jollyroger.com KNOCK KNOCK KNOCKIN' ON BLACKBEARD CABIN'S DOOR HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY
Drake Raft
THE CONSERVATIVE LITERARY REVOLUTION.
http://jollyroger.com/beaconway/jollyroger.html
Send join jollyroger to jolly...@jollyroger.com
I know where the most perfect silence is,
Seen it in the wild blue off Hatteras,
A mile out, rainbowed sails in silent bliss,
Looked like they'd collide, but they safely passed.
I know when the most perfect silence is,
Down a dusty Ohio road, high noon,
No shirt on, being burned by the sun's kiss,
Sixteen, takin' my time-- it was still June.
I know what the most perfect silence is,
It's what we say when falling out of love,
It roars and thunders right through the kiss,
Says all that no words can ever speak of.
I know why the most perfect silence is,
It is there for the whisper to be born,
The whisper in her ear became the kiss,
Just a dream in DC early one morn.
I know who the perfect silence is for,
It is for the ones whom we love the best,
It is there to protect them from our core,
By the silent trust we all seek to rest.
And I know how rare that silence can be,
With everyone talkin', it's hard to hear,
But I know I felt it, on the streets of DC,
The sound in her eyes-- it was crystal clear.
And it brought back to mind the rainbowed sails,
And the way it looked like they would collide,
Like two souls set upon fate's iron rails,
But the most perfect silence never died.
Drake Raft
Hey there Scalazi-- I'd like to see you try to top this immaculate poem.
Get off your liberal-socialist-critic's ass, and Create something which
Signifies Something. Or get off my newsgroup. I've had enough of yer
slackademic pretentiousness. The only thing that you have going for
yourself is that whenever you open your mouth, it's to talk about me noble
frigate.
THE JOLLY ROGER
http://jollyroger.com/beaconway/jollyroger.html
Drake Raft (dra...@email.unc.edu) wrote:
: THE CONSERVATIVE LITERARY REVOLUTION.
D. Braun
On 9 Dec 1996, Drake Raft wrote:
> Hey there Scalazi-- I'd like to see you try to top this immaculate poem.
> Get off your liberal-socialist-critic's ass, and Create something which
> Signifies Something. Or get off my newsgroup. I've had enough of yer
> slackademic pretentiousness. The only thing that you have going for
This poem is mildly interesting, as in insipid
pop lyrics that go stale before the end of the song. Try again.
Maybe it would be better sung to a post-grunge tune? (Ahhh,
no). "Immaculate poem... Signifies Something"? What? That you wish you
were 16 again and the world was a simpler place? A common theme, and
it has been related much better with fewer words. Try free verse and lose
the sing-song meter.
That's my review, unattached from pretentious connections to a
ciber-literary/political rag.
Dave Braun
Louise Van Hine
D. Braun (dbr...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: >
: >
--
Louise Van Hine
lou...@netcom.com
"A: It's not just for 'Aha!' anymore."
Robert St. James
Drake Raft wrote:
>
<snip>
RED ALERT!
JollyRogerBot sighted off starboard!
Set phasers on 'deflate' and fire at will!
--
Robert St. James
(Slacker Novelist by Day, Divine Poet by Night)
http://ares.csd.net/~rsieg/st_james/st_james.htm (writings)
http://ares.csd.net/~rsieg/st_james/st_james.gif (picture)
http://ares.csd.net/~rsieg/a_vye/a_vye.htm (music)
Dancing Bear
In article <58g38u$f...@newz.oit.unc.edu>, dra...@email.unc.edu says...
>
>Hey there Scalazi-- I'd like to see you try to top this immaculate poem.
>Get off your liberal-socialist-critic's ass, and Create something which
>Signifies Something. Or get off my newsgroup. I've had enough of yer
>slackademic pretentiousness. The only thing that you have going for
>frigate.
>
I would like to point out the obvious errors of your ways. First off, this is
not you're freakin' newsgroup, you cross-posting boaster.
Secondly, you lost your parrot and your fake accent. It's much easier for
people to identify you as the clown you are, when you have them. Please don
said costume and act your way back to your own newsgroup.
Thirdly, look around you. Have a real good look. Go ahead, look again. Now,
tell me: Does the room of a thirteen year old really look like the center of
the universe? Don't answer, let me: Only to a thirteen year old.
: I know where the most perfect silence is,
: Seen it in the wild blue off Hatteras,
"Wild blue" is a cliche. Can you use some imagination here, PLEASE?
: A mile out, rainbowed sails in silent bliss,
: Looked like they'd collide, but they safely passed.
Silent seems a bit redundant here. perfect silence/silent bliss.
: I know when the most perfect silence is,
: Down a dusty Ohio road, high noon,
"high noon"? Really? You do have a pension for cliches.
: No shirt on, being burned by the sun's kiss,
: Sixteen, takin' my time-- it was still June.
"burned by the sun's kiss" is also hackneyed. Noon/June/spoon/moon rhyme in the
"immaculate poem", really?
Okay, so you're sixteen, not thirteen.
: I know what the most perfect silence is,
: It's what we say when falling out of love,
"when", or should it be "while"?
: It roars and thunders right through the kiss,
: Says all that no words can ever speak of.
"The Kiss". You know *THE* kiss?
"Says all that no words can ever speak of"
-been there, done that. Nice to know that half the drippy love poetry
I wrote when I was a teenager, is immaculate in these standards. And here
I went and burned it all! -Go figure!
: I know why the most perfect silence is,
: It is there for the whisper to be born,
A whisper would negate the perfect silence, would it not?
: The whisper in her ear became the kiss,
: Just a dream in DC early one morn.
Geez, whispers always do that, don't they? Cliche alert, man the decks, mateys.
There'll be hell to pay on the high seas this day. Mark me words!
: I know who the perfect silence is for,
: It is for the ones whom we love the best,
<Yawn>. This seems like filler material in a run-on poem.
: It is there to protect them from our core,
: By the silent trust we all seek to rest.
It's Perfect Silence Man, protector of everyone, from everyone else's core!
"Silent trust" is a little used too.
: And I know how rare that silence can be,
: With everyone talkin', it's hard to hear,
Not rare enough, damn it! You keep going and going, like a feakin' energizer
bunny. "With everyone talkin', it's hard to hear," Ahem, Mr. Pot, meet
Mr. Kettle.
: But I know I felt it, on the streets of DC,
: The sound in her eyes-- it was crystal clear.
"crystal clear". Do they sell a book of cliches and hackneyed expressions? If
so where did you buy your copy?
: And it brought back to mind the rainbowed sails,
: And the way it looked like they would collide,
These two lines make a hissing noise. Like the sound of someone letting the air
out of a balloon. Or better yet, the wind out of someone's sails.
: Like two souls set upon fate's iron rails,
: But the most perfect silence never died.
Q: If fate was on iron rails, would it sink in the sea?
You jumped from being reminded of an image of two ships passing on the sea (gee,
that's original) to iron rails. Okay, you didn't jump, you thudded.
This is immaculate?
You should spend a little more time reading something other than your dictionary
of cliches and hackneyed expressions. There are some fine examples of poetry out
there in the libraries and bookstores. Hell, you can even find them on the web.
Seek them out, matey, the treasures awaits. When you find them, you will then
realize that good poetry does not require boasting and baiting across newsgroups.
BTW, you forgot one: alt.teen.poetry.and.stuff
-Dancing Bear
Louise Van Hine
John Michael Scalzi, II
>Hey there Scalazi-- I'd like to see you try to top this immaculate poem.
Okay.
There once was a hack named McGucken,
Whose spamming was without compunction;
He claimed it was "true"
But all who read knew
That his brain was not known to function.
Or perhaps a haiku:
Avast ye mateys!
The Jolly Roger has leaks!
Arrgh! Arrgh! Arrgh! Arrgh! Arrgh!
Boy, THAT was easy.
-----------
John Michael Scalzi, II
Writer/Editor, America Online
We pay up to $250 for humor -- see "http://members.aol.com/DeliteEd"
Personal -- http://members.aol.com/jscalzi
"Some folks are just a murder waiting to happen."
--- Kristine Blauser Scalzi
Tom Salyers
John Michael Scalzi, II (JSc...@gnn.com) wrote:
> There once was a hack named McGucken,
> Whose spamming was without compunction;
> He claimed it was "true"
> But all who read knew
> That his brain was not known to function.
Fun! Let me try:
A right-wing faux pirate named Drake
Spammed wiely about his "ship's wake.
He cried out "Avast!"
While we kicked his ass
'Cause we'd had about all we could take.
--
Tom Salyers "Now is the Windows of our disk contents
IRCnick: Aqualung Made glorious SimEarth by this Sun of Zork."
Denver, CO --from _Richard v3.0_
http://www.dimensional.com/~tsalyers
Snuff Jazz
Literary newsgroups trimmed.
tsal...@dimensional.com (Tom Salyers) wrote:
>John Michael Scalzi, II (JSc...@gnn.com) wrote:
>
>> There once was a hack named McGucken,
>> Whose spamming was without compunction;
>> He claimed it was "true"
>> But all who read knew
>> That his brain was not known to function.
>
>
> Fun! Let me try:
>
> A right-wing faux pirate named Drake
> Spammed wiely about his "ship's wake.
> He cried out "Avast!"
> While we kicked his ass
> 'Cause we'd had about all we could take.
Darke Raft was his name, so we're told,
Ranted nonstop, lest his keyboard grow cold.
His blatherings, shallow and snide
Attracted reader far and wide,
To snicker at the fact he ain't sold.
____________________________________________________________________________
sye...@ix.netcom.com IRC: GinRei
http://serdar.home.ml.org another worldly device...
____________________________________________________________________________
you can crush me as I speak/write on rocks what you feel/now feel this truth
LilChica
Drake Raft wrote:
>
> Hey there Scalazi-- I'd like to see you try to top this immaculate poem.
> Signifies Something. Or get off my newsgroup. I've had enough of yer
> slackademic pretentiousness. The only thing that you have going for
> yourself is that whenever you open your mouth, it's to talk about me noble
> frigate.
>
These are all YOUR newsgroups???
alt.culture.jollyroger
rec.arts.poems
alt.society.generation-x
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
alt.society.conservatism
alt.politics.usa.republican
rec.arts.books
Or do you just claim that because you spam your crap in all of them?
Drake Raft
Dude-- why are you obsessed with me? To tell you the truth, I'm not too
comfortable about inspiring guys to write poetry about me.
http://jollyroger.com/beaconway/jollyroger.html
43
"Hello?" I said, peering in the darkness, but I couldn't make 'em
out. "Who's there?
"That's the first question, though not the question. Though for
the time I've answered, 'not to be.'"
"Drake?" I could make out that his hair was totally long-- like
dreadlocks too.
"Drake's dead."
"Whoah! Drake!" I peered pretty hard, but it was of no use.
Nothing could penetrate the veil of night the figure wore, but I
recognized the voice.
"A ghost of a ghost of a ghost I am. Or a man without religion."
"What's up? They're sayin'--"
"Shhh-- listen . . ." I listened and I could hear the pounding
bass line coming from away off. "Listen to what my generation has to say.
. ."
"I didn't mean to disturb. . ."
"I was disturbed when my heritage was desecrated and my grave was
robbed."
"Dude! You're alive! A whole lotta people think you committed
hary cary."
"To them I have. Do you read Shakespeare?"
"No."
"Then I am but a ghost to you." He laughed. "A ghost I was when
I lived in this society in which the rational spirit is denied, and the
idea of the moral truth is scoffed at as an ancient pretension which but
hinders the entertainment industry and liberal businesses and lawyers, and
oppresses the weak and denies fathers and mothers the freedom to destroy
that which they conceive."
"Cool people like truth-- some of 'em." It was a stupid thing to
say, but like I said it 'cause the silence was just too big.
"I became a ghost of a ghost when I wrote the truth; I was
crucified on all fronts in this liberal land. For the contemporary rich
liberal, the poor liberal, the white liberal, the black liberal, the male
liberal and the feminist all hold as their sacred first principle that the
truth does not exist. That is all they have going for them, and they will
defend the postmodernists' fundamental axiom to the death. Beware when
battling those who do not believe in a truth, for they do not fight fair,
as they do not perceive fairness to exist. For the postmodernist swings a
double-edged sword. They swing it one way saying there's no such thing as
truth, and then they swing it back, proclaiming their prejudices. Once
long ago science empowered the individual, as it allowed the independent
thinker to interpret reality by his own senses and create descriptions
which reflected reality. But then the most profound description of
reality, quantum mechanics, showed that all was based on chance. Socrates
said that he knew nothing, Neitschez proclaimed that God is dead, Ahab
perished in his pursuit of the ungraspable phantom of life, and Einstein
never found the deterministic theory which he believed was more
fundamental than the quantum mechanics his search gave birth to. So to be
properly educated these days is to be a moral and intellectual nihilist.
The liberals were quick to do away with the vast beauty of Plato's works,
the grandeur of the pursuit of Moby Dick, and Einstein's ubiquitous
significance, and declare onto the eighteen-year-old that it has been
found out that all pursuits of the truth lead to but one-- that nothing
can be known, and thus that the truth does not exist. They teach the
student to abandon the search, and they crucify those who do, destroying
the fundamental source of all that is of use to mankind. And today the
secular reductionists memorize and misuse quantum theory, chaos and
relativity as tools to proclaim that an objective reality does not exist
independent of observation. The pernicious materialist bureaucrats who
congregate 'neath the veil of darkness afforded by the misapplication of
science to the soul use the theories to murder the sole creator of
Greatness-- the individual artist. No longer does it matter what one
creates in the academy, but who one knows. Here art is subjugated to
politics. And thus the death of the truth seeker and the denial of God.
And the diabolical murder of the defender of The Permanent Things-- Uncle
Walt. And as the Permanent Things wither, so too dies eternal love and
thus romance. For in this fallen context, where free love prevails, true
love is banned. And there is no such thing as free love-- in exchange for
it you must become a liberal. I found my corrupted self using my sonnets
not to exalt, not to inspire enduring romance, but to conquer the hearts
and minds of the beautiful. By destroying the virtuous feminine the
feminist destroys the noble masculine. The postmodern elite wish for
nihilism, the in-between, the neither here nor there, for that is where
mediocrity and dishonesty may dominate-- wherever standards do not exist.
And in this darkened land, void of God's romantic morality, my soul was
corrupted when I lost the ability to see feminine innocence's beauty. I
lost the ability to see it not because I grew blind, but because the
liberals had destroyed it. The place ten thousand girls will never fill,
I call true love, for only one girl will. But I shall blame no others for
my actions, for to do so would be to consign myself to slavery and forfeit
the natural rights of my God-given freedom. I walk these woods alone. It
was I who tempted them and denied them the dignity of uniting the immortal
deed with the temporary act. But when we are taught that words mean
nothing, the immortal deed cannot exist. And so I buried the dervish
sonnets. I walk these deep, dark woods seeking redemption. Until we are
redeemed, we cannot avenge. Once teachers served as beacons to guide us
through the darkness, but today their foremost task is to thicken the
postmodern fog."
"Dude-- but don't you think you should be telling everyone this?
I mean I think it'd be cool for them to hear it. I've sort of heard the
same vibes goin' down all over the place. Like people've been talkin'
about things. Lots of people in our generation. Things like the truth."
