Bret Easton Ellis
your name
Ellis' work to give their opinions on it. I'm a fan of his writing, and
am intensely interested in hearing what others have to say, both good and
bad. Will read all entries.
Jonathan Cohen
American Psycho nauseated me - literally, it made me sick, the only book I've
ever read that did so.
Jono
Fiona Webster
>I'd like to take this opportunity to ask anyone with some
>familiarity with Ellis' work to give their opinions on it.
>I'm a fan of his writing, and am intensely interested in hearing what
>others have to say, both good and bad. Will read all entries.
Jono wrote:
>American Psycho nauseated me - literally, it made me sick, the only
>book I've ever read that did so.
I thought _American_Psycho_ was a wonderful send-up of the whole
80's yuppie schtick, and not a bad horror novel to boot. I wish
there were more horror writers as witty as Ellis is.
--Fiona Webster
John hewitt
(Fiona Webster) wrote:
I think Ellis suffers from First Book Syndrome. His first book was such a
sensation. The storytelling style, the attitude of the characters, the
downright ugliness of a wealth and glamor that in the eighties everyone
SEEMED to want to achieve, they all combined to create a book that really
struck a nerve. Sadly, every book he's written since has been a pale echo
of the first. He's still writing about the same kind of people, in the
same era, when the rest of the world has moved on.
I have read each of Ellis' books following Less Than Zero, and I keep
hoping that Ellis will find himself again. His language skills have never
been particularly impressive, and his descriptions seem to get flatter
with each new work. If American Psycho had not been so sickening and
bizarre, it would have been completely ignored. Still, it is his boldest,
(if largely unsuccessful) effort since Less Than Zero. His latest work,
The Informers, is his least interesting yet. L.A. and New York in the
mid-eighties is ground that has been covered and covered well. Ellis has
gone from the cutting edge to writing period pieces. The sad thing (for
him) is that I think we are living in far more complex times now, and I
wish he would take an interest in them.
"How do I get this off my fingers fast without betraying my cool exterior?"
Agent Fox Mulder / X-files
Chris Kienle
put it down at times. But, thats part of his point. The story is written in a way to
capture, in words, the most unthinkable, most psychotic, most crazy events that
toll all of one's worst fears into one giant nightmare. Not only that, but Bateman,
the main character, is done so well as this obsessed, but not necessarily informed
nutcase. His obsession with clothes, food, music, hygene, etc. is depicted so well.
But what's interesting is the fact that, for example, in the "Genesis" chapter, he
makes references to songs and to the band in general, that are WRONG! But unless
you, the reader, picks up on that, it'll slip by. Point being, he acts so knowledgable
about everything, but doesn't necessarily know what he's talking about. I also
liked Ellis' leaving some sentences unfinished, chapters left undone, mid-sentence.
Yes, sick, but not just to write a sick novel. I liked it.
Chris
Visit TRISTERO - the online magazine of creative art and entertainment.
http://superlink.com/tristero
Martin Salias
>>I'd like to take this opportunity to ask anyone with
some
>>familiarity with Ellis' work to give their opinions on
it.
>>I'm a fan of his writing, and am intensely interested in
hearing what
>>others have to say, both good and bad. Will read all
entries.
>
>Jono wrote:
>>American Psycho nauseated me - literally, it made me
sick, the only
>>book I've ever read that did so.
>
>I thought _American_Psycho_ was a wonderful send-up of
the whole
>80's yuppie schtick, and not a bad horror novel to boot.
I wish
>there were more horror writers as witty as Ellis is.
>
> --Fiona
Webster
I think American Psycho is an excellent work of visual
literature (the very pervasive way of the
post-postmodernism). Bateman is a whole bunch of pop
mythes. As he's an obvious update of Matheson Norman
Bates, he's also Batman (remember the scene when he runs
with the coat floating through the streets, escaping from
the police).
The book is great in nauseating people. Both for the hard
parts and for the non-reaction of the characters in every
moment.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Martin Salias mar...@merino.satlink.net
Merino Aller & Asociados Callao 232, 6to.11
Research & Development Manager (1022) Bs.As, Argentina
Wayne Wood
mar...@merino.satlink.net (Martin Salias) wrote:
>
>I think American Psycho is an excellent work of visual
>literature (the very pervasive way of the
>post-postmodernism).
okay... someone help a dumb grunt.... what is post-modernism? and what (for
cryin out loud) is post- post-modernism?
-- woody (labels don't always make things clearer)
John McCarthy
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Carl Weaver
"Slaughter-Huse Five" by Kurt Vonnegutt. "Billy Pilgrim has become
unstuck in time." It's like a Dali paiting, very deconstructionist in
nature. Read this book. you will get it.
-CEW
Wayne Wood (kai...@sierra.net) wrote:
: In article <2126...@merino.satlink.net>,
--
Carl E. Weaver
cewe...@email.unc.edu
From UNC-"The Southern Part of Heaven"
Let's see the Browns go all the way this year!!!
Elizabeth Kuzina
: >I'd like to take this opportunity to ask anyone with some
: >familiarity with Ellis' work to give their opinions on it.
: >I'm a fan of his writing, and am intensely interested in hearing what
: >others have to say, both good and bad. Will read all entries.
I thought both LESS THAN ZERO and that other one ... RULES OF ATTRACTION,
I think, are the most interesting of his work. Personally, I thought
AMERICAN PYSCHO was a great big yawn -- he tried for the shock effect,
but only covered ground already explored. And frankly, his use of
language isn't really sophisticated enough to make that sort of rehash
worth my while.
But back to LESS THAN ZERO and RULES OF ATTRACTION. I thought this was a
*fairly* innovative approach to what was later dubbed as "Generation X."
One aspect which stands out in my mind is the mysterious identity of the
note-leaving woman/suicide in RULES OF ATTRACTION.
Also of interest in RULES OF ATTRACTION are several mentions of a strange
and rather antisocial group of classics majors, including a hint that
they might have killed some farmer ... and RULES OF ATTRACTION predates
THE SECRET HISTORY by slightly over two years. I'd like to know if Ellis
knew of Tartt's work and added this as some sort of inside joke, or if
Tarrt borrowed this detail from Ellis and developed it into an entire novel.
Elizabeth Kuzina
Carl E. Weaver
standards we usually follow. A good example is the Dali painting with all
the melting clocks. It is very surreal, even pushed the boundaries of
what was acceptable for art of that time (early 1900s). Nowadays, we have
Robert Mappelthorpe groupies and others who do "performance art" (which
is not the type of thing I would typically describe as "art") as our
modern deconstructionists.
Another good example, since this is a writing group, is "Slaughter-house
Five." Billy Pilgrim being "unstuck in time" is very postmodern, very
much pushing the edges of possibility. Would I describe, then, typical
fantasy books (Ursula K. LeGuin, et. al.) as postmodern or
deconstructionist? NO!!!
Part of postmodernism as a theme in literature is that something
completely surreal happens, and it is somehow not seen as out of the
ordinary. Billy Pilgrim's transcendance of time is completely normal to
him, and is not even the subject of the novel, although I am sure it
could be.
Another example: "A Clockwork Orange." This one was just plain WEIRD. It
was very surreal because there were enough familiarities to make it
comfortable, and all of a sudden, something completely *bizarre* happens.
It was deconstructionist in the sense that the author actually invented a
new vocabulary of slang that the people use in the novel. It was
postmodern in the sense that you get the feeling that the story is
supposed to happen sometime in the future, although it is never really
spoken WHEN it is, and it could really be dropped into almost any time in
the past thirty years to the next twenty or so.
Do some research on Dadaism, too.
Carl E. Weaver
> In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950907...@login0.isis.unc.edu> you wrote:
> : Deconstructionism is a trend (esp. in arts and literature) to abandon the
> : standards we usually follow.
>
> [etc.]
>
> Did someone teach you that or did you come up with it yourself? Or is it
> satire? This is not a hostile mail, I am truly puzzled. Silke
No, just little tidbits I picked up along the way. I also know some stuff
about Cambodia, brewing beer and wine, fixing cars, cooking Chinese food
(american style), and the new parking meter policy at UNC. A little bit
of everything, really.
Look under the hood, Ma'am?
Kenneth Rosenberger
by a Marxist to deflate the Western Canon and to basically
say that nothing that's been written is any better than
an episode of "All in the Family." What is it with these
Branch Derrideans and their Archie Bunker lust anyway?
Deconstruction was championed in America (where Derrida
eventually found a home; France having given up on him a
long time ago) at Yale University, where its primary honk
was one Paul deMan, late of Belgium, a man who'd collaborated
big time with the Nazis during WWII, a man in short who needed
deconstruction to prove that the avalanche of anti-Semitic
vitriol he'd produced back then was actually pro-Jewish. Too
bad the theory needed to decipher his consoling and uplifting
prose wasn't developed until twenty years after the war.
A friend of mine did his undergrad work at Yale, where he said
"there were so many deconstructionists running around, it was
like we were all set free to be new critics again," i.e., if
you wanted to be a true revolutionary, you became a traditionalist.
Another one of deconstruction's aims seems to be to elevate the
role of criticism to a level above artistic creation. In fact,
when one deciphers deconstruction's curious literature one finds
not so much a theory of criticism (a noble undertaking) as a
somewhat puerile response to the world which, while refusing to
take anything seriously, chooses to treat the world as one of
those brightly-colored toy sets you place in a toddler's crib.
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!
Just my $.02
Paul Zakrzewski
battle of critical theory (specifically deconstructionism and
post-modernism) which was even then running rampant at the English
Department at my school. Nonetheless, I've recently gone back to grad
school, where an introductory course in critical theory made topics like
post-modernism not only understandable, but exciting, too.
I just finished typing a page for you that described deconstructionism
and post-modernism (po-mo for those in the know), and realized I hadn't
articulated the basic philosophy of each movement very well. Frankly,
they're complicated ideas, and you'd do well to look at some of the
theory, or just read primers on the subjects. The father of
deconstructionism is Jacques derrida; he is extremely opaque and, frankly,
a nuisance. But you can read the people he inspired, thinkers like Raymond
Williams (british) and others who argue that much of what we take as
absolute--race, sex, class, for example--is actually constructed.
Deconstructionists don't read a book merely to discover all the neat
Christ imagery, but to "unpack" all the author's secret prejuidices, the
social outlook of the writer. What the author "intended" is of no interest
to this group. This way of thinking annoys and frustrates most writers, of
course, who hate to be thought of as extraneous to the creation of their
own works; also, it can make you extremely self-conscious of your writing.
No wonder not too many writers are critical thinkers, too.
Post-modernism is even trickier. In an essay for the NYTimes Book Review
a couple of years ago, sociology professor Todd Gitlin wrote an amazing
primer on the topic. Try to find the essay if you can--it's the best
introduction to the topic I've seen. He described several philosophical
and artistic ideas that could be described as post-modern, but ended the
article by admitting that there's no one definition. Post-modern art tries
to reflect the disjointed, chaotic, fragmented world through the use of
subversive styles, pastiche, self-reflexivity etc. In other words, a
post-modern movie might subvert (that's a key pomo word) our expectation
for a neat ending. Or else, a post-modern movie might mix a bunch of
styles together; a pastiche. Most post-modern art is very
self-reflexive,too. That is, it's very aware of the fact its a
construction, and makes us, the viewer, constantly aware of the artiface.
(Gus Van Sant's "My Own Private Idaho" or Peter Greenaway's "The Cook, the
Thief, His Wife and Her Lover" are both great examples of post-modern
movies, for different reasons. The first uses a modern story, intertwined
with Shakespeare's Henry IV in a very self-conscious way; and then it
denies us a neat ending. It literally ends where it started. In the other
film, several styles are thrown together--gangster film, 17th century
Restoration drama, etc)
The reason to follow post-modernism and recognize its calling
cards--pastiche, self-reflexivity etc--is that so many modern writers are
using these techniques in their fiction.
