplines.

Literature shouldn't be mistaken for an exact description of the human condition or an agent for promoting morality, he adds.

"Literature departments shouldn't think of themselves as quasi-religious

institutions," Chaouli says. He doesn't deny that there are moral aspects to literature, but he says that there is no way of knowing what effect a piece of literature will have on a reader. There is no reason to assume that literature will raise the moral standards of its readers.

For some critics, such a view is unacceptable. They claim that literature departments cannot survive in a university setting unless they develop clear standards for students and a system of positive knowledge. The anxious and uncomfortable state of literary studies needs to be resolved, they claim.

"That's fine," Chaouli says, "but such a system doesnt exist yet."

For now, then, Michel Chaouli will continue urging his students and fellow scholars to embrace rather than lament the so-called crisis in literary studies.