He laughed. "The truth that is taught these days-- that there is
none. 'Tis a seductive premise for the scholar whose political ambitions
outweigh their intellectual ingenuity. While proclaiming that the truth
does not exist will get you a PhD, it will do little good to keep her
father from lying to her mother. The grave I buried my sonnets in was too
shallow, for a thousand liberal necropheliacs roam this grim land, robed
by pretension, their PhD's serving as a license to make their ignorance
their arrogance. The vultures descend upon the dead artists and poets,
for the dead cannot defend their words. The modern liberal critic is
afraid to live his own life firsthand, and jealous of those who do and did
signify something profound, he must destroy their works so as to level the
playing field. So they criticize, anthologize and philosophize, but they
do not create. For that is the ultimate postmodern sin. The liberals
twist and distort and mutilate the sacred texts, teaching the children
that there is nothing in the ultimate beauty but evil. For the modern
liberal has little to lose by eradicating all spiritual beauty and the
yearning for truth, and everything to gain by replacing it with nihilistic
bureaucracy. A witch by the name of Sycorax possesses my sonnets. She
who could inspire none of them now has them, and such is the manner of
inheritance. And I have her confession of Uncle Walt's murder. I took it
from you. Sorry I knocked you guys down. Like I wasn't in the mood to
hang out or anything."
I realized what he was talkin' about! "Oh yeah-- you nailed
the hell out of us, out there-- it was pretty cool." That was like when
he'd tackled us after we'd just gotten out of the PAD meeting with
Lionhead and the box and everything! It'd been Drake!
"For even a Sycorax must write the truth, and thus the
liberals' sacred secret is that they do not believe their own religion.
Know this, that the postmodernist is fundamentally a liar. They know the
Truth exists, but they believe that it shouldn't, as in Its context their
creations are rendered insignificant. And so they proclaim vengeance upon
God. And in the liberal void how easy it is to find oneself seduced by
thousand temptations they lay before this generation. It's been out in
these woods, beyond this gorge which separates the liberal's kingdom from
nature, where I found an Eden conducive to contemplation. For there's
man's natural state, and it's reflected in the beauty of the exalting
timber and plummeting cliffs. And now, sitting upon this bridge and
gazing down into the unfathomable blackness that all men eventually join,
giving up the ghostly mist of their spirits, I see that which will be for
my poetry. Uncle Walt's murder shall be avenged. They shall be returned
to rest underground, where 'cross the whole wide world they shall resound.
Before Sycorax appends her name to them: killing them, skinning them, and
placing them in an anthology, in the same manner that a naturalist
sanctimoniously snuffs and stuffs the birds that he piously states he
loves. Those who claim to protect our freedoms are forever clipping its
wings. Some die to create, some live to destroy; the latter the aging
state does employ. In this darkened world all truths are but will'o'wisps
my friend-- phantoms that are but visible to those who walk the fields in
the darkest hour, when churchyards yawn. But yet all people harbor a
deeply private knowledge of this ghost, and in our natural yearning for
and loyalty to the truth, all men are created equal in their love of God.
All men yearn for the Truth as they yearn for freedom, for to know the
truth is to be set free. But yet the contemporary fashion is to pretend
to shun this natural yearning, to stand forth as he who is for utter
equality, utter fairness, utter government. The University has become a
battlefield where only the greatest promoters of equality can survive.
The bravest are the forever indecisive, except that their indecision is a
cruel, cunning choice. The morally indifferent economists are best suited
to win, for they subjugate their better instincts to but money-- there is
no truth they admit to, but for the truth by which they gain their
perdition. But look! Look closely, and this pretense dissolves. For
they are possessed by the ghost of avarice-- the drive to become the best.
So then why, in wishing to be superior, do we allow debased, diabolical,
decadent poetry and prose upon the campus? It is because we live in a
shadow of yesterday's revelations, whence the fires born of rational
thought and science raged 'cross civilization. So welcome the
deconstructionists and inferior artists, who by their mediocrity claim to
be superior to all the Greats, and thus the voices of democracy. But
here is the ultimate fallacy which lies in the confusion of politics with
art! For the artist is a tyrant. The creator must be a tyrant in order
to ensure that freedom exists. It's a virtue for an artist to be a
tyrant, but advice for a politician. For one works with the inanimate--
the other with men. The politician must live their life from the outside
in, but the artist must live their life from the inside out. Love of
power and knowledge are different things-- there's no such thing as
philosopher kings. And thus Sycorax was a fallacy. An artist not because
she exalted the peoples' spirits and souls with her decadent words, but
because she served the contemporary resenting political agenda of the
academy by desecrating the peoples' sacred heritage."
"That's cool." Like I was kinda followin' him. It explained a
lot of things.
"And are not these empty architects the true racists, playing upon
the fears of the people, trumpeting their differences? The liberal mind
can be credited with the civil rights movement, but then they missed
racism so much that they reinstituted it. Truly, they have not eyes to
perceive the depths of my soul, and so all I am to them is a white male.
I need not such shallow judgment. And while maintaining this religious
sideshow they're busy patenting the scientific advances made by males,
securing government grants to probe all that which is unprobable by
science. Because science judged Galileo to be superior to the priests,
we've rationalized that the ten commandments were but evolutionary
phenomena created by a beast to oppress his fellow beasts-- so we let them
fade along with the printed word of which they were constructed. And as
God fades so too do all of society's moral institutions. Know ye that the
problems an ideology creates that same ideology will never solve. For the
problem is the bureaucracy that has grown about the ideology, and a
bureaucracy's only interest is self-preservation. And now what children
can rebel against their parents when the family does not exist? What
student can rebel against school when nothing is taught? Freedom cannot
exist without moral responsibility." Drake laughed. "Truth cannot exist
without God. No knowledge that can be bought is of use to me. It takes
either a fool or a dishonest, knifing soul to rise to the helm of these
modern day transcript corporations." He laughed. "Today's educational
institutions are the prophet of truth's executor. Do you hear me?"
"Uh, yeah-- mostly." In a way I did-- it's easier to hear than
understand. I just sat there in the silence for awhile. The crickets were
firing up again, one by one-- I must've startled them into silence. "I
mean Joey thinks you're dead-- she read your poems and stuff. She liked
'em."
"The ones I sent her, but the truth I kept. Made a dagger from
those by which she would have wept. Hid them safe, where a horned horse
would know, where once upon a time the horn did grow."
"Dude, I'm only saying a lot of people really dug you it seems,
like Windy, and Clay and people. I mean they like respected you."
He laughed. "That might be so, but they did not dig deep.
Otherwise they would have dug a hole for me."
"It's like there's some type of battle going on. And there's a
lot of crazy stuff we're all going through, and you know what's up with
it. And it's like you'd be serving it better if you weren't out here. I
mean I bet the liberals or whoever want you out here. Like uncivilized
and everything. I mean if I could write sonnets I'd--"
He laughed some more-- it wasn't a mean laugh, or like a loud one,
or a crazy one, but just a small, quiet one-- "When you follow your mind
into the black, then you turn to find that there is no path back. For
once you've danced with the abyss, when you've felt the ultimate truth,
then there are none but for it-- when this ultimate paradox inspires
laughter in your soul, then there is no return, my friend. For in seeking
the ultimate order the ultimate disorder is found. It happened with
Einstein and vengeance 'gainst whimsical quantum theory, as it happened
with Ahab and his whale."
No one said anything for a bit, but the silence was like too
hideous for me to just sit there saying nothing. "Yeah, but look at all
the beauty in Moby Dick. Like you said or something."
"Have you read it?"
"No." I said. "But I'm going to. And I know it must be cool
because everyone's so into it. And like Quantum mechanics. Maybe it does
tell us how everything is just but chance and all, but Cliff was telling
me how it gave us computers and chemistry, and like a whole lot of medical
stuff, and MTV and airplanes."
"But it took away God."
"No." Drake didn't believe it. He was just seeing what I thought.
"I think that certain people used it to take away God. But like God is
there. I know it because I know it. There's just too much cool stuff and
pretty mornings. It's like science does science and religion does
religion, and all the problems happen when somebody who does neither tries
to use one to do the other."
"The ungraspable phantom of the soul resides in words, the seat of
our consciousness. And as this generation is inundated with technological
illusions, the element of the mind that for thousands of years evolved
about the printed word, the vital aspect that sought justice, truth, and
morality, withers. Studying the atoms of the cells, they have lost the
beauty of the fields, and the meaning of the mind."
"See? That's what I mean. God's out in the fields, in the
entirety, where everyone can see Him. And they're looking for him with
microscopes. And because they don't find Him with their scientific
methods, they tell you he doesn't exist. People miss ya, is what I'm
saying. It's that simple."
"How can one miss that which one never knew?" He laughed-- like I
got this feeling he'd already heard everything I had to say.
"They knew, in a way. And you knew they knew. Otherwise you
would've never written your poems and stuff. I mean not your poems, but
like your poetry-- I mean you had an influence or whatever. You like made
a difference."
"Every man makes his difference, and in that every man is the
same, and so, there is no difference, but for the differences made, but
the differences made are nothing, for in the end all men are the same, as
they were before they were-- nothing."
"Yeah, but see? You're sounding like a liberal and you know it.
Like you might as well have some fun while you're down here-- you know? "
I looked down into inky blackness of the gorge-- there was no end to it.
The night flowed on into it, perpetually and everything, and out of it
floated that smoky mist. "I mean we're all headed that way. In the end
you won't be. I don't think you have to worry about it-- I mean to be or
not to be is not your choice so much, so there's not much use gettin'
distracted with it. If I were you I'd publish the poems-- the dark ones,
and the light ones. Or at least the light ones, as we all keep secrets
and things. And you should publish everything else too, like your
stories. And I'd take the money and buy a Jeep-- just a second-hand
Wrangler, or something, and I'd head for the beach somewhere-- the Outer
Banks, in one of those little houses. And I'd live there year round.
Surf fishin' and stuff. And maybe I'd get married-- you know? If I met a
cool chick who liked cool stuff. Yeah." I was getting excited. "The
darkness has a hunger that's insatiable. But even when it's after dark
out there, and even if they won't let you put up a beacon or anything,
there's that thing inside that they'll never take. It's your faith in the
True. And the only way you'll ever lose it is if you give up looking for
it in other people. 'Cause you only ever see it reflected in their eyes."
"They've destroyed the literary infrastructure which would have
once published the words that exalt. And in this inverted world they
publish the words that desecrate."
"I'd get those poems back from Sycorax if I were you, and give 'em
to the world before she does. You could do it on the WWW Cliff was
sayin'."
"Never." He laughed. "Never in a thousand years would she let my
beasts of angels exist-- even caged in an anthology, branded by her name."
"Yeah-- she's gonna publish 'em in her own name. I'm serious."
Then I realized I was talking about the dream I'd had! With like the
fencing match! "Dude-- I had this dream. It was some sort of poetic
writing thing-- some ceremony. It's what some black lady said. She got
up at like these poetic writing awards thing, and told us Sycorax's
publishing a book of sonnet things called The After Dark Field Book."
Drake laughed. "Why do I find myself amazed at simple logic?"
"Yeah-- she was there too. She stood up when they called her, to
like congratulate her on her new book. Its gonna be out next month. It
like was just a dream--" I shook my head to clear it. It seemed so real.
"Yeah, it was." It was pretty freaky. "But it was just a dream."
I could make him out looking down. "Of course, she has turned to
the rhyming line, with hopes that my work could make her divine." He
laughed. "She wants her name in history to matter, for what she wrote
rather than lifting a dagger. The Nobel could not make a writer of her.
And she thinks my sonnets can."
"But you like have her manuscript thing-- her confession thing,
right? She really killed Uncle Walt, huh?"
I saw him turn his head to look at me. "Yes."
"Like you know what? You could bust her with that, pretty bad, I
bet-- she knows it, I mean. She's wiggin' about it-- I've heard her. And
if you like wanted your poems back, like she'd probably trade you the
manuscript thing for 'em-- "
"Only half."
"Half? Of what?"
"Of the sonnets."
"Where's the other half?"
"Only you know." He laughed.
"Only I know?"
"The messenger has the dagger poems."
"Say what?"
"Timber-- are you not a believer yet? Are you so completely
faithless in the art of dreaming? Have you not heard the wind's
whispers, the thunder's shouts? We are writing the script tonight, my
friend." He threw his head back and laughed. "I buried the noble poems
deep below; I'll bury the dagger poems in my foe. Is not your final
secret society meeting tonight?"
"You know about our--"
"The Jolly Rogers." He laughed. "To honor all those who never
get invited."
"Yeah, at midnight. But I don't know what we're gonna--"
"Cancel it. Cancel it and reschedule it for tomorrow night."
"Actually we were like already gonna do that I think, 'cause we've
got nothing planned, really. Cliff said something about fencing for
Lionhead-- you know that unicorn thing Lionhead? We actually took
Lionhead one--"
"Well then I shall suggest something. An apocalypse with the Lion
Headed horse."
"An apocalypse?" I asked.
"Timber! Did ye not know that our meeting here was written in
destiny's pages at the dawn of time? Rehearsed through half of eternity,
and then set upon paper two thousand years ago. In Revelations I have
read of these things. I saw a star fall unto the earth: and to him was
given the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and
there arose a smoke out of that pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and
the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit, and
for all it was after dark. The star was the beautiful works of Western
Civilization, the bottomless pit was the empowering nihilistic
interpretations the resentniks used to deny God and the True, and the
smoke which pores forth is naught but the postmodern fog. And in those
days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die,
and death shall flee from them. This was me, when Uncle Walt was murdered
and I lost the ability to love a woman. And they had a king over them,
which is the angel of the bottomless pit. Cursed Sycorax is the king of
Princeton. One woe is past; and behold, there come two woes more
hereafter. Uncle Walt lie murdered, and. . . thus I saw the horses in the
vision, and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of
their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the
third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the
brimstone. And the rest of the men which were not yet killed by these
plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not
worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and
of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk. Neither repented they
of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of
their thefts. Invite both PAD and The Jolly Rogers to the secret society
ceremonial grounds out yonder." He pointed out beyond the bridge. "Have
them fence for Lionhead tomorrow night."
"That's exactly what Cliff was sayin'! Like a grand finale!"
I could see him nodding. The moon was rising and I could see his
features some. I thought back to a few nights ago when we'd seen the moon
rising from the train, and boy, that seemed like ten years ago. "So that
would mean that Ryan and Mortimer would be fencing."
"Yeah-- probably Ryan and like Mort. Mort's the only one who
knows how to fence in the Princetonians After Dark, we're pretty sure."
He stood up. "Tell Sycorax that I'll fence Ryan for the
manuscript, once he has beaten Mortimer for Lionhead. I will return her
manuscript if he wins, and if I win then I shall regain my poems." He
laughed.
"You serious?"
"As serious as the divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them
how we will. Ah yes, in good sport, 'neath the final night, poetry and
darkness shall fight their fight. She who killed my father, buried him
below, forgot that sons their father's paths follow. The witch razed
Princeton's land, made it fallow, but her art withers while my truth does
grow. Once I saw nothing, but now I do see, that sight's worth nothing
when the dream shall be. Had I never known darkness, void of light's
gleam, I would have never been able to dream." He turned so his face was
in total shadow. "We shall see. When is it?"
"Like I think just as it gets dark-- or no, at midnight, like
after the Preppy Death show and all."
"And where?"
"Right here. At the ceremonial grounds out there."
"Of course-- symmetry does exist, though it is subtle and runs
deep beneath the chaos, but it is there. Yes-- I was born into this
world, told by society that there is no God, taught by teachers that there
is no reason, educated by educators that there is no purpose, that there
is no rationale, that there is no thought, but those who told me and
sentenced me to death were mistaken. For divinity can not be denied a
man, without him being denied his life. And by this light, Princeton
shall now ignite; and my truth shall live beyond this brief light, for
though I fall to death, my breath shall know flight. New light is born
from the light of truth's fire, while for others it's a funeral pyre. Let
it be." Drake stood up. "Sycorax wishes for equality, let her be equal
to man's tragedy. My mentor murdered, I strayed from the path, henceforth
I'll serve the Permanent Thing's wrath." And with that he crossed over to
the far side of the bridge and slipped silently away into the forest.
Something in the way he did it reminded me of something, but I couldn't
place it.
THE CONSERVATIVE LITERARY REVOLUTION.