Peggy Gibbons
I read _American_Psycho_ this past summer and though it sickened me, it
was and an interesting look at the eighties and the greed and
self-obsession that the decade is noted for. I'm not sorry that I read
it but I find myself defending the novel all the time when people bring
up the fact that it was one of Paul Bernardo's favourite books. Some of
the news media here in Canada have described scenes in the book that just
did not happen, they were straight from Bernardo's life. I can't be
alone in thinking that this is really dangerous. _American_Psycho_ is
not the "Bernardo book" that was a road map for his crimes. It is
fiction and I would hate to see support for censorship come from this.
Peggy
Michael Thompson
"Carl E. Weaver" <cewe...@email.unc.edu> writes:
>
>Deconstructionism is a trend (esp. in arts and literature) to abandon
the
>standards we usually follow.
Actually, that is called CHANGE, not deconstruction.
Deconstruction is a strategy of "reading" which depends on the
contingent quality of language (i.e., arbitrary nature of the sign,
etc.) showing that a "text" can be shown to have a different meaning
altogether from that which it supposedly espouses. The Derridean
technique is to focus on one word, one footnote, and slowly show how
that one element of the text deconstructs the rest of the text. It is
not a "trend in the arts" it is a philosophical and critical discourse
which was much over-used in the 80's and has since been given a bad
name. In my opinion, deconstruction is useful, but certainly not in
the way it was over-applyed in many graduate schools in the 80's. I,
personally, am not a deconstructionist in the strictest sence of the
word, but I feel that all literature students who do critical analyses,
will induldge in it here and there -- even if they are not aware of it.
A good example is the Dali painting with all
>the melting clocks. It is very surreal, even pushed the boundaries of
>what was acceptable for art of that time (early 1900s). Nowadays, we
have
>Robert Mappelthorpe groupies and others who do "performance art"
(which
>is not the type of thing I would typically describe as "art") as our
>modern deconstructionists.
>
>Another good example, since this is a writing group, is
"Slaughter-house
>Five." Billy Pilgrim being "unstuck in time" is very postmodern, very
>much pushing the edges of possibility. Would I describe, then, typical
>fantasy books (Ursula K. LeGuin, et. al.) as postmodern or
>deconstructionist? NO!!!
>
>Part of postmodernism as a theme in literature is that something
>completely surreal happens, and it is somehow not seen as out of the
>ordinary. Billy Pilgrim's transcendance of time is completely normal
to
>him, and is not even the subject of the novel, although I am sure it
>could be.
>
>Another example: "A Clockwork Orange." This one was just plain WEIRD.
Bosch was "weird" too, but he is not postmodernist. I think the
best thing for you to do is get a few books on the theories of
deconstruction; you are NOT using the term correctly at all, and I
don't think you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. But
that's ok, deconstruction is an extremely difficult philosophical
thought to digest and understand. Start off with Derrida's _De la
grammatologie_ (Of Grammatology) and work your way through his works.
Michael...
Wayne C. Wood
ai...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Thompson ) wrote:
>In <42kvar$as4...@granite-d227.sierra.net> kai...@sierra.net (Wayne
>Wood) writes:
>complex one. I would suggest reading Jameson's _Postmodernisn: Or The
>Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism_ as well as books by Gilles Deleuze
>and other modern critics for a further discussion of the topic.
again... thank you for the explanation... and esp. the pointers to
references...
-- woody
D.R.I.P. == Don't Reelect Incumbent Politicians
Michael Thompson
> mar...@merino.satlink.net (Martin Salias) wrote:
>>
>>I think American Psycho is an excellent work of visual
>>literature (the very pervasive way of the
>>post-postmodernism).
>
>okay... someone help a dumb grunt.... what is post-modernism? and what
(for
>cryin out loud) is post- post-modernism?
>
>-- woody (labels don't always make things clearer)
Your question could not raise a more polemical debate, in terms of
definition or ideology. Many theorists approach post-modernism from
different aspects, others simply see the post- prefix as an unnecassary
additive to modernism. In any case, Frederic Jameson's definition of
of this phenomenon is that it is the "cultural logic of late
capitalism;" that is to say, post-idustrial, post-fordist economic and
social conditions have created a society which is predicated on
consumption rather than production (modernism, industrial revolution).
This, in turn, effects the way culture is formed and perceived.
Everything becomes commodified, and culture replaces nature as the
starting point for all (valley girls and Nintendo freaks are examples).
There is also the topic of industrial power, not only over the
culture in which it is housed, but also the expansion of industrial
power over Third-world countries and societies. Post-modernism, for
Jameson, springs from these aspects of the economy -- as any true
Marxist critic would. The connection with these aspects of economy to
the production of art, is not a huge step for any Marxist, but it is a
complex one. I would suggest reading Jameson's _Postmodernisn: Or The
Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism_ as well as books by Gilles Deleuze
and other modern critics for a further discussion of the topic.
Michael...
Michael Thompson
Weaver) writes:
>
>The best example of postmodernism I can think of is the first line of
>"Slaughter-Huse Five" by Kurt Vonnegutt. "Billy Pilgrim has become
>unstuck in time." It's like a Dali paiting, very deconstructionist in
>nature. Read this book. you will get it.
I don't see how reading one book will open one up the complex
theories of post-modernism. In addition, what do you mean when you say
that the line you quoted is "deconstructionist," in nature? Are you
using the word in some kind of Derridean-theoretical sense? If you are
I am lost -- I don't see the connection; not after reading a lot of
deconstruction theory at least.
Michael...
Wayne C. Wood
cewe...@email.unc.edu (Carl Weaver) wrote:
>The best example of postmodernism I can think of is the first line of
>"Slaughter-Huse Five" by Kurt Vonnegutt. "Billy Pilgrim has become
>unstuck in time." It's like a Dali paiting, very deconstructionist in
>nature. Read this book. you will get it.
>
>
been there, done that... still doesn't explain post-modern, post- post-modern,
or "very deconstructionist" for that matter...
let me try again... can anybody explain this in english?
Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:
deconstruction(ist) ... no entries
post-modern adj. (1949) of or relating to a movement that is in
reaction against the theory and practice of modern art or literature.
okay... this is better... i guess....
-- woody (maybe it's just a term to toss about & impress people?)
Wayne C. Wood
"Carl E. Weaver" <cewe...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>[very elucidating post deleted]
>
>Carl E. Weaver
thank you...
-- woody
Kenneth Miner
[...]
: Deconstructionists don't read a book merely to discover all the neat
: Christ imagery, but to "unpack" all the author's secret prejuidices, the
: social outlook of the writer. What the author "intended" is of no interest
: to this group.
If we applied it to the deconstructionists themselves,
would we get literature back?
Ken
Kenneth Miner
: Annie Dillard has a fascinating, annoying, and thought-provoking
: book called "Living By Fiction," in which she discusses modernism
: and post-modernism.
This is one of the best books I've run into on anything. Note
by the way that she calls postmodernism contemporary Modernism (cf. John
McCarthy's remark earlier).
This book lets you build up hostility during a paragraph, then
tells you why you're angry. I've got to share my favorite quote from it:
If I actually believed that the progress of
human understanding depended on our crop of
contemporary novelists, I would shoot myself.
(p. 147, Perennial Lib. ed.)
Ken
Meg Wilson
>okay... someone help a dumb grunt.... what is post-modernism? and what (for
>cryin out loud) is post- post-modernism?
Annie Dillard has a fascinating, annoying, and thought-provoking
book called "Living By Fiction," in which she discusses modernism
and post-modernism.
-Meg
Duck
I'll toss my two cents on top of that. When I was in graduate school,
New Criticism was still the reigning theory, and I found removing the
author from consideration irritating enough.
When I want to read elegant criticism, I'll pick up Kazin and Trilling,
not any of the Derrida followers.
Has anyone out there read James Hillman's HEALING FICITON?
LBryson
JB
No, it's more than that. It's been suggested that the most signal aspect of
post-modernism is its abiding sense of the ironic. Too, it's been identified
as a movement away from Realism, Romanticism, Positivism, and all kinds of
other -isms, even from it's own, wherein, I suppose, it begins to become
post-post.
JB
Duck
>
>It's been suggested that the most signal aspect of post-modernism is
>its abiding sense of the ironic.
Is this a true >sense of the ironic< or is it self-consciousness, the
fretful coolness of the person who has no sense of place, no personal
security or identitiy and hence has to mock those who do (or did)? I
do not claim to be an expert on late 20th C fiction, but much of what I
have read seems to lack the inversion I link with irony. Unless it
points towards something else, doesn't >irony< tend to lapse into mere
>sarcasm<?
LB
Gary Lee Stonum
[snip]
Frankly,
>they're complicated ideas, and you'd do well to look at some of the
>theory, or just read primers on the subjects. The father of
>deconstructionism is Jacques derrida; he is extremely opaque and, frankly,
>a nuisance. But you can read the people he inspired, thinkers like Raymond
>Williams (british) and others who argue that much of what we take as
>absolute--race, sex, class, for example--is actually constructed.
We deconstructionists being always Sticklers for Historical
Accuracy, I cannot resist correcting this. Williams is quite
a bit older than Derrida, wrote much of his important work before
JD had published a single book, and has usually allied himself
with quite different sources and comrades. Not that one couldn't
find connections between Derrida's and Williams's ideas.
--
Gary Lee Stonum/English/Case Western Reserve Univ/Cleveland OH 44106
email: gx...@po.cwru.edu voice: 216-368-3342 fax 216-368-2216
Don't we know archaic barrel,
Lullaby Lilla Boy, Louisville Lou?
napra
and family have become...not just who are the writers. I wrote an article awhile
back that included some of the following information.
A fun investigation of this movement is found in artist Brian Williams's PoMo Tarot:
A Postmodern Deck for Navigating the Next Millennium from HarperSanFrancisco. This
is a set of revisioned tarot cards with a booklet. If you are familiar with both
modern art and the tarot, the book is very amusing and right on. His small
definition of postmodern comes from art history (architecture is another area that
uses postmodern terminology...I believe such designs would use pastiches of various
styles):
"MODERNISM probably began at the end of the french revolution, when the
impressionists reacted against the academic salons. The great excitement, however,
was on the eve of the first world war when the very first abstract paintings were
created.
"POSTMODERNISM includes all the great modern tendencise, but with a sense of
detachment. Images are presented, yet we might not know what they mean anymore. As
far as society goes, the cards reflect the chaos of life at the endo fht e20th
century. The TV suit [from his card deck] shows that our life is turning into
screened images. Too much information. Too much surface.
David Elkind, author of TIES THAT STRESS: THE NEW FAMILY IN BALANCE (Harvard
University Press), looks at Postmodernism as it identifies the current family
structure. The Modern Family was shaped by the Renaissance notions of romantic love,
maternal love, and family bonding... the society surrounding this supported three
basic and positive assumptions: human progress, universal principles, and order.
Jumping past the Industrial Revolution brings us to a less optimistic world.
Progress, universal principles, and order are gone. We change, but do not
necessarily progress. Universal principles have given away to subjective ethics.
Order has been replaced by chaos theory. The family operates in a more alienated
world.
"The old notion of romantic love," writes Elkind, "meant that women saved themselves
for 'the one' and did not engage in premarital sex. Then the sexual revolution made
preparital sex acceptable and if you had sex witha number of people, you gave up on
romance and Prince Charming. Relationships in the postmodern world are based on
CONSENSUAL LOVE, an often both partners assume it might not be a lifelong
relationship."
Elkind also points out that as women left the home for the workforce, the kids were
raised by any number of different caretakers. Family structures also changed--one
parent, shared parenting, gay couples, single gays, grandparents, etc. Family rules,
instead of coming from the top (parents) are now made democratically by the whole
family.
The child's relationship with the harshness of society is now thrust upon the child
at a very early age. Instead of being innocent and protected by family and society,
the child must know of aids and self defense. "The latchkey kids are taught to deal
with their own care. We erroneously see teenagers as both competent and
sophisticated, which leaves their door open to their vulnerable parts. They now
sense that they are physically ABLE to have sex--and that so many sexual images are
marketed directly to them--that they then CAN have sex. Today, the number of
teenager girls who are sexually active has gone from 10% in the sixties to 90%
recently."
Other valuable books on this topic are
THE HURRIED CHILD: Growing up too Fast too Soon by David Elkind. Addison-Wesley.
Sex, Economy, Freedom, and Community by Wendell Berry. Pantheon Books.
Sexing the Millennium: Women and the Sexual Revolution by Linda Grant. For Grant,
"Madonna is the greatest post-porn modernist of them all...The post-modernist,
postfeminist sexuality of the video generation, coming of age during a period of
reaction and fear, yet witout the real repression of the fifites, is SEX FORMED OF
IMAGES AND STYLE." Another example of postmodernism in the films is Brando's "Last
Tango in Paris." Grant writes: "An American man and a French woman * * * *, in an
attempt to SEPARATE SEX FROM EVERYTHING ELSE.
Some threads in all this...the PoMo Tarot deck art that borrows images from many art
traditions, the crumbling of the family structure, the montages of MTV, the
pastiches of architectural elements, the detachment of sex from meaning...images and
style for their own sake.
Carol Wright
Lars Eighner
> Deconstructionism is a trend (esp. in arts and literature) to abandon the
> standards we usually follow.
No. You do not have a clue as to what deconstruction is. Since
you are posting from a .edu cite, ask your reference librarian to
help you find out what deconstruction is. Not that it is really
very good at what it is, but it is not what you think.
> A good example is the Dali painting with all
> the melting clocks. It is very surreal, even pushed the boundaries of
> what was acceptable for art of that time (early 1900s).
Dali has nothing to do with deconstruction. Yes, his work is
surreal, and is almost definitive of what surrealism is.
> Nowadays, we have
> Robert Mappelthorpe groupies and others who do "performance art" (which
> is not the type of thing I would typically describe as "art") as our
> modern deconstructionists.
Mappelthorpe has nothing to do with deconstruction. There is no plausible
metaphor by which you can correctly call Mappelthorpe a deconstructionist.
Say that unc in unc.edu wouldn't stand for University of North Carolina
would it? If so that would explain a lot.
> Another good example, since this is a writing group, is "Slaughter-house
> Five."
This is not deconstructionism. Deconstruction is a critical technique.
Surely _Slaughter-house Five_ might be deconstructed. But it is not
a deconstructionist work.
Please tell me you went to one of those lily-white private church
schools. Or tell me you had one of those Christian home educations.
I do not want to believe that you could be the product of a public
school. I don't want to believe my tax money is wasted like that.
> Billy Pilgrim being "unstuck in time" is very postmodern, very
> much pushing the edges of possibility. Would I describe, then, typical
> fantasy books (Ursula K. LeGuin, et. al.) as postmodern or
> deconstructionist? NO!!!
>
> Part of postmodernism as a theme in literature is that something
> completely surreal happens, and it is somehow not seen as out of the
> ordinary. Billy Pilgrim's transcendance of time is completely normal to
> him, and is not even the subject of the novel, although I am sure it
> could be.
>
> Another example: "A Clockwork Orange." This one was just plain WEIRD. It
> was very surreal because there were enough familiarities to make it
> comfortable, and all of a sudden, something completely *bizarre* happens.
> It was deconstructionist in the sense that the author actually invented a
> new vocabulary of slang that the people use in the novel.
You haven't a clue what this novel was about any more than you know
what "deconstructionist" means. Why don't you turn off the 700 Club
and open a book.
> It was
> postmodern in the sense that you get the feeling that the story is
> supposed to happen sometime in the future, although it is never really
> spoken WHEN it is, and it could really be dropped into almost any time in
> the past thirty years to the next twenty or so.
>
> Do some research on Dadaism, too.
Physician heal thyself.
=Lars Eighner================"Yes, Lizbeth is fine."========================
=eig...@io.com ="Everything I say reflects the opinions and =
=http://www.io.com/~eighner = official policy of my employer. So lump it." =
=Austin TX====================================IO: it sucks the least!=======
Kylo Ginsberg
>let me try again... can anybody explain this in english?
>Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:
>deconstruction(ist) ... no entries
I'll take a stab at it, but really this is like asking "explain
Hegel in plain English"--it's really the stuff of much reading,
argument and (if available) coursework. That caveat aside:
Deconstruction initially sprang from the writings of Jacques Derrida,
who was essentially writing in a philosophical vein (early writings
keep returning to Kant, Hegel, and the lineage of continental
philosophy) although part of his project was to decry philosophy (as
did other 20th c. "philosophers", Heidegger, Wittgenstein, etc.).
My thumbnail on the early (philosophical) Derrida is (warning: gross
oversimplifications to follow): Hegel reacted to Kant's antinomies of
reason (there is a core pair of opposing theses that drive our
contradictory thought) by developing a *three* step model: thesis,
antithesis, and last a synthesis. When instantiated historically, the
third, final synthesis represented The End, a grand Telos in the sky,
(represented at least briefly in Hegel's mind by Napoleon, but I
digress :>). Derrida reacted to Hegel by positing a *fourth* step, a
dissolution of the synthesized opposites. The process of performing
this dissolution, analyzing the synthesis and disassembling it, is
"deconstruction".
Derrida's early writings were in the late 60s and early 70s. During
the 70s and esp. toward the end of the decade, literary critics
(primarily in the US at first) started taking a hankering to Derrida's
writing and the cultural phenomenon of deconstruction exploded. As
first used by lit critics, deconstruction usually involved reading a
primary (typically heavy use of close reading) to uncover some
particular "opposition" and then demonstrate the dissolution of that
"opposition". Popular early oppositions to consider were man/woman,
speech/writing, black/white, etc, etc.
As deconstruction started to become more popular in the 80s, and a few
flamboyant practitioners (notably at Yale) enjoyed terrifying NYT
Sunday Magazine cover story writers with tales of their radicality
(academics usually don't get to claim their own wildness!),
deconstruction as a term moved into the popular press, got the add'l
(useless to my eye) "-ism" suffix, expanded into academic fields all
over the map (I always found "deconstruction" in architecture
departments particulary unsettling ;>), and developed an ever-fuzzier
meaning in most hands (analogous to the term "metaphysics" which has a
variety of senses, from very technical, to very non-technical).
HTH. If you're interested in more info on deconstruction, I can
recommend primaries and secondaries, as I'm sure many others can.
'Course deconstruction was declared "dead" years ago, so either you
don't need to worry about it, or it's *really* hit the big time.
>post-modern adj. (1949) of or relating to a movement that is in
>reaction against the theory and practice of modern art or literature.
>okay... this is better... i guess....
Since post-modernism is a net thrown over quite a wide variety
and number of writers, a generic definition of this sort does fine.
To know more, read some of the primaries!
>-- woody (maybe it's just a term to toss about & impress people?)
In most circles, yes.
--Kylo
--Kylo Ginsberg | But let the mind beware, that though
kylo...@mhs.unc.edu | the flesh be bugged, the circumstances
(919) 962-9074 | of existence are pretty glorious.
| --Jack Kerouac, _Dharma Bums_
Kylo Ginsberg
>Deconstruction is basically a theory that was developed
>by a Marxist to deflate the Western Canon and to basically
>say that nothing that's been written is any better than
>an episode of "All in the Family." What is it with these
Hard to say if you're trolling, drunk or just ill-informed and feeling
a tad hysterical today. But to correct a few misconceptions:
1) Deconstruction sprang from Jacques Derrida's early writings.
Derrida is not a Marxist. I believe that (along with many French
academic of the late 60s) he was briefly a member of the French
Communist party. I believe his membership was very brief (< 6 months?
but perhaps someone else knows more?) and that he left in disgust.
2) In circles where people read Derrida and Marx, the writings of the
two are often considered to be very diametrically opposed. Indeed,
Derrida's distinctly non-Marxist writings and politics have been a
pronounced source of friction for him in some circles and have caused
him to be much reviled by many academic Marxists. That said, there is
or was a small cottage industry of academic theorists who engage in
various theoretical gymnastics in an attempt to reconcile Derrida's
writings and those of Marx and some of the 20th c. Marxists. FWIW,
generally, I have found those arguments unpersuasive.
3) You may be confusing the phenomenon of Derrida's popularity with
the phenomenon of canon-formation debates. Derrida himself has
focussed his writings on highly canonical figures (generally
philosophy, not a lot of writing on lit), and has expressed quite some
bewilderment about the canon debates. If ever there were a reader and
writer on the classics, it would be Derrida! Somewhere floating
around my bookshelves I have a really funny interview with Derrida
which basically consists of him shaking his head in confusion at the
canon debates--almost sounds like a cranky old trad.
4) As for the Archie Bunker crack, you're presumably thinking of the
rise of pop culture studies in lit departments (as opposed to its
traditional home in sociology departments). This is an interesting
phenomenon, but one for a different time and place, and really has
very little to do with Derrida.
All the best,
Deck Deckert
Brian Williams's PoMo Tarot: A Postmodern Deck ....
Hell, I'm not even up to modern yet.
Deck
Scott Ellis
I think you've put your finger on it, at least insofar as I understand
PM. PM's signal quality seems to me to be a refusal to accept as primary
or unified any order of experience, including that of having a capital s
Self. To Pomos, all perception is mediated and constructed and nothing
can order, or give meaning or foundation to, anything else. So the
primary emotional tinge in a lot of pomo-lit is a kind of free-floating
irony, an irony which doesn't point toward anything better or more
fundamental. The flip side of this is melancholy and some pomo writers
are very affecting in this vein: Check out William Gass or John Barth's
latest work.
------
sae - The first duty in life is to be as artificial as possible. What
the second duty is, no one has yet discovered. (Oscar Wilde)
Duck
(Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
l.
>
>It seems to me that the desire to be pointed towards "anything better
>or more fundamental" is, in want of a better word, consumerist. The
>question should not be, "what do I get out of it," but "are these
>arguments sound?" And if they are sound, then their refusal to elate
>you into a sphere of order is legitimate, and the only intellectually
>honest thing to do. On the other hand, the flip side of this must not
>be "melancholy," even though it can be. Read Nietzsche on the possible
>elation that can follow from the sense of 'free play,' and don't bore
>me with references to his madness in this regard.
>
>Silke
Consumerist? Could you elaborate a bit on this? I do not understand
how you are using the word.
I love Nietzsche's galumphing! Has anyone else read Alice Miller's
chapter on Nietzsche? (I think it's in THE UNTOUCHED KEY, but I'm not
sure.) Her tracing of his childhood influences and ultimate breakdown
fits with James Hillman's theories in HEALING FICTION.
Duck
Michael Abalovich
Kylo Ginsberg <kylo...@mhs.unc.edu> wrote:
>ken...@ix.netcom.com (Kenneth Rosenberger ) wrote:
>>Deconstruction is basically a theory that was developed
>>by a Marxist to deflate the Western Canon and to basically
>>say that nothing that's been written is any better than
>>an episode of "All in the Family." What is it with these
>
>Hard to say if you're trolling, drunk or just ill-informed and feeling
>a tad hysterical today. But to correct a few misconceptions:
>
>1) Deconstruction sprang from Jacques Derrida's early writings.
>Derrida is not a Marxist.