JOIN OVER 6,000 ABOARD
THE WORLD'S LARGEST, MOST-FEARED LITERARY FRIGATE
http://jollyroger.com/beaconway/jollyroger.html
Send join jollyroger to jolly...@jollyroger.com
THE JOLLY ROGER-- To be featured in the upcoming AMAZING WEB PAGES.
Go here. Do not pass go. Whatever your tastes or politics, it's
tough not to enjoy this smart-alecky, skillfully written and
provocative online magazine. Literary, generational and plain-old
politics take it on the chin from this threesome.
http://jollyroger.com/beaconway/jollyroger.html
John Michael Scalzi, II (JSc...@gnn.com) wrote:
: In article <58g38u$f...@newz.oit.unc.edu>, dra...@email.unc.edu says...
: >Hey there Scalazi-- I'd like to see you try to top this immaculate poem.
: Okay.
: There once was a hack named McGucken,
: Whose spamming was without compunction;
: He claimed it was "true"
: But all who read knew
: That his brain was not known to function.
: Or perhaps a haiku:
Drake Raft
Hey there scalzi. Here's another chance for you to lie.
THE JOLLY ROGER
http://www.jollyroger.com/beaconway/jollyroger.html
"Know ye that the less ye brown-nose, the more ye have a chance of
signifying something with yer life."-- Howard Roark or Drake Raft
or somebody.
Avast then me merry maties! Come and join the new culture where we read
the Great Books instead of watching MTV, and we strive to be like
Rush, Melville, Twain and Shakespeare rather than Oliver Stone, Dan
Rather, Bill Clinton, Dick Morris, George Stephenopolous, Sedyar
Yeahgallup, John Scalazi, and Larry King!
Be like a part of literary history aboard the first segment of
generation-x culture that's sailing completely free of yesterday's
outdated there-are-no-truths God-is-dead
man's-soul-can-be-reduced-to-a-science postmodern neon-philosophies!
Sign yer soul aboard the world's largest literary frigate! Aboard The Good
Ship we harbor a profound respect for the Classics, while endeavoring to
create new works in their rich context, like THE DRAKE RAFT FIELD TRIP.
We didn't wait for any washed-up acid-dropping editor's permission, but
like we just went ahead and did something cool which means something to
the sober mind. Know ye that the less ye brown-nose, the more ye have
a chance of signifying something with yer life. And yer welcome aboard
any time.
THE CONSERVATIVE LITERARY REVOLUTION.
THE WORLD'S LARGEST, MOST-FEARED LITERARY FRIGATE
THE JOLLY ROGER-- AS REVIEWD BY THE GLOBAL ONLINE DIRECTORY
The Jolly Roger
Go here. Do not pass go. Whatever your tastes or politics, it's
tough not to enjoy this smart-alecky, skillfully written and
provocative online magazine. Literary, generational and plain-old
politics take it on the chin from this threesome.
http://jollyroger.com/beaconway/jollyroger.html
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 22:02:01 -0500
From: Riad Wahby <riad@>
To: bec...@jollyroger.com
Subject: The Beacon for Lost Mariners in the Seas of Politics
Ahoy JollyRoger!
As a freshman in high school I find your letter especially
enlighhtening. I find that the unfairness and incongruity imposed by
modern liberalism is being "eaten up" by people of my generation because
of class warfare and other social factors that, in my opinion, emulate
communism.
I'd like to personally thank you for the great letter that you
have created--I have a printed copy of every one that I have recieved
since joining the list. I'd also like to point out some interesting
lyrics that I think express the message that I agree with totally and that
you are trying to show in each and every one of your issues. They are
from a song by Coolio, a rapper, who says:
"Tell me why are we
so blind to see
that the ones we hurt
are you and me."
--(from Gangsta's Paradise, #3 on the Coolio Album "Gangsta's Paradise")
This is the question that I ask myself each time I am engaged in a
debate over politics and I am wondering if I am the only one that feels
the way I do--Conservatism is so obviously correct that we are "blind to
see" that liberalism (with a lower-case l) is bad for us and it hurts "you
and me".
and me".
This message also comes across in another way: Why is it that
liberals are so blind to the fact that handing out condoms to
schoolchildren is NOT the answer to our problems. The ones we are hurting
with our social programs, spending, and all other liberal
pseudo-intellectual crap are ourselves--we lessen our effectiveness and
endorse Paternalist ideals.
Therefore I'd like to sincerely congratulate you on, again, being
the one "lighthouse" in the night of liberalism.
Thank you once again,
Riad Wahby
To: mcgu...@jollyroger.com
Subject: Literature for the Future
I'm a mom of five bright children. I become depressed when I consider
the "higher learning" that awaits them. I felt a glimmer of hope when
I read your page. I'm one of the hardliners that read most of the
classics as a young person...because I wanted to read them. The sheer
beauty of fine writing has followed me all the days of my life...
Notes of interest: The libraries are filling the shelves with
children's books that are politically correct and multicultural.
They are robbing the kids of literary substance!
Extra Point: Check it out. Maya Angelou's poem "Where the Caged
Bird Sings" is snitched from a male Black writer in the early
1920's. I've seen the original in an old textbook.
Please keep working. The minds of my children need good nutrition!
Drake Raft
Dude-- does your wife know how much time you spend reading me? Does she
like it?
Subject: Re: www.jollyroger.com TOP TEN REASONS YOUNG NOWHERE-GOING LIBERALS (NIBERALS) HATE THE JOLLY ROGER
Newsgroups: alt.culture.jollyroger,talk.politics.misc,misc.writing,alt.society.conservatism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.generation-x
Summary:
Keywords:
THE JOLLY ROGER
THE GRUNGESERVATIVE RENAISSANCE
http://jollyroger.com/beaconway.jollyroger.html
10. The young conservative is out on the streets. The young liberal is in
with the corporate/educational/editorial elites. Thus the young
conservative owns the wind, the rain, the laughter and the pain. The
young liberal is $hackled to their desk, fastened by their corporate
admini$trative a$piration$ to their $ervile rolls as propagators of the
power structure which is destroying the family, desecrating the Western
Heritage, augmenting the National Debt, rasing our taxes, and eroding our
God-given Freedom. Know ye the young liberals fear us because we are
free. (I got that from Easy Rider.)
9. While in the sixties being a liberal meant standing for principles,
smoking weed, and doing it with whoever and aborting it later on, today
being a liberal means smoking weed, listening to Beck, and brown-nosing
your feminist instructor so that she'll write you a letter of
recommendation so that you can work at AOL or somewhere, as some sort of
movie-reviewing-marketing supervisor or something. Young liberals hate us
for pointing these things out.
8. The crew of the Jolly Roger is admired by intelligent, pretty, and
pristine women, as evidenced by our jolly roger super model, Cathy from
Germany. http://jollyroger.com/supermodel.html I met her when I was
printing out THE DRAKE RAFT FIELD TRIP, and I gave her a copy, and she got
a kick out of it. It's easy to see that she's a lot cooler than all the
over-zealous feminists and sexually liberated cybersluts who bore the crap
out of me with all their pornography and insipid and outdated
sex-culture-eco-feminism books. Like I don't even like kissing on the
first date-- I mean it can all wait. Tennis is a good first date, or like
watching planes land or going to the beach for a day. Anyways-- Great
Literature, endowed with wisdom and wit, attracts the cool conservative
girls while all the superficial neon schlock gets you the run-of-the-mill
socialists who've already been there and done that. And that's the
reality that Ron Hogan is starting to wake up to, each and every morning.
7. The crew of the Jolly Roger understands physics and likes Rush
Limbaugh. The combination of these two aspects really freak John Scalazi of
AOL.COM out. It's like Science and Literature are never supposed to
mingle in the liberal mind. One of 'em is for like white European males
to build cars and things, and the other one is to be used by administrators
and resentniks to level the playing field.
6. If you found yourself reading everything written by cool people that
you hate, and thinking about it, and enjoying it, and responding to it,
and furthering their Noble Cause by demonstarting the requisite
insipidness of the contemporary young liberal, you'd hate them too.
5. THE JOLLY ROGER is the most successful, most-read, most-admired,
largest, and fastest-sailing literary frigate on the WWW. And what
really freaks the young liberals out is that we're just warmin' up, and
kinda gettin' a feel for this wonderful new medium. I mean like at least
we have a dream. And we didn't get it from Columbia House.
http://jollyroger.com/response.html
4. Some of the more perceptive young liberals are figuring out that they
have been defeated by our Maverick Strategy of Speaking The Truth.
Because we are ardent fans of the Truth and God, we were the first to
recognize that one of the most profound aspects of the WWW would be the
literary revolution that would take place on it. I mean like it's about
time our generation does something cool. Like Douglas Coupland was
presented to us 'cause he signed a pact with the liberal editorial elite
in which it was written "On my honor I promise to say my generation has no
identity, to never criticize anything Liberal, to not notcie that the
family has broken up because of liberalism, nor shall I ever develop
memorable characters with morals like Huck Finn, Holden Caufield,
Yossarian, Howard Roark, Hamlet, Socrates, nor Drake. Because I
understand and accept that mythical representations of character,
morality, and integrity in literature tend to awaken these attributes in
the reader, I hereby promise to refrain from including them. I understand
that if I abide by these liberal nihilistic standards, and say nothing,
you will make me the voice of a generation." Because we are in tune to
the more subtle things in life than are the pornagraphic
Ron-Jesse-Garon-Hogans, we are able to serve the people in a sublime
manner, by exalting their spirits with the truth artistically rendered.
Know ye that we shall forever own the spirit of the WWW's literary
revolution, for it has been over a year, and there are no other sails on
the horizon. The Scalazis and Serdars and Garrons and feminists have
spent a year bitchin' and complainin', in the typical liberal fashion,
rather than launching a literary frigate of their own. Patrick Farley at
least made some cool graphics to go along with his See The Jolly Roger Go
Down In Flames Page, but like the rest of you are arm-chair critics who
were taught that literature is not to be Created, but it is to be
Administered. There's this question that I don't even bother asking.
It's just too easy and too boring to ask the Scalazis, and too obvious. It
is so obvious that asking it will probably lose me half of my audience.
Like if you know so much about literature, why don't you stop talking
about it and do it? Why don't you entertain and exalt people with words,
and start a literary frigate and get a few thousand subscribers to the PMS
Scalazi?
3. We're making the young liberals' $40,000 degrees in feminist
brown-nosing hand-waving reality-creating truth-doesn't
exist-slander -conservatives- say-anything-it's
all-politics-destroy destroy destroy-destroy-destroy- destroy-and
destroy- language-God -and the Truth so-that-the-mediorce-can-
administrate techniques worth about forty bucks.
2. 'Cause they know I saw the setting sun reflected in her Carolina Blue
eyes last Saturday, somewhere on teh border of Virginia.
1. The Truth is beautiful.
THE JOLLY ROGER
http://jollyroger.com/beaconway.jollyroger.html
Drake Raft
Scalzi-- does your wife know that you're a liar? Does she know that you
once accused me of forging email? Did you ever tell her that you've
accused me of writing my own fan mail? Really-- she deserves to know your
true liberal-slackademic-postmodern-there-are-no-truths-editorial core.
Do you lie to her too? Or do you only lie in your professional life,
unlike Clinton? Does lying get you off? Does your wife like it? Does
she respect you for it? "Hey there honey-- I lied today for you on the
usenet. I told some lies about the World's Largest Literary Frigate. I
said Drake's a spammer, and I made it rhyme. I'll get those conservative
wackos for doing something consrtuctive and creating that which is
appreciated by thousands. I'll lie, if that's what it takes, honey,
because you know that I'm a sensitive liberal feminist, and I'll do what
it takes, as a movie critic, to defend our postmodern faith. Are we going
to your parent's or mine for Christmas? Good-- I like your mother. See
honey? I said I'd do whatever it takes. By the way-- did I ever tell
you how much time I spend reading Drake Raft? I wonder how many people
signed aboard The Jolly Roger today, and I wonder how many did it because
they saw one of my posts concerning The Good Ship's Royal Greatness?"
ARGRHRHRGR! A beautiful weekend it was in Chapel Hill! Even though it's
raining right now, but hey-- the rain's cool too. Last night was the
perfect June night for a ride through the Carolina countryside with the
top down. A friend and I drove up to the deserted Duke University campus
and just sat on a bench and talked 'til about 2 AM. It was totally cool,
and I highly recommend it. Especially if she's totally pretty.
THE GRUNGESERVATIVE LITERARY REVOLUTION
"We like the music, but we don't do the drugs."
http://jollyroger.com/beaconway/jollyroger.html
Send join jollyroger to jolly...@jollyroger.com to sign aboard!
The Jolly Roger is proud to not only be that largest literary publication
out of Chapel Hill, but it is also proud to be the largest literary
frigate in the world. We're happy to be serving over fifty countries
with Great Literature.
It is no coincidence that the WWW's most successful literary journal is
fabricated from planks of a conservative ideology, for all the frigates
built with the liberals' "words don't mean anything" philosophy don't
float. The resentniks will buoy 'em up with your tax dollars in the form
of NEA and NEH grants, but you can't pray a lie, even though the Sedyars
of the world will ceaselessly try. They ought to read up on the bible,
and then perhaps they'd realize that Cain was a sinner. I mean it's like
liberals are preparing for a naval battle by holding a conference in a
tax-funded hot-tub where they float paper boats and talk about how best to
write the legislation which will get them the money they'll need to build
a battle ship. What Roger's crew did is we just went right ahead and
built an aircraft carrier.
http://jollyroger.com/beaconway/jollyroger.html
Recently an article was picked up by the renowned journal DEOLOG which has
a print run of over 24,000. DEOLOG is an independant publication with no
ties to any religious or political groups. It's distibuted at
universities, places of worship, and businesses throughout New York and
California.
The article, part one of Mission Sacred Divinity, can be read in its
entirety at
http://jollyroger.com/beaconway/jr17.html
Here are some excerpts from the original piece:
Ahoy Black Hawk, House Plant Spanner, Terrible Ted, and Zachary B. Taylor!
Rig the sails to the truth's raging wind and weigh the anchor say I! Fire
the Western Canon as we sail forth, and may the resounding shot awaken the
moral imagination of this generation! It has been trampled upon,
corrupted, drugged, ravaged and denied it's Right to Life by the dervish
liberals and soulless advertising executives who have plundered the
publishing and educational institutions which were originally instituted
to protect and propagate the Permanent Things.
As the late Russel Kirk stated in the introduction of THE PERMANENT
THINGS:
"Another cause of literary decadence has been the centralization of
writing and publishing, which has tended to reduce diversity and
discussion in the realm of letters, has put powerful influence into the
hands of very small circles of writers, reviewers and publishers, has
ignored the literary interests of the great part of this population, and
has forced those outlanders to conform their tastes to the notions
prevalent in the literary capital. In these United States, the hegemony of
New York literary circles and publishing firms is nearly absolute. T.S.
Eliot said once that the worst form of expatriation for an American writer
is residence in New York City. Yet it is New York's book reviews in major
newspapers and magazines that determine the fate of nearly every new book
published in this country. A major reason why the writings of nihilists
and people possessed by the diabolic imagination sell well is that the New
York book-review media consistently puff up such books and authors,
apparently on principle, in part, a principle politically perverse."
We aboard THE JOLLY ROGER contend that the printed word, and thus
literature, reside at the root of culture. A decadent literature will be
reflected in a decadent culture. In the same way that liberals claim
character is of no significance in a President, so too is character
impossible to discern in their neon Novels. By the written word we
establish justice, by the written word we define character and moral
behavior, and by the printed word we acquaint ourselves with God. Thus to
say that words are meaningless, and to enforce this point of view upon
college campuses, is to deny the celebration of the Great God absolute.
And being that God is, "the centre and circumference of all democracy," to
deny God is to deny freedom.