Of course he is, in a very crucial way: in that both he
and Marx reject the presence of the author's priveleged
meaning. Marx would find behind the book's 'message'
the struggle of classes or some such. Derrida, just like
Barthes and Foucault before him, goes much farther and
hails 'the death of the author.' Significantly, noone
of them ever took the trouble to remove their names
off their well-selling books.
And, of course, he is not: he would want to deconstruct Marx,
I suppose. I'd much rather they deconstructed one another
instead of telling us that Shakespeare and Goethe didn't know
what they were talking about.
>All the best,
>--Kylo
Michael Abalovich
Duck
(Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>
in response to my asking for an elaboration on the use of
''consumerist'':
>
>Expecting a product that will make your life more comfortable, whereas
>most serious intellectual endeavor will have the opposite effect.
>
Interesting. Of course, seeking and occasionally finding a ''product''
which prompts questions to make me (and others) uncomfortable IS what
makes me comfortable. Is there a Mall of the Questions? I'm up for a
major spree.
>
>Alice "Hitler's toilet training is to blame" Miller?
Is this a deconstructionist view of Miller?
I'm not sure a close reading of her work from any perspective would
allow for such a sweeping generalization, nor am I sure that she truly
adheres to the concept of ''blame,'' but she certainly is a
contextualist.
>Re Nietzsche, ever heard of Syphilis?
>
Yes.
Duck
Kylo Ginsberg
[much just criticism of a loose def'n of "deconstruction" snipped]
>Say that unc in unc.edu wouldn't stand for University of North Carolina
>would it? If so that would explain a lot.
As another unc.edu poster I can confirm: unc does stand for University
of North Carolina (at Chapel Hill). I never schooled here (and don't
know the original poster), so am not feeling particularly defensive,
but I *am* curious: why the slap at UNC? I generally think of UNC as
being a pretty top-notch school. It's English Dept is (or was) the
type that wouldn't even permit Derrida books in the building, so yes
they make like scared wabbits some time--is that what you are thinking
of?
Kylo Ginsberg
> In general, the term modernism is used for 20th Century art, as
>opposed to "modernity," which starts, depending on who you read, with
>Machiavelli, the Reformation, the Baroque, or, yes, the FR.
Minor digression, but I have a funny incident to this effect. Shortly
after Habermas' _Phil Discourse of Modernity_ came out (or was
translated into English), I attended an MLA session with three
luminaries on The Revolution of Modernity (or some such). One speaker
(an historian of ideas) spoke on the Renaissance, one (philosopher)
spoke on the Kantian revolution, and one (a lit guy I think) spoke on
some early 20th c stuff (doing the modernity/fascism connection
thingy)! It was hilarious, and the "discussion" section afterwards
was distinctly unfocussed (even for an MLA session)!
Just had to share. Return to your usual programming.
Lars Eighner
> eig...@io.com (Lars Eighner) wrote:
>
> [much just criticism of a loose def'n of "deconstruction" snipped]
> >Say that unc in unc.edu wouldn't stand for University of North Carolina
> >would it? If so that would explain a lot.
>
> As another unc.edu poster I can confirm: unc does stand for University
> of North Carolina (at Chapel Hill). I never schooled here (and don't
> know the original poster), so am not feeling particularly defensive,
> but I *am* curious: why the slap at UNC? I generally think of UNC as
> being a pretty top-notch school. It's English Dept is (or was) the
> type that wouldn't even permit Derrida books in the building, so yes
> they make like scared wabbits some time--is that what you are thinking
> of?
I believe there are two examples of how I might have got this
impression of UNC and North Carolina in general.
One of them is in the US Senate.
The other was the fundamentalist fiction that was supplied
by the poster as a definition of "deconstruction."
Joseph M Green
deconstruction as philosophy. Deconstruction as lit crit thicks the
blood with cold and demonstrates that, at least in the eighties, English
departments at ivyversities could be briefly defined as that place where
the level of philosophic discourse had reached its nadir. Ah, God
wasn't it tiresome hearing persons who had never read Aristotle announcing
that Western Philosophy was over? Nah -- it was fun -- tho I enjoyed
the seventies more when everyone of the ilk was reading explanations of
Heidegger and gabbing about the Abendland and wearing reaaly awful
clothes.
Just recently a fellow applying for a position here was naive enough
to forward a personal reco from Jacques -- ah, the merry laughter.
Someone should inform the inquirer that wanting (now, can you believe it?)
to be brought up to date on Jacques is a bit like wanting -- years after
Jack K. has gone to Florida to live with mom -- to learn to play the bongos
or to compose a koan or two. Cultural capital elsewhere and France has
been restored to sanity -- testing its nukes, building a park for Asterix,
rediscovering Racine. E. M. Cioran is dead, man -- and wasn't he a
Rumanian or something anyway?
Kenneth Rosenberger
>
>eig...@io.com (Lars Eighner) wrote:
>
>[much just criticism of a loose def'n of "deconstruction" snipped]
>>Say that unc in unc.edu wouldn't stand for University of North Carolina
>>would it? If so that would explain a lot.
>
>As another unc.edu poster I can confirm: unc does stand for University
>of North Carolina (at Chapel Hill). I never schooled here (and don't
>know the original poster), so am not feeling particularly defensive,
>but I *am* curious: why the slap at UNC? I generally think of UNC as
>being a pretty top-notch school. It's English Dept is (or was) the
>type that wouldn't even permit Derrida books in the building, so yes
>they make like scared wabbits some time--is that what you are thinking
>of?
>
>--Kylo
>
I think the person was deriding (DeRidda-ing) UNC for being in the
South, hence, in the Bible Belt, hence right-wing fundamentalist.
This exposes said person as rather narrow-minded, not to say
Hollywood-manipulated, inasmuch as UNC is hardly the place where
you'd expect to find the Reagan-Falwell Institute housed. As I
recall, Jesse Helms once referred to Chapel Hill as being something
like a cancer on the body politic, in case any further bona fides
are required. UNC is one the finest public universities in America
on anyone's list (note: I am not an alumnus; in fact, my alma mater
loses twice a year to UNC in basketball). Just in case anyone's
laboring under the delusion that the decon debate breaks down along
left-right lines. Liberals, in fact, have fought hardest to minimize
the effects of deconstruction in the academy.
Ken
PS: and BTW, I'm not trolling. If I want any trolls, I'll go look
under a bridge.
R. Jeffrey Grace
-Maria Weineck) writes:
:>Oioioi. Swear to God and hope you'll die: have you ever read, beginning
:>to end, a single essay by Derrida?
:>
:>Silke
What??? With all the other worthwhile books in the world to read? I never
would consider it, just as I wouldn't consider wasting my time with
_Mein Kampf_. <g>
________________________________________________________________
rjg...@qnet.com "This is man, proud man, most
R. Jeffrey Grace ignorant of what he's most assured:
Team OS/2 his glassy essence." Shakespeare
http://www.av.qnet.com/~rjgrace Lancaster, Ca. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott Ellis
> Scott Ellis (qbt...@freenet.mb.ca) wrote:
> : I think you've put your finger on it, at least insofar as I understand
> : or unified any order of experience, including that of having a capital s
> : Self. To Pomos, all perception is mediated and constructed and nothing
> : can order, or give meaning or foundation to, anything else. So the
> : primary emotional tinge in a lot of pomo-lit is a kind of free-floating
> : irony, an irony which doesn't point toward anything better or more
> : fundamental.
> more fundamental" is, in want of a better word, consumerist. The question
> should not be, "what do I get out of it," but "are these arguments
> sound?" And if they are sound, then their refusal to elate you into a
> sphere of order is legitimate, and the only intellectually honest thing
> to do. On the other hand, the flip side of this must not be "melancholy,"
> even though it can be. Read Nietzsche on the possible elation that can
> follow from the sense of 'free play,' and don't bore me with references
> to his madness in this regard.
You seem to be inventing an argument where none exists. I *have* read
Nietszche a long time ago, thank you very much, and agree that he is
apposite here, madness or no. And consumerism does not seem to a
terribly apt here, in a discussion of the difference between parodic
pastiche and satire. As to melancholy, please *read* what I've cited.
Then we'll talk. Finally, insofar as boring you: I'm sure you don't need
my help for that...
------
sae - Many people agree with me, but I don't agree with them. (Karl Krauss)
Melynda Huskey
>eig...@io.com (Lars Eighner) wrote:
>
>[much just criticism of a loose def'n of "deconstruction" snipped]
>>Say that unc in unc.edu wouldn't stand for University of North Carolina
>>would it? If so that would explain a lot.
>
>As another unc.edu poster I can confirm: unc does stand for University
>of North Carolina (at Chapel Hill). I never schooled here (and don't
>know the original poster), so am not feeling particularly defensive,
>but I *am* curious: why the slap at UNC? I generally think of UNC as
>being a pretty top-notch school. It's English Dept is (or was) the
>type that wouldn't even permit Derrida books in the building, so yes
>they make like scared wabbits some time--is that what you are thinking
>of?
I used to be an English professor at NCSU, the "engineering school" just
down the road from UNC, the "humanities school." What I remember
about unc was a talk given by the head of the English Department as
part of a series in which NCSU's head, UNC's head, and Duke's head
talked about the future of English studies: Stanley Fish gave a sparkling
but rather silly talk, our own John Bassett gave an eminently forgettable,
but solid talk, and UNC's head, whose name escapes me, came in with
the list of changes made in UNC's English curriculum just after WWII and
described why no future changes would ever be necessary, since the
dept. had already confronted modernism, a changing student body,
and technology.
Melynda Huskey
mely...@osprey.csrv.uidaho.edu
Fiona Webster
> Cultural capital elsewhere and France has been restored to sanity
> -- testing its nukes, building a park for Asterix, rediscovering
> Racine.
Speaking of French fashions, is it true that Foucault is now way out
of style? I've been enjoying James Miller's _The_Passion_of_Michel
_Foucault_, and was a bit taken aback to read, in the _Washington_
_Post_, I believe it was, that Foucault's intellectual stock has
(supposedly) been falling ever since his death.
--Fiona W.
Elizabeth A. Hendricks
Organization: Prairienet, the East-Central Illinois Free-Net
Distribution:
Silke-Maria Weineck (wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: 3...@granite-d228.sierra.net> <1995Sep...@nyssa.swt.edu>
: <42r6e4$b...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950910...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>:
: Distribution:
: Scott Ellis (qbt...@freenet.mb.ca) wrote:
: : PM. PM's signal quality seems to me to be a refusal to accept as primary
: : or unified any order of experience, including that of having a capital s
: : Self. To Pomos, all perception is mediated and constructed and nothing
: : can order, or give meaning or foundation to, anything else. So the
: : primary emotional tinge in a lot of pomo-lit is a kind of free-floating
: : irony, an irony which doesn't point toward anything better or more
: : fundamental.
: It seems to me that the desire to be pointed towards "anything better or
: more fundamental" is, in want of a better word, consumerist. The question
: should not be, "what do I get out of it," but "are these arguments
: sound?" And if they are sound, then their refusal to elate you into a
: sphere of order is legitimate, and the only intellectually honest thing
: to do. On the other hand, the flip side of this must not be "melancholy,"
My take on authors that I think of as being PMs is that their primary
emotional tinge is a lack of emotion and that they are intellectually
timid---afraid to admit that anything might have meaning or that any
experience or feeling might be stronger or better or worse than any other,
afraid to commit to one side or the other of any issue. They always seem
to me the authors who just don't give a damn and hope that I won't either.
Perhaps to some their "arguments" might be "intellectually honest," but
what's the point of making these arguments? What purpose does it serve
for the reader to be convinced that nothing has any meaning? Why should I
read a novel that is simply a piling up of details which I am assured
don't amount to anything?
Anyway, let's name some names. What authors are considered
post-modernists? Since I tend to apply the term to almost any author I
dislike, I'm curious to know how often I'm right.