It's not just that liberals are unable to write Great Literature, or that
they don't want to, but their primary objective is to prevent Great
Literature from reaching the people. Like the Biblical woman who would
rather have the baby cut in half rather than see it in the possession of
its rightful mother, the liberals would prefer that literature did not
exist. There is a reason for the liberal's abhorrence of the fundamental
vessel of Truth. There is no better way to maintain power, as President
Shapiro of Princeton well knows, than to muddy the waters, deceive the
people, and obfuscate reality to such a degree that the moral,
conscientious individual will feel repulsed and alienated, thus leaving
the nihilistic elite alone to perpetuate their power structure. By having
become so adept at this treacherous technique, liberals have ensured that
liberalism now possesses an unparalleled ability for self-propagation. By
writing and publishing pornographic, debased, nihilistic books that nobody
reads, the feminist is accomplishing several feats simultaneously. She is
making it harder to find good literature in the book store, she is
redefining literature so as to ensure rational people won't be inspired to
spend time contemplating it, and she is ensuring that her disciples will
be those who are attracted to professions but for the debased politics
alone. Thus the liberal agenda and institutionalized nihilism is
propagated, and 'tis why we say that as far as a liberal is concerned, it
is not important what gets written-- just as long as nobody reads it, and
that the author possesses an appropriate gender or sexual orientation.
Liberals buried the Greats and intentionally write books that suck, so as
to atrophy the Will to Read. And as the printed word wanes, so too does
the device which introduces the student to their moral imagination. The
academic liberals scramble for funds to finance programs that execute the
student's ability to think at a more fundamental level, with the hopes
that the student will resort to watching MTV to find out from heroin
addicts who one has to vote for to be cool. And MTV tells them to vote for
Clinton, because they can count on his administration to tax the people
and fund more liberal programs aimed at atrophying the young moral
imagination. And thus the vast amounts of money the liberals make by
tempting children of the world with indecency and pornography will
continue to pour in. As Elliot once wrote:
"Ahoy! Liberals strip kids down for ads, sell us pornographic nihilism to
erode our souls so we don't notice that feminist professors are destroying
the peaks of culture, thus eradicating the Way by which one might climb up
out of the postmodern fog. And the feminists destroy the peaks of higher
culture, making it ever more difficult to climb out of the postmodern fog,
so as to ensure that we remain numb to the fact that we have no
alternative to the alternative, nihilistic crap which the corporate
liberals erode our souls with. And the corporate liberals erode our souls
with their substance-inspired fog so that we won't notice that the
resentnik feminists are eradicating the peaks of our intellectual
heritage. Ahoy! This generation is assaulted on all sides I say! Thus this
generation enters into Holy Matrimony being told, Heads it shall prevail,
and Tails it won't. 'Tis a conspiracy so immense, 'gainst eternal love!"
But do not despair, for the reason why the liberals will ultimately fail
at their conscienceless campaign for power is the same reason why Marxism
never succeeded. At the base of each man's soul lies the notion of God.
And that is why the liberals are today being defeated, for though they can
tear down the external culture, and bury all the Great Books, it is far,
far more difficult to conceal a man's soul from himself, although that is
what liberal education is presently all about. I say God is resilient, and
as this generation matures we shall seek to assume the Divine
Responsibility of Adults. Ahoy! We sail forth upon the WWW to introduce a
generation to its moral imagination! And the Good Fight has just
commenced, me merry maties!
cccli.
Her softest expression caught in street light,
Wistful brown eyes, perceptive smiling mouth,
So warm for a first of December night,
Wispy clouds blew by-- sky winds from the south.
She has become something special to me,
In the way things were special yesterday,
When in a girl's face I saw but beauty,
And I could believe in the words I 'd say.
Oh but I became lost, drowned in the void,
It's hell to see but evil in a rose,
But there's something 'bout her, by which I'm buoyed,
There's an essence to her, more than a pose.
She touched me, I knew it would be alright,
My life was saved again on that starless night.
The ramifications of over fifty years of the liberally-led downward
cultural spiral has been the placement of socialist nihilists at the helms
of the presses and universities of this nation. And this has resulted in
the overall debasement of culture which affects all of us on a daily
basis. Even Harold Bloom, author of the Western Canon, erred in his
assertion that literature is ultimately an utterly useless thing. He
stated that literature exists but for aesthetic pleasure and
entertainment, and that it is wrong to view it as a source of moral
principles and platitudes. 'Tis not so. Great Literature embodies Great
Morality. For the creators of the Bible, from Moses to Amos to Jesus to
Matthew to Mark to Luke to John were all inspired by moral divinity. Bloom
states, "I am your true Marxist critic. . . I have been against, in turn,
the neo-Christian New Criticism of T.S. Elliot, and his academic
followers. . . and even more dubious moralities of the literary Canon." Ye
are a morbid individual, Harold, for in the opening of yer acclaimed book,
ye write a chapter entitled, "An Elegy for the Western Canon." Who gave
ye, a mere Marxist, the Authority to declare Dead that which Thrives in me
Eternal Soul!? Granted that the Canon is not being taught in the Academy,
but this signifies the death of the Academy, for the Canon is Immortal. Do
not confuse today's teacher's of the law with the Great God absolute! Ah
Harold! Are ye so quick to dismiss literature as an utterly useless thing
because ye yerself never created any? If ye don't feel the urge to express
the word of God, does that give ye the right to declare that God no longer
exists? It would seem that for the liberal this would be so. As for me, in
addition to hearing a man comment on what he thinks life meant to other
men, I would also like to hear what life meant to the man himself. And I
say that Harold Bloom's academically ubiquitous attitude has contributed
to the decline of the intellectual institutions of this nation. For he
himself laments that the career he enjoyed could not be pursued today, as
the resentnik culture has made the study of the Great Books impossible!
And where was ye, Mr. Bloom, when the feminist was attempting to murder my
soul in the creative writing class? Why were ye so content to let it die?
Instead of behaving like a religious bigot and discriminating against T.S.
Eliot because he was a Christian, ye would have done well to contemplate
the deeper significance of T.S. Eliot's Murder in the Cathedral:
Those who put their faith in worldly order,
Not controlled by the order of God,
In confidant ignorance, but arrest disorder,
Make it fast, breed fatal disease,
Degrade what they exalt.
Ahoy! Why did not the Marxist critic go to China or the Soviet Union to
pursue the career of a Marxist critic? Avast me maties-- this glaring
hypocrisy will only be reported aboard this Fine Frigate, for aboard this
deck we're not landlocked by liberalism's mountainous fallacies! To be
hired at a University, all ye liberals have to do is demonstrate
proficiency in hate towards some embodiment of Greatness! And Ahoy Bloom!
Dost ye pass judgment on me for stating that literature should be read and
taught with a moral purpose in mind? Ah yes, ye do, Captain Bloom! Ye
think ye are above me, in all your pedantry. Then ye too possess a
morality of yer own, which is rooted in the critic's snobbery, stating
that the critic's amorality should be held in higher esteem than the
artist's morality! Defund the liberal left academics, say I! For even
while appearing to serve greatness, ye are yet desecrating it!
Argrgrhrhrgrgrrhrgh!
But me faith is imperishable! For I think upon the moral Melville. Can ye
yet see Melville diligently laboring on BILLY BUDD after MOBY DICK had
been published and ignored by the literary experts of the day? Deep down
within the liberal critic is ashamed and embarrassed to receive a salary
to offer frivolous commentary on such holy scriptures as MOBY DICK, yet
their immense liberal ego prevents them from humbling themselves before
Greatness. And the Bible perpetually says unto the liberal critic: "Woe to
ye, teachers of the law and Pharisees, ye hypocrites! Ye build tombs for
the prophets and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous. Ye say, 'if we
had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with
them in the blood of their prophets.'" Ahoy! Ye write immense books on the
Western Canon, and simultaneously abandon the moral context in which the
Canon was written, and the moral aspect by which it was inspired. For the
enduring significance of Twain's, Shakespeare's, Melville's, and Conrad's
work is the fact that within it the moral character is enshrined in words.
The language derives its beauty from the subject. Tell me Bloom, that
Hamlet did not possess a moral conscience, nor did Ishmael, nor did
Huckleberry Finn, nor did Lord Jim, nor did Socrates, nor did Jesus, and
ye shall be a liar. The immortalization of the moral character is the
unifying aspect of all Great Literature.
Was Captain Melville out there petitioning the government for more money
to create, or writing eulogies for the Western Canon? Was he complaining
of oppression and discrimination or soliciting funds to offer his opinion
on other people's opinions? Nay! He was too busy serving God!
Matuse
In article <58l28g$3...@newz.oit.unc.edu> dra...@email.unc.edu (Drake Raft) writes:
>"Know ye that the less ye brown-nose, the more ye have a chance of
>signifying something with yer life."-- Howard Roark or Drake Raft
>or somebody.
Pretty pathetic when you get your quotes mixed up with a fictional character.
>Avast then me merry maties! Come and join the new culture where we read
>the Great Books instead of watching MTV
Oh, "instead of watching MTV" from someone who idolizes (publicly and
repeatedly) Beavis&Butthead.
Self-consistancy Elliot, the hallmark of a good writer. How unsurprising
that you have none.
--
"I accept"
"To accept is to yield"
"To yield is to allow oncoming traffic the right of way"
Matuse
In article <58l1un$3...@newz.oit.unc.edu> dra...@email.unc.edu (Drake Raft) writes:
>Scalzi-- does your wife know that you're a liar? Does she know that you
>once accused me of forging email? Did you ever tell her that you've
>accused me of writing my own fan mail?
Geeze, I tell you this on a regular basis, and not one single response
*sniff* I am like...so BUMMED.
Elliot, you snot, why do you continually forge email to yourself?
Why do you insist on conjuring up fan mail to make up for the fact that
you don't get any?
Charles N. Ede
: --- Kristine Blauser Scalzi
I hope that the teredos get through the planks and the bottom rots out.
But, please always keep the Jolly Roger on your masthead, It will save
me that time that would be wasted reading your _______.
But, I'd rather have read a thinker
even if he's a stinker
as long as he is original.
Charles
Poet, Pilot and Philosopher
who still
admires the Lone Ranger
who had ideals and character
and allowed all legal rights.
Austin Loomis
The voices in Drake Raft's head told him to write:
>Scalzi-- does your wife know that you're a liar? Does she know that you
>once accused me of forging email? Did you ever tell her that you've
>accused me of writing my own fan mail? Really-- she deserves to know your
>true liberal-slackademic-postmodern-there-are-no-truths-editorial core.
Just in case John's sensible enough to deem this rant as beneath his
notice, I thought I'd reply on his behalf.
In the first place, *Drake,* why are you taking personally what John said
about *Elliot*? Sure, I can understand you being mad -- *Elliot* is your
friend, after all -- but it's not like Drake Raft and Elliot McGucken are
the *same person,* are they?
Oops, my bad. I forgot -- that's *exactly* how it is. There's just you
and your out-of-control ego proclaiming yourself the Absolute Truth. And
you wonder why anyone with two brain cells to rub together and an
awareness of what's actually going on is laughing eir ass off at you.
And this leads pretty directly into the in-the-second-place. Since you
make a habit out of pretending to be anywhere between three and five
people (Elliot McGucken, Becket (K)nottingham and Drake Raft, plus
occasionally Bootsy McCluskey and the often-late Windy Fields) on a
regular basis, why *shouldn't* we assume you write your own fan mail and
stuff your listserv with imaginary subscribers? Especially since so few
of those fans and subscribers have return addresses.
In the third place, John's wife is well aware of you. Have you ever
noticed his .sig quote? Here -- since you so oblingly left it in (after
reposting the blitherings I just got through deconstructing), I'll show it
to you:
>: "Some folks are just a murder waiting to happen."
>: --- Kristine Blauser Scalzi
>
I seem to recall John saying, the last time he answered your question as
to whether his wife was aware of you, that she said that after reading one
of your posts.
You're in the process of going completely non-linear, Elliot. If Joyce
Carol Oates, instead of attempting a personal intervention when she found
you writing poetry in her creative writing class, had had the good sense
to send you to a competent psychiatrist, he could have got you on Prozac,
and maybe you'd have mellowed out enough to learn to write.
As it is, well, the way you'll achieve fame will be when you finally and
joyously do the Bristol Stomp over sanity's edge and attempt to murder
Joyce Carol Oates with a letter opener. I'd almost like to be in Chapel
Hill to see the look on your face when you read in the paper that she was
quoting as saying she didn't even remember you until the attack. Of
course, the next best thing would be to read that every cop involved in
the incident had to empty his automatic completely into you in the process
of expiating you.
Austin "Say hi to Laszlo Toth for me, will ya?" Loomis
Drake Raft
Avast! Call me at 11 PM EST Sunday December 15th on The Allan Handelman
Show! 1-800-rocktalk (www.handelman.com)
THE JOLLY ROGER
THE WORLD'S LARGEST, MOST-FEARED LITERARY FRIGATE
http://jollyroger.com/beaconway/jollyroger.html
Send join jollyroger to jolly...@jollyroger.com
Avast! The other day some girl who's a fan of the Roger sent me a xeroxed
copy of some pages from her journal, and in it I was quoted just above
Jane Smiley and Barbara Kingslover.
"I would still believe in her until I found her."-- Drake Raft
There was another quote, too.
"Towards a generation that has grown weary of the gender wars and is
awakening to the fact that it isn't that all men are lame, nor that all
women are lame, but rather that women and men are the same in that they
both want to be honored for their characters, respected for their
virtues,
and told the Truth."-- Drake Raft
It kinda sucks for John Scalzi and AOL that he thinks this girl is an
idiot. Because I got another another letter via snail mail from a young
lady, and in it she said,
"To Becket-- Hi I just got through reading the first two paragraphs of
HURRICANE RISING OFF HATTERAS. I haven't read any further and maybe I
should before I respond, but I had thoughts hit me so fast and so hard. .
.I simply couldn't wait.
"And you're right. OK I'll say it again-- you're right, you're right,
you're right! One particular phrase made it all crystal clear for me:
".
. .and so too does caring take far more strength than indifference." And
I just wanted to kick myself because I used to know that-- I used to
believe that. So there we all were, gathering in the women's studies
section of the bookshop, thinking we were empowering ourselves. Our
motto, 'sustained by truth and hate.' We thought we'd be safe if only
we'd cease to care."
And I know a lot of you young liberals, like Ron Hogan Jesse Garon, enjoy
pornography and nihilism, but this isn't true for everyone, and I believe
that children have the right to grow up in a world unpolluted by the sex
and violence which is incessantly pumped into this culture by the
liberal administrators and those who seek to brown nose them. And so does
this dude, who's like a sixth grader.
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 15:51:05 EST
From: Robert <----@juno.com>
To: bec...@jollyroger.com
Subject: ahoy! our spy ship has returned!
i just wanted to say that, once on the internet i did a webcrawler search
and found this page. i signed up to it, but only have recently read a
full issue. i previously was at stuart---------------, but have begun
using a new address, i just checked in on stuart.edmonds and found some
mail from the jollroger and signed my new account (---@juno.com) up for
some salty fresh air...
well, as the spy ship has returned, i may be one of a handful of kids
down here in elementary school in the southeast that know the definition
of the word MORAL. avast! our generation (of elementary school kids) are
obsessed with nike, demoralizing others, and 69. yes, thats right. i have
to put up with this ******** down here...
aye aye,
robert
AVAST THEN! It are responses like these that have made me the best-paid
author on the WWW. These cool people far outnumber the whining liberals
on the usenet. Like the times are changin' dudes, and like sincereity,
compassion, morality, and Truth comprise that which the rising
generations shall value the most in this postmodern void.
Matuse (mat...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <58l28g$3...@newz.oit.unc.edu> dra...@email.unc.edu (Drake Raft) writes:
: >"Know ye that the less ye brown-nose, the more ye have a chance of
: >signifying something with yer life."-- Howard Roark or Drake Raft
: >or somebody.