Elizabeth
Joseph M Green
history of course but liberals who fought against deconstruction would
have been considrered academic conservatives. You mean, I think,
fellows who held liberal political views (meaning polis) who
were (so they were identified) academic conservatives.
The fact that these poor fellows might have voted for Carter, lisped
No Nukes now and then and so on didn't (doesn't) count within academia.
Their literary conservatism was enough (and is) to brand them as
proto/crypto fascists no matter what their traditional politics...
and what were their names anyway... they have disappeared into
the desert with Bishop Pike and the vast and level sands are all one
sees.
Kylo Ginsberg
>In <42vpff$h...@bigblue.oit.unc.edu> kylo...@mhs.unc.edu (Kylo Ginsberg) writes:
>>but I *am* curious: why the slap at UNC? I generally think of UNC as
>I think the person was deriding (DeRidda-ing) UNC for being in the
>South, hence, in the Bible Belt, hence right-wing fundamentalist.
Oh silly me for being so daft. I still forget the goofy
prejudices people hold from afar about the South. Hell, when
I moved to NC from Berkeley 8 years ago, many folks who
never venture as far south as Oakland were telling me how
I'd be surrounded by barefoot illiterates.
>recall, Jesse Helms once referred to Chapel Hill as being something
>like a cancer on the body politic, in case any further bona fides
JH also made some crack to the effect: "Why don't we just put
a fence around Chapel Hill and call it the North Carolina zoo?"
Wonderfully loving chap, Jesse.
>are required. UNC is one the finest public universities in America
>on anyone's list (note: I am not an alumnus; in fact, my alma mater
>loses twice a year to UNC in basketball). Just in case anyone's
FWIW [plug coming] UNC's also the oldest public univ in the US. Glad
to see ACC fans sticking up for each other! <g>
--Kylo
--Kylo Ginsberg | ... until a sudden shower
kylo...@mhs.unc.edu | Fell willing into grass and closed the day,
(919) 962-9074 | Making choice seem a necessary error.
| --W.H. Auden
Fiona Webster
> Jesse Helms once referred to Chapel Hill as being something
> like a cancer on the body politic, in case any further bona fides
I lived for a few years in Chappa Hee-ull, and I remember one
thing Jesse Helms said: When they were talkin' about funding for
a state zoo, Helms quipped, "What does North Carolina need a
*zoo* for? We could just put a *fence* around Chapel Hill,
and there'd be our zoo."
--one of the animals,
Fiona Webster
Kylo Ginsberg
>wasn't it tiresome hearing persons who had never read Aristotle announcing
>that Western Philosophy was over? Nah -- it was fun -- tho I enjoyed
Well, that stuff was partially responsible for driving me out of
academia. So generally, it was more than tiresome. But, sure
sometimes fun. In small doses <g>.
>the seventies more when everyone of the ilk was reading explanations of
>Heidegger and gabbing about the Abendland and wearing reaaly awful
>clothes.
Geez, sounds like some mainframe shops I've seen. 'Course I guess
mainframe shops *are* kind of 70s hangouts <g>.
>Someone should inform the inquirer that wanting (now, can you believe it?)
>to be brought up to date on Jacques is a bit like wanting -- years after
>Jack K. has gone to Florida to live with mom -- to learn to play the bongos
>or to compose a koan or two.
I forgot I had Kerouac in my sig for that post at first so had *no*
idea where this was coming from. But, to take you more seriously than
you perhaps intend: yes, JD and JK are "out of date" but I've learned
a lot from both and would recommend both to appropriate audiences.
I'd certainly hate to start dissing everyone who isn't Currently
Influential--that's sort of radically anti-canonical. And let's face
it: JD and JK both occupy nooks in some respectable canons.
(Oh crap, do I have to get the asbestos out?)
Kylo Ginsberg
>In article <42slbr$1h...@bigblue.oit.unc.edu>,
>Kylo Ginsberg <kylo...@mhs.unc.edu> wrote:
>>1) Deconstruction sprang from Jacques Derrida's early writings.
>>Derrida is not a Marxist.
>Of course he is, in a very crucial way: in that both he
>and Marx reject the presence of the author's priveleged
>meaning.
Well, if they do, they do so in significantly different ways.
And really, this is a goofy argument--the major premise
seems to be: if A and B share some tenet, then A is a Bist???
So Derrida is a Marxist, and Marx is a Derridean? Bzzzt!
>the struggle of classes or some such. Derrida, just like
>Barthes and Foucault before him, goes much farther and
>hails 'the death of the author.' Significantly, noone
Foucault has an essay translated "Death of the Author".
Which Barthes and Derrida writings are you thinking of
where they hail Foucault's catchphrase?
>I suppose. I'd much rather they deconstructed one another
>instead of telling us that Shakespeare and Goethe didn't know
>what they were talking about.
Do you mind providing some citations. I'm not familiar
with Derrida (or the others) asserting the Shakespeare and
Goethe didn't know what they were talking about. I'm not
even familiar with them writing on either author (though
they were prolific authors all, so there's lots I've never
seen). Actually I have a vague memory of Derrida writing
on Goethe ca. _White Mythology_....
Alexander von Thorn
(Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
> : What??? With all the other worthwhile books in the world to read? I never
> : would consider it, just as I wouldn't consider wasting my time with
> : _Mein Kampf_. <g>
>
> That might be a mistake, seeing that
> a) it was a very influential book, and it's always good to know what
> make or made the world tick
If one is studying history, that's true, but I believe the subject here is
philosophy, where the study of books that everyone knows is nonsense is
clearly a waste of time.
> b) its style of argument closely remembers your own, so you might pick up
> some pointers.
This would be just a flame. One should be careful with this technique, as
it opens the writer to the charge of disingenuousness. The only thing one
communicates with angry rhetoric is the fact that one is not listening,
and therefore not learning.
--
AvT
Scott Ellis
> : apposite here, madness or no. And consumerism does not seem to a
> : terribly apt here, in a discussion of the difference between parodic
> : pastiche and satire. As to melancholy, please *read* what I've cited.
> : Then we'll talk.
> better," then I apologize, because I must have mixed you up with a lot of
> pomo critics in this group. If you were, I think consumerism is very apt.
> Perhaps you could clarify for me the nature of your desires in the
> context of "something better."
I was not being critical of Postmodern writers, simply noting their
distrust of ontological, cultural and perceptual hierarchies. And I too
must apologize for a mistake: It's "flip side".
> Finally, insofar as boring you: I'm sure you don't need
> : my help for that...
This was a reaction to what seemed an unnecessarily combative stance on
your part. For what it's worth, in my opinion it would be a good idea to
examine this tendency; derision is not usually a good opening to
conversation.
------
sae - The space between snake bite
and antidote. Suddenly. The faces
on the bus: forgive them and move on. (Kristy Nelson)
John McCarthy
JH also made some crack to the effect: "Why don't we just
put a fence around Chapel Hill and call it the North
Carolina zoo?" Wonderfully loving chap, Jesse.
UNC people said equally nice things about Helms. What we marriage
counselors need to know, of course, is
Who started this love affair?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Li
>ken...@ix.netcom.com (Kenneth Rosenberger ) wrote:
>
>>In <42vpff$h...@bigblue.oit.unc.edu> kylo...@mhs.unc.edu (Kylo Ginsberg) writes:
>>>but I *am* curious: why the slap at UNC? I generally think of UNC as
>
>>I think the person was deriding (DeRidda-ing) UNC for being in the
>>South, hence, in the Bible Belt, hence right-wing fundamentalist.
>
>Oh silly me for being so daft. I still forget the goofy
>prejudices people hold from afar about the South. Hell, when
>I moved to NC from Berkeley 8 years ago, many folks who
>never venture as far south as Oakland were telling me how
>I'd be surrounded by barefoot illiterates.
They apparently didn't know that you were going to Chapel Hill, but
rather thought you were going to State. Common mistake....
>>are required. UNC is one the finest public universities in America
>>on anyone's list (note: I am not an alumnus; in fact, my alma mater
>>loses twice a year to UNC in basketball). Just in case anyone's
>
>FWIW [plug coming] UNC's also the oldest public univ in the US. Glad
>to see ACC fans sticking up for each other! <g>
Yes, well, ever since the onslaught of Florida State it has seemed more
necessary for the old guard to stick together...with some exceptions of
course!
Li
Fiona Webster
>Anyway, let's name some names. What authors are considered
>post-modernists? Since I tend to apply the term to almost any
>author I dislike, I'm curious to know how often I'm right.
How about this list, which I cribbed from the Alternative-X
website (http://www.altx.com/):
Kathy Acker
Mark Amerika
Donald Barthelme
Richard Brautigan
William S. Burroughs
Robert Coover
Douglas Coupland
Ricardo Cortez Cruz
Don DeLillo
Mark Leyner
Thomas Pynchon
John Shirley
Art Spiegelman
Neal Stephenson
Ronald Sukenick
Kurt Vonnegut
David Foster Wallace
Stephen Wright
(Also a lot of hypertext and experimental fiction types
not mentioned. Alternative X is a pretty wild place, worth
checkin out, if only for humor value. Note, though, that
they don't consider themselves post-modernist: they're
"post-post-modern" or "avant pop.")
I won't defend any of these authors' status as post-modernist --
I'm just throwin' the names out for discussion.
Some of these authors definitely *do* care about their characters:
Art Spiegelman, for example, who seems to be considered
post-modernist for reasons of form, rather than content. And
David Foster Wallace likes his characters, as well. Just to
name a couple.
--Fiona Webster
Alexander von Thorn
(Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
> So you think it is perfectly allright to defame Derrida, who cannot and
> would not defend himself in this company, by comparing him to Hitler, but
> not okay to point out the infamy of this approach?
A logical argument would be much more persuasive than a flame.
And yes, there is a significant difference between talking about the
content of a particular work where the writer is not part of the
discussion, and simply launching ad hominem attacks on other participants
in the discussion. The latter is certain not to persuade anyone. And you
are trying to make a point, aren't you? (It would be different if Derrida
were part of the discussion, of course.)
(For that matter, a deconstructionist might point out that Hitler isn't
here to defend his reputation either; he might take it as pejorative that
his name is being used as a cliche.)
> One should also be careful not to be avuncular, since it opens
> the writer to the charge of being someone's uncle.
There are worse things than politeness.
> What exactly should I have listened to in the comparison of
> Derrida and Mein Kampf? What would I have learned? Answers, please
I could suggest reading David Lehman, but that's not the point. I'm just
saying that if you want people to think your arguments have merit, it
would help to present them in a reasonable manner. I'm assuming that you
believe Derrida's work warrants some defense or at least explanation (or
else why say anything); I'm just saying if that's your intent, then do so.
AvT
Fiona Webster
>> That might be a mistake, seeing that
>> a) it was a very influential book, and it's always good to know
>>what make or made the world tick
>
>If one is studying history, that's true, but I believe the subject
>here is philosophy, where the study of books that everyone knows is
>nonsense is clearly a waste of time.
I can think of at least four reasons for studying books of
philosophy that "everyone knows are nonsense":
1) you want to understand how people from a different time period
thought about things;
2) you want to get practice in thinking things through, by
following along with an acknowledged master -- in other words,
even if the conclusions are "wrong," the thought process may
be admirable;
3) you want to make your approach to what is currently held
to be valid, in a gradual, historical fashion -- slowly moving
from one point of view to the next;
4) you're not sure whether to agree with "everyone," or even
who "everyone" is.
--just some thoughts,
Fiona Webster
Francis Muir
Kenneth Rosenberger writes:
The problem with Jesse Helms is that he is very old and there seems to be
no-one on the horizon who so quintessentially represents a certain, legitimate
point of view. The day he leaves the Senate will be a particularly harsh one
for all those who have written him into their texts as that stock character,
Lightening Rod.