: Pretty pathetic when you get your quotes mixed up with a fictional character.
: >Avast then me merry maties! Come and join the new culture where we read
: >the Great Books instead of watching MTV
: Oh, "instead of watching MTV" from someone who idolizes (publicly and
: repeatedly) Beavis&Butthead.
: Self-consistancy Elliot, the hallmark of a good writer. How unsurprising
: that you have none.
: --
Drake Raft
Avast! Call me at 11 PM EST Sunday December 15th on The Allan Handelman
Show! 1-800-rocktalk (www.handelman.com)
THE JOLLY ROGER
THE WORLD'S LARGEST, MOST-FEARED LITERARY FRIGATE
http://jollyroger.com/beaconway/jollyroger.html
Send join jollyroger to jolly...@jollyroger.com
Avast! The other day some girl who's a fan of the Roger sent me a xeroxed
aye aye,
robert
Matuse (mat...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <58l1un$3...@newz.oit.unc.edu> dra...@email.unc.edu (Drake Raft) writes:
: >Scalzi-- does your wife know that you're a liar? Does she know that you
: >once accused me of forging email? Did you ever tell her that you've
: >accused me of writing my own fan mail?
: Geeze, I tell you this on a regular basis, and not one single response
: *sniff* I am like...so BUMMED.
: Elliot, you snot, why do you continually forge email to yourself?
: Why do you insist on conjuring up fan mail to make up for the fact that
: you don't get any?
: --
Robert Maughan
Extracted ..Drake Raft <dra...@email.unc.edu> writes
>So to be
>properly educated these days is to be a moral and intellectual nihilist.
I agree but the dichotomy exists only if you are auto-didact and you
appear to be enjoying the fruits of a proper education. I did so too
yet I am a moral and intellectual optmist.
Your punctuation is excellent by the way but I disapprove of grandiose
indents, fucks up the appearance of a page, I find; no doubt a properly
educated editor will point this out when you come to publish.
--
RJM.
Jscalzi
Elliot sez:
<<It kinda sucks for John Scalzi and AOL that he thinks this girl is an
idiot. >>
I seriously doubt that America Online has any opinion of this girl, you or
your splashings out here on the USENET, Elliot.
Nor do I think that this girl is an idiot, although she could use to be
introduced to someone who can actually think.
Now, on the other hand, I believe YOU are an idiot, Elliot.
Hope that helps.
-----------------------
John Scalzi
Writer/Editor, America Online
http://members.aol.com/jscalzi
"I only create conflict so that you'll stay awake."
---- Kristine Blauser Scalzi
j r sherman
In article <32AE67...@iag.net>, "Charles N. Ede" <cn...@iag.net> wrote:
>: --- Kristine Blauser Scalzi
>
>
Charles,
didn't you say something about there needing to be more poetry and less
attempts at wit?
are you now going back on your statement?
just curious,
j r
--------------------------------------------------
"Like a comet, painted across the sky,
like an old soul, over darkness it flies"
Neil Young
---------------------------------------------------
D. Braun
On 12 Dec 1996, Dave Scocca wrote:
> In article <58g38u$f...@newz.oit.unc.edu>,
> Elliot McGucken <dra...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> \ Hey there Scalazi-- I'd like to see you try to top this immaculate poem.
> \ Get off your liberal-socialist-critic's ass, and Create something which
> \ Signifies Something.
>
> I don't get it.... since when does one have to be able to write great
> literature in order to be able to identify and appreciate it....
Did you see my review? I notice that it has been cut out of all follow-up
postings after his poem. Sounds like he wants his writings to remain free
of criticism, and preserve the fiction that the are as good as he says
they are.
Dave Braun
>
> I go to the Dean Dome for a game... I say to myself, "that Antawn
> Jamison, he certainly does know how to do amazing things with a
> basketball without having to have his feet on the ground." I say to
> myself, "why does Shammond Williams keep bouncing the ball off his
> foot?"
>
> Now--are these valid judgments? Should I have to work on my offensive
> rebounding and on breaking the press before I can judge the basketball
> capabilities of Antawn and Shammond?
>
> Stop bouncing the literary ball off your foot all the time, Elliot.
>
> D.
> --
> * The Minstrel in the Gallery http://sunsite.unc.edu/scocca/ *
> * D. A. Scocca (sco...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu) "Heteroskedastic" *
> * "My love does not, cannot _make_ her happy. My love can only *
> * release in her the capacity to be happy." --J. Barnes *
>
>
Dave Scocca
\ Hey there Scalazi-- I'd like to see you try to top this immaculate poem.
\ Get off your liberal-socialist-critic's ass, and Create something which
\ Signifies Something.
I don't get it.... since when does one have to be able to write great
literature in order to be able to identify and appreciate it....
I go to the Dean Dome for a game... I say to myself, "that Antawn
Louise Van Hine
Dave Scocca (sco...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu) wrote:
: In article <58g38u$f...@newz.oit.unc.edu>,
: Elliot McGucken <dra...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
brian artese
Wow ... I've never seen the term 'postmodernist' used so often --
countless times! -- from somebody who doesn't really seem to know the
first thing about it.
Here are some writers often called 'postmodernist': Jacques Derrida,
Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Judith Butler, Paul de Man, Jean-F
Lyotard, Donna Haraway, Louis Althusser ... just to name a few.
Since you use the term 'postmodernist' with such frequency and
authority, surely you can quickly give me a quotation from one of these
people that shows their allegiance to the idea that 'there is no
meaning' or that 'there is no reality' or that one cannot distinguish
true statements from false ones.
In fact, I will, on my honor, send you a crisp $50 bill if you can
produce a single one.
-- brian
John Raley
In article <58l1at$3...@newz.oit.unc.edu>, dra...@email.unc.edu (Drake Raft)
wrote:
>
> 10. The young conservative is out on the streets. The young liberal is in
> with the corporate/educational/editorial elites.
This confirms my suspicions: you really DON'T have a job, do you, Eliot?
How many jollyroger.com tee's are you going to have to sell before you can
pay your parents back for supporting your lazy ass all these years?
Slacker. Get a job.
(From an employed, liberal, Gen-Xer.)
--
John Raley
jraley at taligent
"I have come to give myself up on account of I cannot fight
no more against such genius." - B. Bunny
Louise Van Hine
Drake Raft (dra...@email.unc.edu) wrote:
: THE CONSERVATIVE LITERARY REVOLUTION.
: http://jollyroger.com/beaconway/jollyroger.html
: Send join jollyroger to jolly...@jollyroger.com
: I know where the most perfect silence is,
: Seen it in the wild blue off Hatteras,
: A mile out, rainbowed sails in silent bliss,
: Looked like they'd collide, but they safely passed.
: I know when the most perfect silence is,
: Down a dusty Ohio road, high noon,
: No shirt on, being burned by the sun's kiss,
: Sixteen, takin' my time-- it was still June.
: I know what the most perfect silence is,
: It's what we say when falling out of love,
: It roars and thunders right through the kiss,
: Says all that no words can ever speak of.
: I know why the most perfect silence is,
: It is there for the whisper to be born,
: The whisper in her ear became the kiss,
: Just a dream in DC early one morn.
: I know who the perfect silence is for,
: It is for the ones whom we love the best,
: It is there to protect them from our core,
: By the silent trust we all seek to rest.
: And I know how rare that silence can be,
: With everyone talkin', it's hard to hear,
: But I know I felt it, on the streets of DC,
: The sound in her eyes-- it was crystal clear.
: And it brought back to mind the rainbowed sails,
: And the way it looked like they would collide,
: Like two souls set upon fate's iron rails,
: But the most perfect silence never died.
Watson Aname
In article <KXOPTKBi...@etymon.demon.co.uk>, r...@etymon.demon.co.uk
says...
>
> Extracted ..Drake Raft <dra...@email.unc.edu> writes
>
>>So to be
>>properly educated these days is to be a moral and intellectual nihilist.
[snip]
> Your punctuation is excellent by the way but I disapprove of grandiose
>indents, fucks up the appearance of a page, I find; no doubt a properly
>educated editor will point this out when you come to publish.
For the sake of Drake make his editor humane when he comes to publish,
else he get what he deserve, if such pomposity may be properly repaid.
Watson Aname
Jscalzi
Elliot, in a fit what he no doubt assumes is comic homophobia, nervously
posted:
>Dude-- why are you obsessed with me? To tell you the truth, I'm not too
>comfortable about inspiring guys to write poetry about me.
Really. Gosh, that's too bad, because you know that your sonnet pal Bill
Shakespeare dedicated most of HIS poems to a man, specifically the Right
Honourable Henry Wriothesly, Earl of Southhampton and Baron of Titchfield.
I'm not obsessed, Elliot. Just fitfully amused.
JS
Jscalzi
Andrew Damick Wrote
>Herfh! brian artese in alt.culture.jollyroger spake thusly:
>: Wow ... I've never seen the term 'postmodernist' used so often --
>: countless times! -- from somebody who doesn't really seem to know the
>: first thing about it.
>Most "postmodernists" themselves don't know the first thing about it.
>Hell, most of those who are fans of the "great" postmodernist writers
>have barely -read- anything by the folks you list below.
But Brian was not talking about "most" postmodernists. He was talking
about you. This counts as a deflection in my book -- are you using their
alleged ignorance as a defense for your own alleged ignorance?
>: Since you use the term 'postmodernist' with such frequency and
>: authority, surely you can quickly give me a quotation from one of these
>: people that shows their allegiance to the idea that 'there is no
>: meaning' or that 'there is no reality' or that one cannot distinguish
>: true statements from false ones.
>Ach! Death trap! One of the main criticisms of postmodernist writings
is
>that they do not subject themselves to their own rulings, namely, that
>words do not in themselves mean things. From the Freudian angle of
>postmodernism, the only possible meaning is that perceived by an
>individual reader. Thus, having "unconcretized" their own writings,
>postmodernists have allowed me to interpret what they write in any manner
>I see fit. Thus, if I say that the meaning and thrust of postmodernism
>is to spay all purple elephants, no one can tell me that I am incorrect
>in believing so. Therefore, one cannot quote a postmodernist on
>anything, really, because what he's saying doesn't mean anything in
>itself, anyhow.
this would only be the case if you yourself subscribed to what you
perceive to be the postmodern system of criticism, which you plainly do
not. The fact that these authors may or may not ascribe "meaning" to what
they say, under your philosophical lights, ought not matter; the meaning
is there whether they choose to acknowledge it or not. That being the
case, you are in fact at liberty to assign "meaning" to the whatever
quotes would be relevant to this discussion. You shouldn't switch your
philosophical premises in a discussion merely because it is inconvenient
to dig up material that will support (or possibly negate) your claim.
>Further, if you can find one instance of where any self-labeled
>postmodernist actually sets out a developed theory of -anything-,
>I'd be highly tempted to send money. Postmodernism is not a philosophy.
>It is merely a criticism of the disciplines of philosophy and language
>themselves, and, as such, is pretty worthless since it denies its own
>terms of existence. To over-simplify, Socractic method means nothing
>without Plato and Aristotle. One cannot live his life by merely
>criticising, because, even then, one's criticism becomes suspect at every
>turn, and cancels itself out.
There's mild irony in this statement, as deconstuction is itself a
response to a method of literary criticism (The "New Criticism" school
which arose after Word War I) -- a method of criticism, which, from what
little I know of your own "Stucturalism," would appear to have
consanguinity with your own philosophical grounding.
Also, based on what you've been writing here, I would question your basic
understanding of what is entailed in the word "Philosophy", which (since
you are not a postmodernist or a deconstructionist, you should appreciate
this) includes within it a critical and systematic examination of
premises. Are you opposed to all critical examination, on the basis that
the method of critical examination does not, in itself, constitute a
"philosophy"?
>Thus, to the rest of us, who
>know with basic common sense that things such as Truth and Self do, in
>fact, exist, the only people who like postmodern writing are the
>postmodernists.
And yet there is also truth to the fact that language is inexact and
changes over time, and therefore the thoughts that are expressed in the
language change over time, due to ductility of the medium of expression.
Are you saying that postmodernism and deconstructionism are ENTIRELY
invalid, because you disagree with the direction that alleged proponents
of those systems have taken them? That would be akin to saying that I
disagree with the fundamental value of the United States Constitution
because some wackos in Montana have taken to mean that they have the right
to print their own money.
John Scalzi
brian artese
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
> Ach! Death trap! One of the main criticisms of postmodernist
> writings is that they do not subject themselves to their own rulings,
> namely, that words do not in themselves mean things.
This makes little sense. The fact that a word aquires linguistic value
only within a discursive context -- i.e., a word never 'means' any thing
'in itself' -- has been readily demonstrated by Saussure, who's hardly a
deconstructionist. What kind of idiot would believe that you can have
meaning without context? Does anybody with even the slightest knowledge
of linguistics really believe that you can 'get at' the meaning of, say,
the word 'angry' without making reference to other words? You really
need to do some reading before you start holding forth on such issues.
Start with Saussure's 'Course in General Linguistics' -- then if you
want to know what deconstructionists have to say about Saussure, ask for
further help.
And to say that decon writers do not believe that linguistic rules does
not apply to their own discourse is just silly.
> From the Freudian angle of
> postmodernism, the only possible meaning is that perceived by an
> individual reader.
What Freudian would claim that the meaningful displacements in dreams or
in a subject's writing is 'his own'? Ever hear of Oedipus?
> Thus, having "unconcretized" their own writings,
> postmodernists have allowed me to interpret what they write in any
> manner I see fit.
This does make it easy on you, doesn't it? Actually, Foucault has very
definite ideas about how correctional institutions came about, and Paul
de Man has very definite ideas about how temporality works in
interpretation. I guarantee you that you can (and probably will be)
100% wrong in your interpretation of these writers.
> Thus, if I say that the meaning and thrust of postmodernism
> is to spay all purple elephants, no one can tell me that I am
> incorrect in believing so.
You are incorrect in believing so.
> Further, if you can find one instance of where any self-labeled
> postmodernist actually sets out a developed theory of -anything-,
> I'd be highly tempted to send money.
See Derrida's theory of the mechanics of Western metaphysics (e.g., the
concept of presence which impacts the relation of speech to writing);
Judith Butler's description of the sexualized self as the result of a
specific conception of interior/exterior relations; Foucault's
historical account of the formation of corrective institutions, schools,
the human sciences in general as disciplinary apparatus -- the list can
go on for several pages. Make your check out to 'Brian Artese'...
> The fact that "postmodernists" fail to achieve a central core in their
> "philosophy"
... and what would that be? Didn't you just acknowledge that
postmodernism is not a philosophy? So whence its 'core'?
> Fun excerpt from comments on deconstructionism by Caroline Moore:
>
> From: Peter Kurth
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
> Subject: What is deconstructionism?
> Date: 26 Nov 1995 23:49:51 GMT
>
> The best description I've ever read comes from an article by Caroline
> Moore in the "Sunday Times" of London, Caroline Moore on
> deconstructionism (May 20, 1993):
>
> "Imagine, then, heady theories based upon an insanely deterministic
> view of language. Language is in total control, the tail wagging the
> dog. It not merely influences the way we apprehend reality; it is its
> own reality.
Wrong. In her 'explanation' of deconstruction, Moore relies at every
moment on the subject/languagee dichotomy that deconstruction gets rid
of. In other words, she has no conception even of what the thesis of
deconstruction might be.
> It cannot, in fact, refer to or describe anything `out
> there,' but is a self-contained, non-referential system.
'Self-contained' within what...? See above.
> There is no
> such thing as an author,
Nobody ever denies that there is no subjet that writes or speaks -- they
simply deny that such a subject 'authors' a new discourse every time
he/she sits down to write. This should be obvious to anybody who reads,
say, history.
> since no one can `use' language; language
> uses us, by `fascistic' compulsion.
Huhh? Whenever you don't have a clear argument against your opponent,
it's best to try to attach the Nazis to them somehow.
> No one can `mean' anything;
Who says this? By the way, 'people' don't mean things, strictly
speaking, but words do. Deconstructionism simply says that the meaning
of an articulation exists in its future paraphrases, its future
interpretations, not in some supposedly transcendental realm that exists
contemporaneously with the signifier. And obviously this does not mean
that just any interpretation can be applied to the original
articulation. The associative, metonymic relationships among words and
contexts severely limits the range of interpretation (as applied to any
given articulation).
> There can be no distinction between
> works of literature and any other written works.
Again, who says this? She may be referring to the fact that both
literature and philosophy use the same rhetorical tropes ... but this
would seem to be obvious.
> All are created by
> the same impersonal process: circulation of a limited number of
> linguistic counters;
As opposed to what? *Unlimited* linguistic counters? Does Moore have
access to a language with an infinite number of signifiers?
> everything written is only a tissue of
> quotations.
Who says this? Citation, please.
> Imagine, in short, a theory which attempts to abolish all
> ideas of self, subject, author, imagination, story and history; all
> creativity and all meaning.
Huh? Aren't the books of Derrida, Foucault, de Man's, etc. all *about*
the construction of the self, subject, author, story and history?
You'll find that decon writers study these things much, much more
carefully and in depth than the humanists who simply take them for
granted and never speak of them.
> "How, you may well ask, can one then discuss a text? Well, if you are
> a deconstructionist, you look at what the words do NOT say
This is embarrassingly wrong. Moore should read, say, de Man's
_Allegories of Reading_ and then explain how the various readings of
Proust, Nietszche, Rousseau, etc. focus on 'what the words do NOT say.'
> Indeed, you often do not even have to refer too closely to the text
> itself, for this is merely the `positivist' illusion of `philological
> accuracy.'
This is the grandest bald-faced lie of them all; it is also proof
positive that this writer has never read a deconstructionist reading of
anything; such analyses are composed *entirely* of close readings of
particular texts. The rise of deconstruction, is, in fact, one of the
things that made 'close reading' such a high prioritiy in literature
departments in the last few decades.
In the end, both Gurk and Moore are examples of the consensus arrived at
among the lazier spectators of intellectual activity -- the implicit
understanding that one is not required to read certain writers before
critiquing them. What could be more wholly irresponsible -- not to
mention pitifully ignorant? If one were to submit either Gurk's or
Moore's critiques to academic scrutiny, the first question that would
arise is -- "Where is the evidence?" Talk about not "having to refer
too closely to the text itself"! Do you not see the utter irony in such
a remark? Derrida *never* says anthing about a text without
transcribing it, putting the text he's talking about under the eyes of
the reader. Critics *of* Derrida never do so.
So, Gurk, you and Moore have some reading to do. I suggest you start
with the first chapter of de Man's _Allegories of Reading_ -- it's
called "Semiology and Rhetoric"; that way you'll at least get some idea
about what deconstruction actually *is*. I encourage you to return to
Usenet with a critique of this piece -- or anything written by any of
the authors mentioned -- once you've actually read it. Do not rely on
secondhand sources to tell you about a specific tradition, because (a)
it is an amateurish way to conduct research, and (b) those second-hand
accounts are almost entirely wrong. Why not just read the primary
sources? Then you'll know what you're talking about.
Doesn't it kind of embarrass you to pontificate about the work of
several writers -- *none* of whom you've actually read?
If you want to come across as something more than a dilettante, you have
to (a) have read the books you're criticizing, and (b) offer a coherent
critique of the actual text in those books.
-- brian
brian artese
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
>
> "... on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on
> extraordinary misreading of texts...argument that is appalling in its
> casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are
> trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a
> good deal of plain gibberish."
hey, look, here's another 'critique' that actually cites no 'postmodern'
writing at all! Whooda thunkit?
-- brian
moggin
gu...@ncsu.edu wrote:
>Fun quote on postmodernism:
>"... on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on
>extraordinary misreading of texts...argument that is appalling in its
>casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are
>trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a good
>deal of plain gibberish." --Noam Chomsky
More on the same subject from the same source -- in fact,
from the same interview:
"I wouldn't say this if I hadn't been explicitly asked for my
opinion -- and if asked to back it up, I'm going to respond that
I don't think it merits the time to do so ... I've dipped into
what they write out of curiosity, but not very far ... I don't
spend any time on it. ... I don't proceed very far ... Again,
sorry to make unsupported comments..." -- Noam Chomsky
Some fun, huh?
-- moggin
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
Herfh! brian artese in alt.fan.the-bob spake thusly:
: Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
: > Ach! Death trap! One of the main criticisms of postmodernist
: > writings is that they do not subject themselves to their own rulings,
: > namely, that words do not in themselves mean things.
:
: This makes little sense. The fact that a word aquires linguistic value
: only within a discursive context -- i.e., a word never 'means' any thing
: 'in itself' -- has been readily demonstrated by Saussure, who's hardly a
: deconstructionist. What kind of idiot would believe that you can have
: meaning without context? Does anybody with even the slightest knowledge
: of linguistics really believe that you can 'get at' the meaning of, say,
: the word 'angry' without making reference to other words?
I wouldn't begin to suggest that a combination of phonemes has meaning "in
itself," but deconstructionist activism focuses itself not on contextual
meaning, but instead on contextual lack of meaning. Because one can
"prove" a text to lack total consistency in itself, there is no "truth"
apparent, and thus the text lacks coherence in both form and substance.
To use your phrase, no "kind of an idiot" would suggest that linguistic
usage is perfect or without its limits. However, making the pointing out
of those limits as a point in itself is wholly nugatory, for one does not
draw point out the line round a red circle without first having a red
circle. No, that circle may not be constant and immortal, but I can use
it right here and now. It is a real thing, and has real consequences.
One cannot determine its uselessness by the fact of its limitations.
: And to say that decon writers do not believe that linguistic rules does
: not apply to their own discourse is just silly.
Oh? If I am to accept their philosophy wholesale, I can say that their
own writing, due to both its intense lack of straightforward coherence and
its reliance upon linguistic methods, means nothing without any context
which I can thrust upon it. If I place it in that pile of purple
elephant's dung, it is little more than the buzzing of flies.
Since I happen to believe what most people see with common sense, that
even context itself has limitations, a text does indeed have a meaning.
Taken within the broadest of contexts, such as"Modern English," for
instance, meaning can, indeed, be derived from a piece of writing.
Context is not everything.
: > Thus, having "unconcretized" their own writings,
: > postmodernists have allowed me to interpret what they write in any
: > manner I see fit.
:
: This does make it easy on you, doesn't it? Actually, Foucault has very
: definite ideas about how correctional institutions came about, and Paul
: de Man has very definite ideas about how temporality works in
: interpretation. I guarantee you that you can (and probably will be)
: 100% wrong in your interpretation of these writers.
Of course it makes it easy on me. These men have done it for me. In
telling me that what people write has no real meaning which one can derive
with surety, I can therefore derive whatever meaning I like. I have been
given the equivalent of the mantle of the literary madman. I don't have to
follow -any- rules or -any- semblance of common sense. Why should I give
one whiff for Foucault's ideas on correctional institutions when I can, at
his bidding, dismiss them as the pointless ramblings of a fool or even as
the dream-interpretations of the Bhagavadgita? Pick a context; pick a
meaning. What? You think that he may be suggesting something about
actual, real prisons? How structuralistically juvenile.
: > Thus, if I say that the meaning and thrust of postmodernism
: > is to spay all purple elephants, no one can tell me that I am
: > incorrect in believing so.
:
: You are incorrect in believing so.
Ah, but since I can place any context I so desire on your sentence, I
choose the one of "Bozo the Philosopher." Dance, Bozo. You are little
more than your wig and nose, anyhow.
: > Further, if you can find one instance of where any self-labeled
: > postmodernist actually sets out a developed theory of -anything-,
: > I'd be highly tempted to send money.
:
: See Derrida's theory of the mechanics of Western metaphysics (e.g., the
: concept of presence which impacts the relation of speech to writing);
: Judith Butler's description of the sexualized self as the result of a
: specific conception of interior/exterior relations; Foucault's
: historical account of the formation of corrective institutions, schools,
: the human sciences in general as disciplinary apparatus -- the list can
: go on for several pages. Make your check out to 'Brian Artese'...
Interesting, eh, that people who would suggest that reason and language
themselves are ultimately useless would actually deign to -say- something?
Sounds rather hypocritical to me, rather like a determinist trying to
preach moral philosophy.
: > The fact that "postmodernists" fail to achieve a central core in their
: > "philosophy"
:
: ... and what would that be? Didn't you just acknowledge that
: postmodernism is not a philosophy? So whence its 'core'?
It has no core except in denial of core itself. By telling us that "isms"
have their limits, they take those limits to be the execution of the ideas
themselves, not simply a pointing out of exceptions and variations. The
only defense of the "postmodernist" against criticism is refusal to be
defined. Guess what? People define. We label. We speak.
Why?
To communicate.
: > The best description I've ever read comes from an article by Caroline
: > Moore in the "Sunday Times" of London, Caroline Moore on
: > deconstructionism (May 20, 1993):
: >
: > "Imagine, then, heady theories based upon an insanely deterministic
: > view of language. Language is in total control, the tail wagging the
: > dog. It not merely influences the way we apprehend reality; it is its
: > own reality.
:
: Wrong. In her 'explanation' of deconstruction, Moore relies at every
: moment on the subject/languagee dichotomy that deconstruction gets rid
: of. In other words, she has no conception even of what the thesis of
: deconstruction might be.
Well, you don't really expect Moore to deconstruct deconstructionism, do
you? One does not attack by joining sides with the target. This is akin
to suggesting that a believer in light should not use light to penetrate
darkness, since darkness has gotten "rid" of the light.
: > It cannot, in fact, refer to or describe anything `out
: > there,' but is a self-contained, non-referential system.
:
: 'Self-contained' within what...? See above.
:
: > There is no
: > such thing as an author,
:
: Nobody ever denies that there is no subjet that writes or speaks -- they
: simply deny that such a subject 'authors' a new discourse every time
: he/she sits down to write. This should be obvious to anybody who reads,
: say, history.
:
: > since no one can `use' language; language
: > uses us, by `fascistic' compulsion.
:
: Huhh? Whenever you don't have a clear argument against your opponent,
: it's best to try to attach the Nazis to them somehow.
It's called "parody," bucko. We non-pomos wouldn't refer to language as
being "fascistic."
: > No one can `mean' anything;
:
: Who says this? By the way, 'people' don't mean things, strictly
: speaking, but words do. Deconstructionism simply says that the meaning
: of an articulation exists in its future paraphrases, its future
: interpretations, not in some supposedly transcendental realm that exists
: contemporaneously with the signifier.
What if I were to write you a note and tell you, "This frog is 10 inches
long?" It would seem to me that only an imbecile would take that note as
anything but literal. To quote Dr. Edward Friedlander, "But I am at a
loss to understand how the language of science ('centimeter,' 'oxygen,'
'hemoglobin,' 'six') and fundamental human experience ('This is blue,' 'I
itch,' 'I feel cold') shares this indeterminacy."
: > Imagine, in short, a theory which attempts to abolish all
: > ideas of self, subject, author, imagination, story and history; all
: > creativity and all meaning.
:
: Huh? Aren't the books of Derrida, Foucault, de Man's, etc. all *about*
: the construction of the self, subject, author, story and history?
Actually, they're about the -lack- of those things, though not really
about the concept of that lack so much as the fact of it.
: You'll find that decon writers study these things much, much more
: carefully and in depth than the humanists who simply take them for
: granted and never speak of them.
This, I doubt. You see, one could, in one sense, refer to us -all- as
humanists. You see, being human, we're quite naturally concerned with
humanity and the human condition. Even Foucault could not resist talking
about something so distinctly human as correctional facilities. It is my
belief that, no matter how vociferously one may attempt to deny one's
adherence towards some brand of humanism, we all adhere, for this is the
stuff we're made of. This too-sullied flesh may, indeed, melt a bit, but
it still sticks.
: In the end, both Gurk and Moore are examples of the consensus arrived at
: among the lazier spectators of intellectual activity -- the implicit
: understanding that one is not required to read certain writers before
: critiquing them.
I'm touched that you are so gentille as to assume that I have not read
the people of which I speak. You are quite wrong. You see, it is in
reading these men and women who insist upon the inherent (if there can
be such a thing for them) lack of meaning in humanity and the works of
humanity that I came to see that that meaning and that humanity are
things quite real, that they are the stuff of which we are composed,
that, instead of utilizing the discovery of limits to put down our very
task itself, we should use those discoveries to burn off the impurities
and press onwards towards the mark.
: So, Gurk, you and Moore have some reading to do. I suggest you start
: with the first chapter of de Man's _Allegories of Reading_ -- it's
: called "Semiology and Rhetoric"; that way you'll at least get some idea
: about what deconstruction actually *is*.
Ick. That thing again? Rarely have I read such a drab and self-dessicating
piece of verbiage. Why should I believe a man who tells me, essentially,
that nothing written is concretely true? Why should I be convinced by
someone who uses language to tell me that language is, in the end, futile?
: Doesn't it kind of embarrass you to pontificate about the work of
: several writers -- *none* of whom you've actually read?
Doesn't it kind of embarrass you to pontificate about the alleged reading
habits of someone -- when you've zero direct evidence in any direction?
Of course, the nastiest and most pointed thing a Substantialist can say to
a Postmodernist is "Truth hurts." Of course, the Postmodernist would just
keep on insisting that it didn't hurt, because there was no knife with
that name, because he...pffff....
No, I probably haven't read the volume of material concerning
"postmodernism" that you have, but I can see the ideas from
what I -have- read, stuff that's been pointed out to me as
being seminal. Quite frankly, I simply don't see how one
can "argue against constructs of identity" (your words) by
using them (namely, words). You have cancelled out the very
terms of your discourse.
--Gurk
--
t h i s i s a s o n g a b o u t b e i n ' d e a d
Andrew S. Damick http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/www/
w i t h n o r e g r e t s - d a v e m a t t h e w s
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
Herfh! moggin in alt.culture.jollyroger spake thusly:
: gu...@ncsu.edu wrote:
:
: >Fun quote on postmodernism:
:
: >"... on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on
: >extraordinary misreading of texts...argument that is appalling in its
: >casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are
: >trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a good
: >deal of plain gibberish." --Noam Chomsky
:
: More on the same subject from the same source -- in fact,
: from the same interview:
:
: "I wouldn't say this if I hadn't been explicitly asked for my
: opinion -- and if asked to back it up, I'm going to respond that
: what they write out of curiosity, but not very far ... I don't
: spend any time on it. ... I don't proceed very far ... Again,
: sorry to make unsupported comments..." -- Noam Chomsky
Of course, you quite elegantly ...ed the meat and coloration of his
comments. Egads, the tracks and droppings of the violent passing of an
editor. Since you so nicely removed parts of the quotations, thus leading
to an easy misreading of Chomsky's comments, here are whole excerpts
containing the reasons for his distinct dismissiveness of these writers:
[...]
So take Derrida, one of the grand old men. I thought I ought to at least
be able to understand his "Grammatology," so tried to read it. I could
make out some of it, for example, the critical analysis of classical texts
that I knew very well and had written about years before. I found the
scholarship appalling, based on pathetic misreading; and the argument,
such as it was, failed to come close to the kinds of standards I've been
familiar with since virtually childhood. Well, maybe I missed something:
could be, but suspicions remain, as noted. Again, sorry to make
unsupported comments, but I was asked, and therefore am answering.