Fido
Douglas Clark
Foucault was one of the brilliant arguers who spins words before
your face, but who is caught woefully short when faced with facts.
Hasn't everything he argued for been disproved.
But read every word he wrote to be in contact with that intellect.
A pity he didn't have time to complete his `History of SExuality'.
He seemed to be coming out for the nuclear family.
--
Douglas Clark Voice: +44 1225 427104
69 Hillcrest Drive, Email: D.G.D...@bath.ac.uk
Bath, Avon, BA2 1HD, UK Benjamin Press: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~exxdgdc
Jordi Sod
>Paul Zakrzewski (yku0...@rufous.yorku.ca) wrote:
> [...]
>: Deconstructionists don't read a book merely to discover all the neat
>: Christ imagery, but to "unpack" all the author's secret prejuidices, the
>: social outlook of the writer. What the author "intended" is of no interest
>: to this group.
> [...]
> If we applied it to the deconstructionists themselves,
> would we get literature back?
Not necessarily, but it would be fun... Read any biography on Foucault or
Bataille and then do some deconstruction yourself. For a good (and
biased, of course. Everything is biased. This is biased. Homework for
the week: Deconstruct this statement.) read Terry Eagleton Intro. to
Literary criticism. I don't remember the exact title of the book.
> Ken
Jordi
Kylo Ginsberg
>talked about the future of English studies: Stanley Fish gave a sparkling
>but rather silly talk, our own John Bassett gave an eminently forgettable,
>but solid talk, and UNC's head, whose name escapes me, came in with
>the list of changes made in UNC's English curriculum just after WWII and
>described why no future changes would ever be necessary, since the
>dept. had already confronted modernism, a changing student body,
>and technology.
Good story--I laughed. Yeah, that sounds par for Fish, and par for
UNC English. Don't know the NC State guy, but ouch--isn't the
adjective "solid" just one of the nastiest things you can say about
somebody?
Kylo Ginsberg
>Kylo Ginsberg writes:
> JH also made some crack to the effect: "Why don't we just
> put a fence around Chapel Hill and call it the North
> Carolina zoo?" Wonderfully loving chap, Jesse.
>UNC people said equally nice things about Helms. What we marriage
>counselors need to know, of course, is
>Who started this love affair?
Well, we're going to have to move this thread to talk.politics.jesse
pretty soon.
But to answer your question--obviously Jesse started it. Do you think
that the denizens of CH were making cracks about Jesse before he
became a public and outspoken figure? FWIW, I am of the school that a
politically engaged, even unto vituperative, citizenry is desireable,
but that an elected official should hold him- or herself to a higher
standard of behavior and debate, never stooping to vituperation.
(Yes, I do own the Brooklyn Bridge, thank you very much.)
I also have to throw in, as some one who has never voted for Jesse and
who has trouble conceiving of an opponent who would make me do so,
that I have just been tickled this week seeing what a kind champion of
the Dalai Lama Jesse has been this past week.
Alexander von Thorn
(Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
> : A logical argument would be much more persuasive than a flame.
>
> I disagree. I think apposite one-liners can be very effective.
Not in a community of lay people. If you don't explain what you're talking
about, all you communicate is a snooty ivory-tower attitude. This is
entirely unpersuasive.
> I will be
> happy to give a tutorial on Derrida if the desire arises.
A person asks once. Twice, perhaps. After that, interest wanes. You've
made the points you've chosen to make.
> : And yes, there is a significant difference between talking about the
> : content of a particular work where the writer is not part of the
> : discussion, and simply launching ad hominem attacks on other participants
> : in the discussion. The latter is certain not to persuade anyone. And you
> : are trying to make a point, aren't you? (It would be different if Derrida
> : were part of the discussion, of course.)
>
> Yes. The significant difference is that attacks on someone who can defend
> himself are more honorable. Is Derrida not a homo? Once the participant
> leaves the realm of argument and fairness (I might as well read Mein
> Kampf as read Hitler), I feel perfectly justified in responding in the
> same vein.
No, no, you're missing the point. There is a difference between literary
criticism about a text and simply talking to a person. The text has no
emotions; it cannot be insulted. People can be, and if they are, they stop
listening.
> : > One should also be careful not to be avuncular, since it opens
> : > the writer to the charge of being someone's uncle.
>
> : There are worse things than politeness.
>
> Avuncularity is not polite. It is condescending and offensive.
You are in no position to accuse anyone else of being "condescending and
offensive". If you had something to say other that one-liners ("apposite"
or otherwise), it would have been nice to hear it. After three tries, one
doubts there is any substance behind the flame.
> : > What exactly should I have listened to in the comparison of
> : > Derrida and Mein Kampf? What would I have learned? Answers, please
>
> : I could suggest reading David Lehman, but that's not the point.
>
> I have read David Lehman and found him resentful and poorly informed. His
> book is very much like a sustained flame of the sort you pretend to
> dislike. You did not answer my question.
And yet he got a good review in The Economist. (And, in case you did not
notice, my answer followed.) In the absence of any logical backing, your
mere opinion is meaningless.
> I'm just
> : saying that if you want people to think your arguments have merit, it
> : would help to present them in a reasonable manner.
>
> The post I referred to did have neither argument nor manner, nor merit,
> for that matter.
The post you referred to was a reference to the argument that
deconstructionism was designed primarily as a means of excusing fascism.
That was obvious and is, rightly or wrongly, a widely-held view. (Not to
mention the consequences of a lot of bad writing, ugly buildings, and
trendy angst in society.) Your reply was pretty much irrelevant and
contained no logical response to the allusion.
> The internet is not your aunt's salon.
The Internet is an open forum where anyone can participate; it's not a
university departmental lounge where backbiting is the order of the day
and the more obscure the allusion, the better.
Because, you see, most people here are not experts. And, especially among
a community of polymaths, most of the hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of
people listening to the discussion want a simple explanation of what it's
about. All you have offered in response to messages from a number of
people is contentless flames. That leads people to think that you cannot
defend your position. After a while, they lose interest.
Maybe all you want to talk about is the tactics of debate, instead of the
content of the discussion. In fact, that's all I want to *talk* about (it
being, I thought, a very minor digression), since I prefer to *listen* to
the actual substance of the discussion. But apparently, there is no
substance.
And so the argument that some make linking Derrida's thought to Hitler's
remains unrefuted. I don't consider the lack of refutation to be the same
as proof. But it is suggestive. I hope someday to meet someone who can
explain the subject succinctly. In the meantime, I am left with a
newsstand acquaintance of the subject and a confirmation of the fuzzy
thinking that Derrida's followers are often accused of. On that point, I
am disappointed.
--
AvT
ML Gastin
f...@access.digex.net (Fiona Webster) wrote:
>I lived for a few years in Chappa Hee-ull, and I remember one
>thing Jesse Helms said: When they were talkin' about funding for
>a state zoo, Helms quipped, "What does North Carolina need a
>*zoo* for? We could just put a *fence* around Chapel Hill,
>and there'd be our zoo."
>
> --one of the animals,
>
> Fiona Webster
AH! Yes. Brother Jesse.
They will know we are Christians by our love.
You would think the Right would try to lose a guy like that as if he were an
unwashed heathen.
Why can I se a Jesse selling used cars in W. Virginia?
Sorry all you WV folk, but I lived in Ohio for a while and the blood was
pretty bad between the two states.
Michael
And now, something completely different...
A man falling down a hill.
Doug Quarnstrom
: However, I have been very favorably impressed with Fiona's opinions in
: the past (esp. her marvelous rab essay on _Misery_); perhaps I will need
: to reevaluate my impressions and give the book as a whole another
: chance...
It isn't a FANTASTIC book, but it isn't bad. I actually like Ellis'
sense of humor, and, while the book is so obviously didactic, and the
point is somewhat trivial, it is still an interesting read.
doug
David J. Loftus
: Also of interest in RULES OF ATTRACTION are several mentions of a strange
: and rather antisocial group of classics majors, including a hint that
: they might have killed some farmer ... and RULES OF ATTRACTION predates
: THE SECRET HISTORY by slightly over two years. I'd like to know if Ellis
: knew of Tartt's work and added this as some sort of inside joke, or if
: Tarrt borrowed this detail from Ellis and developed it into an entire novel.
You'll notice that Tartt acknowledges Ellis on the dedication page of
_The Secret History_.
David Loftus
M Barnard
<Pine.A32.3.91.950907...@login0.isis.unc.edu>,
cewe...@email.unc.edu says...
>
>On Thu, 7 Sep 1995, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>
>> Carl Weaver wrote:
>> : Deconstructionism [various underinformed ideas]
>>
>> Did someone teach you that or did you come up with it yourself? Or is
>> it satire? This is not a hostile mail, I am truly puzzled. Silke
>
>No, just little tidbits I picked up along the way. I also know some stuff
>about Cambodia, brewing beer and wine, fixing cars, cooking Chinese food
>(american style), and the new parking meter policy at UNC. A little bit
>of everything, really.
>
Don't take his travel advice for Cambodia, don't drink his beer or wine,
don't let him touch your car, don't eat the food and don't take his word
for where you can park at UNC.
At least not until he demonstrates better knowledge of these things than
of literary criticism and theory.
M (No offense Carl, but you were so far wrong it hurt to read it.)
R. Jeffrey Grace
a (Alexander von Thorn) writes:
:>
:>In article <431e6a$k...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu
:>(Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
:>
:>> : What??? With all the other worthwhile books in the world to read? I never
:>> : _Mein Kampf_. <g>
:>> That might be a mistake, seeing that
:>> a) it was a very influential book, and it's always good to know what
:>> make or made the world tick
Well shoot, I don't know how I missed all this, but I'll go ahead and comment
even though it may be played out, since it was me that started this thing.
My point about _Mein Kampf_ was not so much to compare Hitler to Derrida,
although that could be done easily enough, but to point out that some
authors' basic thesis is such that I wouldn't bother reading how they arrived
at it. There are other writers that address the same issues, only they have
done so in a manner that will last beyond a few decades. Even Derrida's
supporters concede he is a minor figure, at best.
________________________________________________________________
rjg...@qnet.com "This is man, proud man, most
R. Jeffrey Grace ignorant of what he's most assured:
Team OS/2 his glassy essence." Shakespeare
http://www.av.qnet.com/~rjgrace Lancaster, Ca. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=
R. Jeffrey Grace
-Maria Weineck) writes:
:>"That could be done easily enough" in a post confessing that you haven't
:>read either? You're pretty cheeky, allright. Will you humor me and tell
:>me what you take to be the "authors' basic theses (yes, they are
:>different)" are? And throw in some Derrida supporters who believe in his
:>marginality as well while you're at it.
:>
:> Anyone else troubled by this kind of thing? Or is everybody fine
:>with this kind of m.o.? Just curious, Silke
Have you read _Mein Kampf_? Have you read _Das Capital_? Have you read the
Bible cover to cover? If not, do you refrain from expounding on Nazism, on
Communism, on Christianity?
What puts me off Derrida is ignorant positions like "The author is dead"...
anyone who thinks an authors intent and meaning are irrelevant does not
deserve my ear.
When all is said and done, Derrida believes that meaning is imposed upon the
world, truth is what we will it to be. So much for rational discourse, which
democracy is based upon. "Bring on totalitarian rule, rule by the will of
the strongest", is what his position comes to.
R. Jeffrey Grace
-Maria Weineck) writes:
:>
:>John McCarthy (j...@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
:>: Derrida may be a big frog all right, but 20th century lit crit is
:>: likely to be considered a rather small puddle - on the level of one of
:>: the 19th century religious movements, e.g. criticism from the
:>: standpoint of theosophy.