Some of the people in these cults (which is what they look like to me)
I've met: Foucault (we even have a several-hour discussion, which is in
print, and spent quite a few hours in very pleasant conversation, on real
issues, and using language that was perfectly comprehensible -- he
speaking French, me English); Lacan (who I met several times and
considered an amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan, though his
earlier work, pre-cult, was sensible and I've discussed it in print);
Kristeva (who I met only briefly during the period when she was a fervent
Maoist); and others. Many of them I haven't met, because I am very remote
from from these circles, by choice, preferring quite different and far
broader ones -- the kinds where I give talks, have interviews, take part
in activities, write dozens of long letters every week, etc. I've dipped
into what they write out of curiosity, but not very far, for reasons
already mentioned: what I find is extremely pretentious, but on
examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on extraordinary
misreading of texts that I know well (sometimes, that I have written),
argument that is appalling in its casual lack of elementary
self-criticism, lots of statements that are trivial (though dressed up in
complicated verbiage) or false; and a good deal of plain gibberish. When
I proceed as I do in other areas where I do not understand, I run into the
problems mentioned in connection with (1) and (2) above. So that's who I'm
referring to, and why I don't proceed very far. I can list a lot more
names if it's not obvious.
For those interested in a literary depiction that reflects pretty much the
same perceptions (but from the inside), I'd suggest David Lodge. Pretty
much on target, as far as I can judge.
[...]
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
Herfh! brian artese in alt.culture.jollyroger spake thusly:
: Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
: >
: > Fun quote on postmodernism:
: >
: > "... on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on
: > extraordinary misreading of texts...argument that is appalling in its
: > casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are
: > trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a
: > good deal of plain gibberish."
: hey, look, here's another 'critique' that actually cites no 'postmodern'
OK, here you go. The whole thing:
By Noam Chomsky
I've returned from travel-speaking, where I spend most of my life, and
found a collection of messages extending the discussion about "theory" and
"philosophy," a debate that I find rather curious. A few reactions --
though I concede, from the start, that I may simply not understand what is
going on.
As far as I do think I understand it, the debate was initiated by the
charge that I, Mike, and maybe others don't have "theories" and therefore
fail to give any explanation of why things are proceeding as they do. We
must turn to "theory" and "philosophy" and "theoretical constructs" and
the like to remedy this deficiency in our efforts to understand and
address what is happening in the world. I won't speak for Mike. My
response so far has pretty much been to reiterate something I wrote 35
years ago, long before "postmodernism" had erupted in the literary
intellectual culture: "if there is a body of theory, well tested and
verified, that applies to the conduct of foreign affairs or the resolution
of domestic or international conflict, its existence has been kept a
well-guarded secret," despite much "pseudo-scientific posturing."
To my knowledge, the statement was accurate 35 years ago, and remains so;
furthermore, it extends to the study of human affairs generally, and
applies in spades to what has been produced since that time. What has
changed in the interim, to my knowledge, is a huge explosion of self- and
mutual-admiration among those who propound what they call "theory" and
"philosophy," but little that I can detect beyond "pseudo-scientific
posturing." That little is, as I wrote, sometimes quite interesting, but
lacks consequences for the real world problems that occupy my time and
energies (Rawls's important work is the case I mentioned, in response to
specific inquiry).
The latter fact has been noticed. One fine philosopher and social theorist
(also activist), Alan Graubard, wrote an interesting review years ago of
Robert Nozick's "libertarian" response to Rawls, and of the reactions to
it. He pointed out that reactions were very enthusiastic. Reviewer after
reviewer extolled the power of the arguments, etc., but no one accepted
any of the real-world conclusions (unless they had previously reached
them). That's correct, as were his observations on what it means.
The proponents of "theory" and "philosophy" have a very easy task if they
want to make their case. Simply make known to me what was and remains a
"secret" to me: I'll be happy to look. I've asked many times before, and
still await an answer, which should be easy to provide: simply give some
examples of "a body of theory, well tested and verified, that applies to"
the kinds of problems and issues that Mike, I, and many others (in fact,
most of the world's population, I think, outside of narrow and remarkably
self-contained intellectual circles) are or should be concerned with: the
problems and issues we speak and write about, for example, and others like
them. To put it differently, show that the principles of the "theory" or
"philosophy" that we are told to study and apply lead by valid argument to
conclusions that we and others had not already reached on other (and
better) grounds; these "others" include people lacking formal education,
who typically seem to have no problem reaching these conclusions through
mutual interactions that avoid the "theoretical" obscurities entirely, or
often on their own.
Again, those are simple requests. I've made them before, and remain in my
state of ignorance. I also draw certain conclusions from the fact.
As for the "deconstruction" that is carried out (also mentioned in the
debate), I can't comment, because most of it seems to me gibberish. But if
this is just another sign of my incapacity to recognize profundities, the
course to follow is clear: just restate the results to me in plain words
that I can understand, and show why they are different from, or better
than, what others had been doing long before and and have continued to do
since without three-syllable words, incoherent sentences, inflated
rhetoric that (to me, at least) is largely meaningless, etc. That will
cure my deficiencies -- of course, if they are curable; maybe they aren't,
a possibility to which I'll return.
These are very easy requests to fulfill, if there is any basis to the
claims put forth with such fervor and indignation. But instead of trying
to provide an answer to this simple requests, the response is cries of
anger: to raise these questions shows "elitism," "anti-intellectualism,"
and other crimes -- though apparently it is not "elitist" to stay within
the self- and mutual-admiration societies of intellectuals who talk only
to one another and (to my knowledge) don't enter into the kind of world in
which I'd prefer to live. As for that world, I can reel off my speaking
and writing schedule to illustrate what I mean, though I presume that most
people in this discussion know, or can easily find out; and somehow I
never find the "theoreticians" there, nor do I go to their conferences and
parties. In short, we seem to inhabit quite different worlds, and I find
it hard to see why mine is "elitist," not theirs. The opposite seems to be
transparently the case, though I won't amplify.
To add another facet, I am absolutely deluged with requests to speak and
can't possibly accept a fraction of the invitations I'd like to, so I
suggest other people. But oddly, I never suggest those who propound
"theories" and "philosophy," nor do I come across them, or for that matter
rarely even their names, in my own (fairly extensive) experience with
popular and activist groups and organizations, general community, college,
church, union, etc., audiences here and abroad, third world women,
refugees, etc.; I can easily give examples. Why, I wonder.
The whole debate, then, is an odd one. On one side, angry charges and
denunciations, on the other, the request for some evidence and argument to
support them, to which the response is more angry charges -- but,
strikingly, no evidence or argument. Again, one is led to ask why.
It's entirely possible that I'm simply missing something, or that I just
lack the intellectual capacity to understand the profundities that have
been unearthed in the past 20 years or so by Paris intellectuals and their
followers. I'm perfectly open-minded about it, and have been for years,
when similar charges have been made -- but without any answer to my
questions. Again, they are simple and should be easy to answer, if there
is an answer: if I'm missing something, then show me what it is, in terms
I can understand. Of course, if it's all beyond my comprehension, which is
possible, then I'm just a lost cause, and will be compelled to keep to
things I do seem to be able to understand, and keep to association with
the kinds of people who also seem to be interested in them and seem to
understand them (which I'm perfectly happy to do, having no interest, now
or ever, in the sectors of the intellectual culture that engage in these
things, but apparently little else).
Since no one has succeeded in showing me what I'm missing, we're left with
the second option: I'm just incapable of understanding. I'm certainly
willing to grant that it may be true, though I'm afraid I'll have to
remain suspicious, for what seem good reasons. There are lots of things I
don't understand -- say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have
mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven
recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I
can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level
that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty;
(2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to
understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. -- even
Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the
rest -- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't
hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I
haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves
one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has
been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form
of "theory" that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and
profundity; or (b) ... I won't spell it out.
Again, I've lived for 50 years in these worlds, have done a fair amount of
work of my own in fields called "philosophy" and "science," as well as
intellectual history, and have a fair amount of personal acquaintance with
the intellectual culture in the sciences, humanities, social sciences, and
the arts. That has left me with my own conclusions about intellectual
life, which I won't spell out. But for others, I would simply suggest that
you ask those who tell you about the wonders of "theory" and "philosophy"
to justify their claims -- to do what people in physics, math, biology,
linguistics, and other fields are happy to do when someone asks them,
seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are
they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious, etc. These
are fair requests for anyone to make. If they can't be met, then I'd
suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: to the flames.
Specific comment. Phetland asked who I'm referring to when I speak of
"Paris school" and "postmodernist cults": the above is a sample.
He then asks, reasonably, why I am "dismissive" of it. Take, say, Derrida.
Let me begin by saying that I dislike making the kind of comments that
follow without providing evidence, but I doubt that participants want a
close analysis of de Saussure, say, in this forum, and I know that I'm not
going to undertake it. I wouldn't say this if I hadn't been explicitly
asked for my opinion -- and if asked to back it up, I'm going to respond
that I don't think it merits the time to do so.
So take Derrida, one of the grand old men. I thought I ought to at least
Phetland also found it "particularly puzzling" that I am so "curtly
dismissive" of these intellectual circles while I spend a lot of time
"exposing the posturing and obfuscation of the New York Times." So "why
not give these guys the same treatment." Fair question. There are also
simple answers. What appears in the work I do address (NYT, journals of
opinion, much of scholarship, etc.) is simply written in intelligible
prose and has a great impact on the world, establishing the doctrinal
framework within which thought and expression are supposed to be
contained, and largely are, in successful doctrinal systems such as ours.
That has a huge impact on what happens to suffering people throughout the
world, the ones who concern me, as distinct from those who live in the
world that Lodge depicts (accurately, I think). So this work should be
dealt with seriously, at least if one cares about ordinary people and
their problems. The work to which Phetland refers has none of these
characteristics, as far as I'm aware. It certainly has none of the impact,
since it is addressed only to other intellectuals in the same circles.
Furthermore, there is no effort that I am aware of to make it intelligible
to the great mass of the population (say, to the people I'm constantly
speaking to, meeting with, and writing letters to, and have in mind when I
write, and who seem to understand what I say without any particular
difficulty, though they generally seem to have the same cognitive
disability I do when facing the postmodern cults). And I'm also aware of
no effort to show how it applies to anything in the world in the sense I
mentioned earlier: grounding conclusions that weren't already obvious.
Since I don't happen to be much interested in the ways that intellectuals
inflate their reputations, gain privilege and prestige, and disengage
themselves from actual participation in popular struggle, I don't spend
any time on it.
Phetland suggests starting with Foucault -- who, as I've written
repeatedly, is somewhat apart from the others, for two reasons: I find at
least some of what he writes intelligible, though generally not very
interesting; second, he was not personally disengaged and did not restrict
himself to interactions with others within the same highly privileged
elite circles. Phetland then does exactly what I requested: he gives some
illustrations of why he thinks Foucault's work is important. That's
exactly the right way to proceed, and I think it helps understand why I
take such a "dismissive" attitude towards all of this -- in fact, pay no
attention to it.
What Phetland describes, accurately I'm sure, seems to me unimportant,
because everyone always knew it -- apart from details of social and
intellectual history, and about these, I'd suggest caution: some of these
are areas I happen to have worked on fairly extensively myself, and I know
that Foucault's scholarship is just not trustworthy here, so I don't trust
it, without independent investigation, in areas that I don't know -- this
comes up a bit in the discussion from 1972 that is in print. I think there
is much better scholarship on the 17th and 18th century, and I keep to
that, and my own research. But let's put aside the other historical work,
and turn to the "theoretical constructs" and the explanations: that there
has been "a great change from harsh mechanisms of repression to more
subtle mechanisms by which people come to do" what the powerful want, even
enthusiastically. That's true enough, in fact, utter truism. If that's a
"theory," then all the criticisms of me are wrong: I have a "theory" too,
since I've been saying exactly that for years, and also giving the reasons
and historical background, but without describing it as a theory (because
it merits no such term), and without obfuscatory rhetoric (because it's so
simple-minded), and without claiming that it is new (because it's a
truism). It's been fully recognized for a long time that as the power to
control and coerce has declined, it's more necessary to resort to what
practitioners in the PR industry early in this century -- who understood
all of this well -- called "controlling the public mind." The reasons, as
observed by Hume in the 18th century, are that "the implicit submission
with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their
rulers" relies ultimately on control of opinion and attitudes. Why these
truisms should suddenly become "a theory" or "philosophy," others will
have to explain; Hume would have laughed.
Some of Foucault's particular examples (say, about 18th century techniques
of punishment) look interesting, and worth investigating as to their
accuracy. But the "theory" is merely an extremely complex and inflated
restatement of what many others have put very simply, and without any
pretense that anything deep is involved. There's nothing in what Phetland
describes that I haven't been writing about myself for 35 years, also
giving plenty of documentation to show that it was always obvious, and
indeed hardly departs from truism. What's interesting about these
trivialities is not the principle, which is transparent, but the
demonstration of how it works itself out in specific detail to cases that
are important to people: like intervention and aggression, exploitation
and terror, "free market" scams, and so on. That I don't find in Foucault,
though I find plenty of it by people who seem to be able to write
sentences I can understand and who aren't placed in the intellectual
firmament as "theoreticians."
To make myself clear, Phetland is doing exactly the right thing:
presenting what he sees as "important insights and theoretical constructs"
that he finds in Foucault. My problem is that the "insights" seem to me
familiar and there are no "theoretical constructs," except in that simple
and familiar ideas have been dressed up in complicated and pretentious
rhetoric. Phetland asks whether I think this is "wrong, useless, or
posturing." No. The historical parts look interesting sometimes, though
they have to be treated with caution and independent verification is even
more worth undertaking than it usually is. The parts that restate what has
long been obvious and put in much simpler terms are not "useless," but
indeed useful, which is why I and others have always made the very same
points. As to "posturing," a lot of it is that, in my opinion, though I
don't particularly blame Foucault for it: it's such a deeply rooted part
of the corrupt intellectual culture of Paris that he fell into it pretty
naturally, though to his credit, he distanced himself from it. As for the
"corruption" of this culture particularly since World War II, that's
another topic, which I've discussed elsewhere and won't go into here.
Frankly, I don't see why people in this forum should be much interested,
just as I am not. There are more important things to do, in my opinion,
than to inquire into the traits of elite intellectuals engaged in various
careerist and other pursuits in their narrow and (to me, at least) pretty
unininteresting circles. That's a broad brush, and I stress again that it
is unfair to make such comments without proving them: but I've been asked,
and have answered the only specific point that I find raised. When asked
about my general opinion, I can only give it, or if something more
specific is posed, address that. I'm not going to undertake an essay on
topics that don't interest me.
Unless someone can answer the simple questions that immediately arise in
the mind of any reasonable person when claims about "theory" and
"philosophy" are raised, I'll keep to work that seems to me sensible and
enlightening, and to people who are interested in understanding and
changing the world.
Johnb made the point that "plain language is not enough when the frame of
reference is not available to the listener"; correct and important. But
the right reaction is not to resort to obscure and needlessly complex
verbiage and posturing about non-existent "theories." Rather, it is to ask
the listener to question the frame of reference that he/she is accepting,
and to suggest alternatives that might be considered, all in plain
language. I've never found that a problem when I speak to people lacking
much or sometimes any formal education, though it's true that it tends to
become harder as you move up the educational ladder, so that
indoctrination is much deeper, and the self-selection for obedience that
is a good part of elite education has taken its toll. Johnb says that
outside of circles like this forum, "to the rest of the country, he's
incomprehensible" ("he" being me). That's absolutely counter to my rather
ample experience, with all sorts of audiences. Rather, my experience is
what I just described. The incomprehensibility roughly corresponds to the
educational level. Take, say, talk radio. I'm on a fair amount, and it's
usually pretty easy to guess from accents, etc., what kind of audience it
is. I've repeatedly found that when the audience is mostly poor and less
educated, I can skip lots of the background and "frame of reference"
issues because it's already obvious and taken for granted by everyone, and
can proceed to matters that occupy all of us. With more educated
audiences, that's much harder; it's necessary to disentangle lots of
ideological constructions.
It's certainly true that lots of people can't read the books I write.