:>
:>Perhaps (these things are always possible). Derrida, however, contrary to
:>the received wisdom of many, is not a literary critic but a philosopher
:>--- not as influential as Sartre was, in his time, no doubt; not even as
:>influential as Foucault still is. But at some point, the history will
:>perhaps not be written from the standpoint of the English department, as
:>it is right now, but from the standpoint of quite different questions:
:>the viability of Nietzsche's vision, the reception of Heidegger, the last
:>convulsions of metaphysical enlightenment ---------- I do not dare to
:>make predictions as to where Derrida will figure in this, but he just
:>might still be there, perhaps as a smaller frog, but in a puddle that is
:>swelling into a lake and, perhaps, a sea, as we watch....
Well I'm glad you didn't take your own dare. :>
The reason Derrida is only a "hit" in the English departments rather than the
Philosophy departmens is due to the fact that he is recognized for the minor
figure that he is _in_ his own profession. Why he is popular amongst the
English departments may say more about them than they themselves would like
to hear.
Ron Hardin <9289-11216> 0112110
> Derrida may be a big frog all right, but 20th century lit crit is
> likely to be considered a rather small puddle - on the level of one of
> the 19th century religious movements, e.g. criticism from the
> standpoint of theosophy.
We know, captives of an absolute formula that, of course, there is
nothing but what is...
But I venerate how, by some flimflam, we project, toward a height
both forbidden and thunderous! the conscious lacks in us of what,
above, bursts out.
(Mallarme)
Andrew Dinn
: Derrida may be a big frog all right, but 20th century lit crit is
: likely to be considered a rather small puddle - on the level of one of
: the 19th century religious movements, e.g. criticism from the
: standpoint of theosophy.
Yeah, ideas in lit-crit becomes obsolete almost as fast as ideas in
comp sci. Like that AI bubble cooked up all those years ago. Now it
doesn't even rate the social interest cachet of a 50s B-movie.
Andrew Dinn
-----------
Geopolitical truth is like a porcupine. It doesn't know much, but it
knows one big thing. And here is the power of geopolitics properly
applied. It is robust in perspective, admittedly partial, always
incomplete, schematic even, and at times fanatic. In the end it
unifies and clarifies, and imposes on complex reality its imperatives,
to plan and to act. -- General Golbery do Couto e Silva, 1957
R. Jeffrey Grace
:>
:>Dear D.M.
:>
:>Please rename this thread " A Coupla White Pomo Homo's Sittin' Around
:>Talking" or "Mental Masturbation 301: For Pomeeds Only" (combination
:>of the words "pomo" and "dweebs").
:>
:>Thank you.
:>
:>Mary the Heretic
:>(Flame on you pomo homo bastards!)
LOL! I guess I'm being charitable and trying to show them the error of their
ways, but sheesh! I didn't think I'b be mistaken for one!
(Running from the room, yelling incoherently)
def...@utsw.swmed.edu
Please rename this thread " A Coupla White Pomo Homo's Sittin' Around
Talking" or "Mental Masturbation 301: For Pomeeds Only" (combination
of the words "pomo" and "dweebs").
Thank you.
Mary the Heretic
(Flame on you pomo homo bastards!)
"The thought of what America would be like if the classics had a wide
circulation, oh well, it troubles my sleep."
E. Pound
SubGenius
with the source material before one comments upon it, wrote:
: Have you read _Mein Kampf_? Have you read _Das Capital_? Have you read the
: Bible cover to cover? If not, do you refrain from expounding on Nazism, on
: Communism, on Christianity?
+---------------------------------SubG------------------------------------+
Subjects upon which people show restraint in voicing their opinions and
those upon which they should exhibit such restraint but do not are
two distinct subjects. And that one might observe spectacular failures
of that restraint in others in no way exculpates one from any errors
in judgement which may arise from emulation the same errors in others.
Indeed, it would seem that study of the works in question is a necessary
but not sufficient condition for engaging in exposition on the subjects
above mentioned, if coherence, consideration and relevance are any
standard by which such exposition should be judged.
Yours etc.,
SubGenius
Stephen Scobie/Maureen Scobie
Grace) wrote:
>
> What puts me off Derrida is ignorant positions like "The author is dead"...
> anyone who thinks an authors intent and meaning are irrelevant does not
> deserve my ear.
What puts me off critics of Derrida is ignorant positions like believing
that "death of the author" critics believe that an author's intent and
meaning are irrelevant. What we do believe is that:
(1) an author's "intent" and "meaning" are both problematic categories,
far less easily defined than traditional criticism supposes;
(2) to the extent that they can be defined, authorial intent and meaning
are certainly relevant -- but they are not supreme, they are not the
determining factor. The total "meaning" of any work *always* exceeds its
author's conscious intent.
>
> When all is said and done, Derrida believes that meaning is imposed upon the
> world, truth is what we will it to be. So much for rational discourse, which
> democracy is based upon. "Bring on totalitarian rule, rule by the will of
> the strongest", is what his position comes to.
Again, this is a travesty of Derrida, deconstruction reduced to its lowest
common denominator of simplistic misunderstanding. Derrida (as I
understand him) certainly believes that there is no ultimate, metaphysical
ground for such terms as "meaning" and "truth," and that they are
produced, continuously, in the conditions of human discourse. Thus it is
all the more important that rational discourse be carried on, at all
times, in all societies, on all issues. Totalitarian rule comes about
when we *stop* thinking, when we accept without question the metaphysical
terms that are being foisted upon us.
Stephen Scobie
--
Stephen Scobie Maureen Scobie
Gary Lee Stonum
>What puts me off Derrida is ignorant positions like "The author is dead"...
>anyone who thinks an authors intent and meaning are irrelevant does not
>deserve my ear.
By contrast to the deserving and non-offputting
but ignorant source who convinced you that Derrida
holds (or has ever) held this position on authorial intent?
------------
Gary Lee Stonum, English Department, Case Western Reserve University
email gx...@po.cwru.edu; phone 216-368-3342; fax 216-368-2216
"Lullaby, Lilla Boy, Louisville Lou" --W. Kelly
Joseph M Green
>rjg...@qnet.com (R. Jeffrey Grace) wrote:
>>In message <43flj7$7...@netnews.upenn.edu> - wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke
>>-Maria Weineck) writes:
>>:>... Anyone else troubled by this kind of thing? Or is everybody fine
>>:>with this kind of m.o.? Just curious, Silke
>>-J. Grace replies:
>>Have you read _Mein Kampf_? Have you read _Das Capital_? Have you read the
>>Bible cover to cover? If not, do you refrain from expounding on Nazism, on
>>Communism, on Christianity?
>>
>non sequiter:
>The ability to expound on the SUBJECT of Christianity as is it commonly
>(often mythically) understood does not infer understanding of the
>bible as historical or literary TEXT. Neither does an academic's study
>of biblical text in any way inform her/him on the subjects at the heart
>of the contemporary debate on Christianity...
>translation:
>I think I'm agreeing with both of you.:)
>Bee
It doesn't imply a damn thing either.
R. Jeffrey Grace
ssco...@sol.uvic.ca (Stephen Scobie/Maureen Scobie) writes:
RJGrace wrote:
:>> My point about _Mein Kampf_ was not so much to compare Hitler to Derrida,
:>> although that could be done easily enough,
Stephen wroye:
:>This statement is not only foolish and false, it is also vicious and
:>libellous. Presumably it stems from the vacuous idea that
:>"deconstruction" is somehow "apolitical." I will admit that some of
RJGrace replies:
No, I am not refering to apoliticalism, I am refering to the kind of politics
that result from a philosophical stance that maintains "truth is what we will
it to be". In short, totalitarianism. I am NOT saying Derrida is a
totalitarian... I am saying that totalitarianism is what his philosophy leads
to.
RJGrace wrote:
:>> There are other writers that address the same issues, only they have
:>> done so in a manner that will last beyond a few decades. Even Derrida's
:>> supporters concede he is a minor figure, at best.
Stephen wrote:
:>Such as who? I certainly concede no such thing. I would argue that he is
:>the most important philosopher of the second half of the 20th century.
You want names of philosophers who have addressed the same issues or you want
names of Derrida's followers who concede he is a minor figure? I can give
you plenty of names for the former, but for the latter I haven't bothered to
memorize any. Do a little research and you'll find it's true. I will
concede that you are totaly within your rights to contradict me. :>
R. Jeffrey Grace
u> writes:
:>
rjg...@qnet.com (R. Jeffrey Grace) wrote:
:>>What puts me off Derrida is ignorant positions like "The author is dead"...
:>>anyone who thinks an authors intent and meaning are irrelevant does not
:>>deserve my ear.
:>
:>
Gary said:
:>By contrast to the deserving and non-offputting
:>but ignorant source who convinced you that Derrida
:>holds (or has ever) held this position on authorial intent?
:>
Oh? Derrida has no problem with an interpretation that falls or stands on
how well it reflects what the author meant?
Bee
ga...@ccbbs.com
your choice of bodily orifices by people with no imagination and nothing
better to do but create more senseless jargon.
I think they should give readers some credit and get lives.
I say so because I've got a degree in English and Creative Writing and one
of the merry English classes I was forced to take focused on so-called
postmodernist criticism and I had to sit through a prof who lapped all this
crap up like mother's milk.
I used to sit back and laugh at everyone during class. ('Cause I had
other ideas as to what they were lapping up! <G>)
R. Jeffrey Grace
ys.bt.co.uk> writes:
:>
Actually, you are agreeing with me and disagreeing with Silke :>
Bee
>
>I dont believe I know any Christians. Certainly I have met very few
>in my life. Please elaborate about them. Pure curiosity.
>--
>Douglas Clark
Douglas:
Christians have long hair, wear flimsy sandals and like to wash one
another's feet. Not to be confused with hippies, who have long hair,
wear sturdy sandals and never wash.
Bee, a long-haired sandal-wearer of latter type. Not to be confused with
a latter day saint type.
def...@utsw.swmed.edu
> :>
> :>Dear D.M.
> :>
> :>Please rename this thread " A Coupla White Pomo Homo's Sittin' Around
> :>Talking" or "Mental Masturbation 301: For Pomeeds Only" (combination
> :>of the words "pomo" and "dweebs").
> :>
> :>Thank you.
> :>
> :>Mary the Heretic
> :>(Flame on you pomo homo bastards!)
>
> ways, but sheesh! I didn't think I'b be mistaken for one!
>
> (Running from the room, yelling incoherently)
> rjg...@qnet.com "This is man, proud man, most
> R. Jeffrey Grace ignorant of what he's most assured:
> Team OS/2 his glassy essence." Shakespeare
> http://www.av.qnet.com/~rjgrace Lancaster, Ca. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
Congratulations. You have scored a 694 out of a possible 800 on
the "Sense of Humor About Serious Literary Topics Regeants Exam. This
will allow you to place out of the courses referrenced above while
still receiving full credit hours for same.
Trusting that you will have a brilliant future,
Sincerely yours,
Mary the Heretic
R. Jeffrey Grace
c.ca (Stephen Scobie/Maureen Scobie) writes:
:>
:>In article <43iqur$c...@mandolin.qnet.com>, rjg...@qnet.com (R. Jeffrey
:>Grace) wrote:
:>
:>
:>>
:>> anyone who thinks an authors intent and meaning are irrelevant does not
:>> deserve my ear.
:>
:>that "death of the author" critics believe that an author's intent and
:>meaning are irrelevant. What we do believe is that:
:>(1) an author's "intent" and "meaning" are both problematic categories,
:>far less easily defined than traditional criticism supposes;
:>(2) to the extent that they can be defined, authorial intent and meaning
:>are certainly relevant -- but they are not supreme, they are not the
:>determining factor. The total "meaning" of any work *always* exceeds its
:>author's conscious intent.
Okay, that is fair enough. But what, exactly, are his critics addressing
when they claim that Derrida preaches the "death of the author"? Granted I
started this with a his degree of rhetoric, but what, exactly, are his
critics complaining about?
:>> When all is said and done, Derrida believes that meaning is imposed upon the
:>> world, truth is what we will it to be. So much for rational discourse, which
:>> democracy is based upon. "Bring on totalitarian rule, rule by the will of
:>> the strongest", is what his position comes to.
:>
:>Again, this is a travesty of Derrida, deconstruction reduced to its lowest
:>common denominator of simplistic misunderstanding. Derrida (as I
:>understand him) certainly believes that there is no ultimate, metaphysical
:>ground for such terms as "meaning" and "truth," and that they are
:>produced, continuously, in the conditions of human discourse. Thus it is
:>all the more important that rational discourse be carried on, at all
:>times, in all societies, on all issues. Totalitarian rule comes about
:>when we *stop* thinking, when we accept without question the metaphysical
:>terms that are being foisted upon us.
Okay, from what I have heard, dsconstructionism scorns rational discourse and
logic... while at the same time employing it to attack it. Is this charge a
fabrication?
m...@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
> I dont believe I know any Christians. Certainly I have met very few
> in my life. Please elaborate about them. Pure curiosity.
You might want to study them in action. They tend to flock around and in
churches on Sundays (and Saturday evenings, for some), and on other days
many can be found running soup kitchens and emergency pantries, visiting the
sick, and such.
If you can avoid making sounds of disgust or incredulity, they'll usually
let you roam their numbers very freely. The principal danger is that your
curiosity will increase and that one day you will become one of them.
--
(This man's opinions are his own.)
From mole-end Mark Terribile
m...@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
(Training and consulting in C, C++, UNIX, etc.)
the Bee
rjg...@qnet.com (R. Jeffrey Grace) wrote:
>
>Okay, from what I have heard, dsconstructionism scorns rational discourse and
>logic... while at the same time employing it to attack it. Is this charge a
>fabrication?
>
My understanding of deconstruction is not as an IDEOLOGY but as a
STRATEGY. Attaching 'ism' may serve as as example of what Derrida's
initial critique HAS COME to mean, but as his initial INTENT was
to displace such philosophical closures, one can only think that you
are inadvertently demonstrating the case for that which you are
arguing against. red. ad. absurdum...
You will, of course, feel free to correct me... And I will, of course,
continue to read...
-- Bee (palaeographer, local historian and thoroughly Early Modern sort
of girl...)
the Bee
Snip: vast amount of to-ing and fro-ing, culminating in:
>
>Okay, from what I have heard, dsconstructionism scorns rational discourse and
>logic... while at the same time employing it to attack it. Is this charge a
>fabrication?
Having entered this thread somewhat abruptly, I should now like to make
my retreat, and in much the same way as I entered:
My understanding of decontruction is as STRATEGY, not as IDEOLOGY.
To attach 'ism' to decontruction may serve as a clear example of
what Derrida's critique HAS COME to mean, but as his stated
INTENT is/was to displace such philosophical closures, I am liable to
conclude that you hace inadvertently demonstrated the case for that
which you are arguing against. red. ad. absurdum
You will of course feel free to disagree :)...
And I will of course continue to read...
-- Bee (palaeographer, local historian and thoroughly Early Modern
sort o' girl)
R. Jeffrey Grace
-Maria Weineck) writes:
Silke says:
:>Dear Jeffrey, with whom people agree so rarely that even an ambiguous
:>event of agreement must be posted to a newsgroup so that it won't fall
:>through the cracks, and who will not reply to the posts of someone who
:>reads the books she has strong opinions about,
Jeff says:
Eh? I have responded to everything you have adressed to me. Maybe your ISP
is slow?
What!? Are you complaining when I respond to others??? Sheesh.
Jeff said:
:>: Oh? Derrida has no problem with an interpretation that falls or stands on
:>: how well it reflects what the author meant?
Silke says:
:>Don't you? let us say, we are in the best possible position, we don't even
:>have to infer what the author meant, the author is standing right next to
:>you, reading his own book over your shoulder, there is a sentence, it
:>says, 'oh how green....', and the author says, oops, typo, I meant to
:>write 'oh how blue,' how did that happen, and years later, the author is
:>dead, there is no record that you ever met him much less spoke to him, you
:>write a paper, you say, this author's intent was blue, and if it's oh so
:>blue, the meaning changes, since blue is the color of the Aegean sea, so
:>this cannot possibly be Ireland he talks about here, even though, yes,
:>many people seem to have red hair and some speak Gaelic, but the author,
:>he *intended* blue, I know this as a fact, and your paper won't get
:>accepted by Critical Inquiry, and it's a conspiracy, clearly, they don't
:>care about authorial intent, French bastards, no wonder, but what the
:>hell, you can always publish it on your homepage, or post it to rab, where
:>anything, but anything said about books will find someone who maybe agrees
:>with you....
Jeff says:
Ha! NOW who is being simplistic? That doesn't sound like a well thought out
defense of Derrida to me. Even HE deserves better. :>
I think you are taking this all to personally, Silke. Chill a bit. Folks
won't hear you above your voice otherwise. I'm quite open to having my
observations refuted, for I do not hold that they are infallible.
R. Jeffrey Grace
Mary wrote:
:>Dear Mr. Grace:
:>
:>Congratulations. You have scored a 694 out of a possible 800 on
:>the "Sense of Humor About Serious Literary Topics Regeants Exam. This
:>will allow you to place out of the courses referrenced above while
:>still receiving full credit hours for same.
:>
:>Trusting that you will have a brilliant future,
:>
:>Sincerely yours,
:>
:>Mary the Heretic
Crap! Only 694??? aiiiiiieeeee (slowly spreading hari kari cloth on floor)
R. Jeffrey Grace
s:
:>
:>Snipped area, containing much to-ing and fro-ing, culminating with:
:>rjg...@qnet.com (R. Jeffrey Grace) wrote:
:>>
:>>Okay, from what I have heard, dsconstructionism scorns rational discourse and
:>>fabrication?
Bee said:
:>Having launched abruptly into this thread, I should like now to retreat, and on much
:>the same note as I entered:
:>
:>My understanding of deconstruction is not as an IDEOLOGY but as a
:>STRATEGY. Attaching 'ism' may serve as as example of what Derrida's
:>initial critique HAS COME to mean, but as his initial INTENT was
:>to displace such philosophical closures, one can only think that you
:>are inadvertently demonstrating the case for that which you are
:>arguing against. red. ad. absurdum...
:>
:>You will, of course, feel free to correct me... And I will, of course,
:>continue to read...
Ah! Okay, well I shall continue to write then :>
That could very well be why I dislike Derrida's "strategy"... this contention
that he is avoiding ideology and a metaphysical framework. I would have to
argue the point for a while, probably, but I think that such an enterprise
(metaphysical avoidance) is an exercise in futility. There is simply no way
to operate without a metaphysical framework. Folks may deny that they have
one, but it is fruitless. :>
Lars Eighner
> In article <43pvnu$s...@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>, Bee <charles...@bt-sys.bt.co.uk> writes:
> > exx...@bath.ac.uk (Douglas Clark) wrote:
> > >
> > >I dont believe I know any Christians. Certainly I have met very few
> > >in my life. Please elaborate about them. Pure curiosity.
> > >Douglas Clark
> >
> > Douglas:
> >
> > Christians have long hair, wear flimsy sandals and like to wash one
> > another's feet. Not to be confused with hippies, who have long hair,
> > wear sturdy sandals and never wash.
>
> washing the feet of people other than their spouses and children. Of
> course, some volunteer for work that has them washing others, but that's
> another matter.
>
> Your best bet may be to listen for bells ringing on Sunday mornings and
> finding where the local Christians are gathering.
You'll have better luck looking for the guys in white sheets around
the burning crosses. There you will discover what Christianity
is all about.
=Lars Eighner================"Yes, Lizbeth is fine."========================
=eig...@io.com ="Everything I say reflects the opinions and =
=http://www.io.com/~eighner = official policy of my employer. So lump it." =
=Austin TX====================================IO: it sucks the least!=======
R. Jeffrey Grace
u> writes:
:>
:>Between statement A below, which sez JD believes that
:>an author's intention is irrelevant, and statement B, which
:>makes authorial intention the the main or only test of
:>meaning, there is a big gap. Would it be too cute of me
:>to ask you which one you yourself mean and which one you
:>think Derrida would decry?
:>
:>I joined in here mostly out of annoyance that you seemed
:>willing to proclaim things that I strongly suspect
:>are not true. So far as I can tell, Derrida does not
:>hold any particularly unusual opinions about intentionality
:>and meaning and seems to have little interest in intention
:>as such. Now if you want to check out some radical and
:>scandalous views, you might take a glance at Wimsatt
:>and Beardsley's New Critical manifesto, "The Intentional
:>Fallacy," which does rather make the claim in statement A.
:>
:>There are some important or at least much chewed-upon
:>questions in all this, which have mostly to do with controls
:>or limits on meaning and which sound a bit more like
:>statement B.
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>Here's A:
:>>rjg...@qnet.com (R. Jeffrey Grace) wrote:
:>>:>>What puts me off Derrida is ignorant positions like "The author is dead"...
:>>:>>anyone who thinks an authors intent and meaning are irrelevant does not
:>>:>>deserve my ear.
:>>:>
:><snip<
:>
:>and here's B:
:>>
:>>Oh? Derrida has no problem with an interpretation that falls or stands on
:>>how well it reflects what the author meant?
Well this also came to my email box, so let me answer this here also :> I
intentionally was provocative in my post in order to get some kind of
dialogue going, since I ahven't had much success trying to get it going
otherwise.
You are quite right that there is a gap there. So I guess my question would
be: Where does meaning arise? Is it all in the reader, or the author, or a
mixture of both? If it's a mixture is it shared equally by the reader/author?
R. Jeffrey Grace
-Maria Weineck) writes:
:>: Jeff said:
:>: Eh? I have responded to everything you have adressed to me. Maybe your ISP
:>: is slow?
Silke responded
:>Since I have this, but no reply to previous messages, it can't be the
:>problem. I'm waiting for your opinion on Plato and authorial intent, for
:>instance.
I have looked and can't find that post :/ Can you pose it again? :+
John McCarthy
Christians (or any other religious people) is more admirable than any
other form of prejudice. I don't see that all of them should be
blamed, as Eighner does, for what some Christians have done any more
than I should be blamed for what Lenin and Stalin did.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
R. Jeffrey Grace
(Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
Silke said:
:>Since I have this, but no reply to previous messages, it can't be the
:>problem. I'm waiting for your opinion on Plato and authorial intent, for
:>instance.
Jeff replies:
Well I must have missed that, so let me look for it after I reply here. :/
Jeff said:
:>: I think you are taking this all to personally, Silke. Chill a bit. Folks
:>: won't hear you above your voice otherwise. I'm quite open to having my
:>: observations refuted, for I do not hold that they are infallible.
Silke replied
:>Since your observations concern things you haven't observed, that is only
:>fitting. And, yes, I do take it immensely personally, since my intellect
:>and my love of intelligence are very personal matters, and the kind of
:>confident ignorance you displayed is very dangerous to my professional
:>and personal well-being. It's just nice to get one's hands on someone of
:>the metaphysical majority--since I don't write letters to the editors of
:>Commentary, the New Republic, and other publications that present
:>arguments, or rather impressions, similar to yours.
Well maybe you should write to those publications. That way there wouldn't
be so many ignoramuses like myself :>
Seriously, my original post was, I admit, deliberately provocative. I did
that because I have had a hell of a time getting a proponent of
deconstruction and/or post-modernism to seriously engage in any kind of
dialogue. I've gotten you to respond... :> Hopefully you will be so kind as
to continue this discussion, for I _do_ want to hear what you have to say.
Now let me go find that Plato question...
Dogb0y
1. shopping
2. jail