That's not because the ideas or language are complicated -- we have no
problems in informal discussion on exactly the same points, and even in
the same words. The reasons are different, maybe partly the fault of my
writing style, partly the result of the need (which I feel, at least) to
present pretty heavy documentation, which makes it tough reading. For
these reasons, a number of people have taken pretty much the same
material, often the very same words, and put them in pamphlet form and the
like. No one seems to have much problem -- though again, reviewers in the
Times Literary Supplement or professional academic journals don't have a
clue as to what it's about, quite commonly; sometimes it's pretty comical.
A final point, something I've written about elsewhere (e.g., in a
discussion in Z papers, and the last chapter of "Year 501"). There has
been a striking change in the behavior of the intellectual class in recent
years. The left intellectuals who 60 years ago would have been teaching in
working class schools, writing books like "mathematics for the millions"
(which made mathematics intelligible to millions of people), participating
in and speaking for popular organizations, etc., are now largely
disengaged from such activities, and although quick to tell us that they
are far more radical than thou, are not to be found, it seems, when there
is such an obvious and growing need and even explicit request for the work
they could do out there in the world of people with live problems and
concerns. That's not a small problem. This country, right now, is in a
very strange and ominous state. People are frightened, angry,
disillusioned, skeptical, confused. That's an organizer's dream, as I once
heard Mike say. It's also fertile ground for demagogues and fanatics, who
can (and in fact already do) rally substantial popular support with
messages that are not unfamiliar from their predecessors in somewhat
similar circumstances. We know where it has led in the past; it could
again. There's a huge gap that once was at least partially filled by left
intellectuals willing to engage with the general public and their
problems. It has ominous implications, in my opinion.
Jscalzi
Andrew Damick notes in a response to Brian Artese:
>What if I were to write you a note and tell you, "This frog is 10 inches
>long?" It would seem to me that only an imbecile would take that note as
>anything but literal.
However, it is interesting to note that the definition of "inch" has
changed over the course of time (for example, the inch of Napoleon's time
was slightly longer than our current inch, which would have made the 5'2"
Emperor actually closer to our current 5'6"), as have other "objective"
measurements such as notes on a musical scale (in Mozart's time, for
another example, the note of "A" vibrated at a different speed than our
own).
Literal though the note may be, there is still room for confusion based on
the inexactness of language.
On a completely different tack -- the note could be code for something
else entirely.
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
Herfh! brian artese in alt.culture.jollyroger spake thusly:
: > Further, if you can find one instance of where any self-labeled
: > postmodernist actually sets out a developed theory of -anything-,
: > I'd be highly tempted to send money.
:
: See Derrida's theory of the mechanics of Western metaphysics (e.g., the
: concept of presence which impacts the relation of speech to writing);
: Judith Butler's description of the sexualized self as the result of a
: specific conception of interior/exterior relations; Foucault's
: historical account of the formation of corrective institutions, schools,
: the human sciences in general as disciplinary apparatus -- the list can
: go on for several pages. Make your check out to 'Brian Artese'...
I would, except that you missed my point. To my knowledge (which
could, of course, be wrong) none of those lads and lasses labels
himself "postmodernist." In fact, there is a rather distinct
distance between what people like those you list extol and what
their "fans" believe in.
Most of the fans seem to have made the natural and most obvious conclusion
to their writings, though, even if it required only a small leap, namely,
a weird form of self-indulgent, self-congratulatory pseudo-nihilism. (It
is interesting to note, though, that most of those "seminal" blokes don't
seem to be able to explain the whole "theory" to simple-and-clear-minded
lads like me.)
This, of course, begs the whole question: How and by whom do you define
"postmodernism?" (Is that definition its -lack- of one?)
Facts, blast it. Give me facts. I want to see a description of the
-something- that "postmodernism" is doing. If, in fact, there isn't a
"something" (as many "pomo" types would argue), then please don't bother
the poor unenlightened populace like me with gibberish about -nothing-.
--Gurk
--
Due to recent cutbacks, the light Andrew S. Damick
at the end of the tunnel has been Independent Reality Contractor
turned off until further notice. http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/www
brian artese
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
> : Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
> : > Further, if you can find one instance of where any self-labeled
> : > postmodernist actually sets out a developed theory of -anything-,
> : > I'd be highly tempted to send money.
>
>> See Derrida's theory of the mechanics of Western metaphysics (e.g.,
>> the concept of presence which impacts the relation of speech to
>> writing); Judith Butler's description of the sexualized self as the
>> result of a specific conception of interior/exterior relations;
>> Foucault's historical account of the formation of corrective
>> institutions, schools, the human sciences in general as disciplinary
>> apparatus -- the list can go on for several pages. Make your check
>> out to 'Brian Artese'...
>
> I would, except that you missed my point. To my knowledge (which
> could, of course, be wrong) none of those lads and lasses labels
> himself "postmodernist." In fact, there is a rather distinct
> distance between what people like those you list extol and what
> their "fans" believe in.
HUh? Do not the mates aboard the jollroger frigate equate
'postmodernism' with 'deconstruction' at every turn? Each of the
writers I mention definitely employ deconstruction in one way or
another. I don't like the term 'postmodernist,' simply because it tries
to encompass all sorts of disparate things. A better term that would
unify these writers is 'poststructuralist' ... but then I'd have to
explain structuralism to ya...
> Most of the fans seem to have made the natural and most obvious
> conclusion to their writings, though, even if it required only a small
> leap, namely, a weird form of self-indulgent, self-congratulatory
> pseudo-nihilism.
(pseudo-nihilism? so it's *not* nihilism?) In any case, your assertion
about the 'natural and most obvious conclusion to their writings'
indicates that you've read them. I'm pretty much positive that you
haven't -- not even a single essay, much less one of their books. Can
you give me any evidence at all to support what you're saying? In my
field, the way we normally do this is to take an excerpt from something
one of them wrote and explain why it's wrong. I swear to the many arms
of Vishnu that I'll mail you my left eyelid if you can produce a
coherent criticism -- as brief as you like -- of anything written by the
favorite writers of those who call themselves 'postmodernists' e.g.,
Derrida, Foucault, de Man, Butler, Lyotard, Deleuze, Haraway -- heck, or
even anybody tangentially *related* to these, i.e., Saussure,
Levi-Strauss, Said, Althusser, Fish, Gilbert, Benjamin, Heidegger,
Nietzsche, Bakhtin, Blanchot, Kuhn, Jauss -- so many to choose from!
> (It is interesting to note, though, that most of those "seminal"
> blokes don't seem to be able to explain the whole "theory" to
> simple-and-clear-minded lads like me.)
Sincere suggestion: Start with Saussure's _Course in General
Linguistics_ -- just the essay on signification and linguistic value.
Then maybe Foucault's "What is an Author?" Then move on to Paul de
Man's "Semiology and Rhetoric" in _Allegories of Reading_. If you like
Foucault better than de Man, move onto _Discipline & Punish_. If
vice-versa, go for Derrida's "Structure Sign & Play in the Discourse of
the Human Sciences," or the first few chapters of _Of Grammatology_.
These are good launching pads.
-- brian
moggin
Gurk:
>: >Fun quote on postmodernism:
>: >"... on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on
>: >extraordinary misreading of texts...argument that is appalling in its
>: >casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are
>: >trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a good
>: >deal of plain gibberish." --Noam Chomsky
moggin:
>: More on the same subject from the same source -- in fact,
>: from the same interview:
>: "I wouldn't say this if I hadn't been explicitly asked for my
>: opinion -- and if asked to back it up, I'm going to respond that
>: I don't think it merits the time to do so ... I've dipped into
>: what they write out of curiosity, but not very far ... I don't
>: spend any time on it. ... I don't proceed very far ... Again,
>: sorry to make unsupported comments..." -- Noam Chomsky
>: Some fun, huh?
Gurk:
>Of course, you quite elegantly ...ed the meat and coloration of his
>comments. Egads, the tracks and droppings of the violent passing of an
>editor. Since you so nicely removed parts of the quotations, thus leading
>to an easy misreading of Chomsky's comments, here are whole excerpts
>containing the reasons for his distinct dismissiveness of these writers:
"An easy misreading" is exactly what you provided. I put back
in what you left out -- namely, Chomsky's honest admission that
he was just spouting off on a subject he's ill-acquainted with.
Chomsky:
>[...]
Proves my point: you neglected to quote the statements where
Chomsky makes plain -- to his credit -- that he hasn't read any
great deal of the work he's discussing. "I've dipped into what
they write out of curiosity, but not very far..., "I tried to read
it...," "...I don't proceed very far..." You also ignored all the
places where Chomsky concedes that he isn't even attempting to
back up his attacks ("...sorry to make unsupported comments,
but...") So I supplied what you -- well, let's just say, "forgot."
Now, what does this leave us? Ans. -- an entertaining rant.
Chomsky indulges himself in an orgy of name-calling ("pathetic,"
"appalling," "charlatan," "gibberish,""illiterate," etc.), but he
never offers any substantial criticism. Not that he pretends to,
of course -- he says plainly enough that in his opinion, the
topic isn't worth his time and trouble. Fair enough -- I was
glad to learn his opinion, I enjoyed listening to him rave, and I
credit him for not claiming to have done anything more.
I'll post the whole interview, for anyone who's interested.
-- moggin
moggin
Chomsky:
will be compelled to keep to things I do seem to be able to
understand, and keep to association with the kinds of people who
also seem to be interested in them and seem to understand them
(which I'm perfectly happy to do, having no interest, now or
ever, in the sectors of the intellectual culture that engage in
these things, but apparently little else).
Since no one has succeeded in showing me what I'm missing, we're
left with the second option: I'm just incapable of understanding.
I'm certainly willing to grant that it may be true, though I'm
afraid I'll have to remain suspicious, for what seem good
reasons. There are lots of things I don't understand -- say, the
latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that
Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from
50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask
friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level
that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular
difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so
it. I wouldn't say this if I hadn't been explicitly asked for my
opinion -- and if asked to back it up, I'm going to respond that
I don't think it merits the time to do so.
participation in popular struggle, I don't spend any time on it.
Phetland suggests starting with Foucault -- who, as I've written
repeatedly, is somewhat apart from the others, for two reasons: I
find at least some of what he writes intelligible, though
generally not very interesting; second, he was not personally
disengaged and did not restrict himself to interactions with
others within the same highly privileged elite circles. Phetland
then does exactly what I requested: he gives some illustrations
of why he thinks Foucault's work is important. That's exactly
the right way to proceed, and I think it helps understand why I
take such a "dismissive" attitude towards all of this -- in fact,
pay no attention to it.
What Phetland describes, accurately I'm sure, seems to me
unimportant, because everyone always knew it -- apart from
details of social and intellectual history, and about these, I'd
suggest caution: some of these are areas I happen to have worked
on fairly extensively myself, and I know that Foucault's
scholarship is just not trustworthy here, so I don't trust it,
without independent investigation, in areas that I don't know --
this comes up a bit in the discussion from 1972 that is in print.
I think there is much better scholarship on the 17th and 18th
century, and I keep to that, and my own research. But let's put
aside the other historical work, and turn to the "theoretical
have always made the very same points. As to "posturing," a lot
again, reviewers in the @u<Times Literary Supplement> or
End of Reply, and (to be frank) of my personal interest in the
matter, unless the obvious questions are answered.
brian artese
Chomsky:
> So take Derrida, one of the grand old men...
(caution: Chomsky is not being snide or prejudiced here, for he is,
by his own account, 'perfectly open minded' about these things)
> I thought I ought to
> at least be able to understand his "Grammatology," so tried to
> read it. I could make out some of it, for example, the critical
> analysis of classical texts that I knew very well and had written
> about years before.
How dare Derrida write about Saussure when Chomsky's already done
so!
> I found the scholarship appalling, based on
> pathetic misreading; and the argument, such as it was, failed to
> come close to the kinds of standards I've been familiar with
> since virtually childhood.
referring, one must assume, to the sensible, plain-English
argumentation of Big Bird.
> Well, maybe I missed something
This is exactly what I don't buy, and which Chomsky repeats over
and over again. 'Derrida writes nonsense, defies all standards of
argumentation -- but maybe I just don't understand it.' Bollocks.
Chomsky understands exactly what Derrida's arguments are,
especially those in _Of Grammatology_. He simply doesn't like
their implications for linguistics and the traditional
understanding of language in general. He chooses this rhetorical
tactic of semi-ignorace so that he can call the book gibberish
without having to demonstrate it.
> What Phetland describes [about Foucault's work],
> accurately I'm sure, seems to me
> unimportant, because everyone always knew it
Let's just let this hover for a bit...
> -- apart from
> details of social and intellectual history, and about these, I'd
> suggest caution: some of these are areas I happen to have worked
> on fairly extensively myself
more toe-stepping insolence from the frenchies!
>, and I know that Foucault's
> scholarship is just not trustworthy here
we'll just let this dangle too...
> , so I don't trust it,
> without independent investigation, in areas that I don't know --
> this comes up a bit in the discussion from 1972 that is in print.
> I think there is much better scholarship on the 17th and 18th
> century, and I keep to that, and my own research. But let's put
> aside the other historical work, and turn to the "theoretical
> constructs" and the explanations: that there has been "a great
> change from harsh mechanisms of repression to more subtle
> mechanisms by which people come to do" what the powerful want,
> even enthusiastically. That's true enough, in fact, utter
> truism.
golly, is that all F was saying? 'Into the flames!' as Chomsky
recommends...
> If that's a "theory," then all the criticisms of me are
> wrong: I have a "theory" too, since I've been saying exactly that
> for years, and also giving the reasons and historical background,
> but without describing it as a theory (because it merits no such
> term)
Thar be deep dissemblin' in these parts. Foucault of all people
does not engage in "theory," nor does he ever claim to. Chomsky, I
suspect, knows this quite well.
> There's nothing in what Phetland describes [of Foucault's work]
> that I haven't been writing about myself for 35 years
D'oh!
> , also giving
> plenty of documentation to show that it was always obvious, and
> indeed hardly departs from truism.
Hmmm! The deployment of power -- no matter how humanistically
Chomsky conceives it -- "was always obvious"? News to us all.
-- brian
Maynard Handley
> Chomsky:
>
> > So take Derrida, one of the grand old men...
>
> (caution: Chomsky is not being snide or prejudiced here, for he is,
> by his own account, 'perfectly open minded' about these things)
Who was it who, when asked on to comment on the "tragedy of the Iran-Iraq
war" replied, "The only tragedy is that one day it will end"?
Am I the only one who feels a little like that as I see this battle played out?
Maynard
--
My opinion only
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
Herfh! brian artese in alt.fan.the-bob spake thusly:
: > I would, except that you missed my point. To my knowledge (which
: > could, of course, be wrong) none of those lads and lasses labels
: > himself "postmodernist." In fact, there is a rather distinct
: > distance between what people like those you list extol and what
: > their "fans" believe in.
:
: HUh? Do not the mates aboard the jollroger frigate equate
: 'postmodernism' with 'deconstruction' at every turn? Each of the
: writers I mention definitely employ deconstruction in one way or
: another. I don't like the term 'postmodernist,' simply because it tries
: to encompass all sorts of disparate things. A better term that would
: unify these writers is 'poststructuralist' ... but then I'd have to
: explain structuralism to ya...
A couple useful notes:
1) I am not, nor do I have plans to be, a "mate" aboard the
JollyRoger.
2) I have a healthy knowledge of formalism/structuralism.
3) The only thing "unified" about those writers is their
chronological period (which you hint at, but don't make
particularly clear).
: > Most of the fans seem to have made the natural and most obvious
: > conclusion to their writings, though, even if it required only a small
: > leap, namely, a weird form of self-indulgent, self-congratulatory
: > pseudo-nihilism.
:
: (pseudo-nihilism? so it's *not* nihilism?)
Well, it depends on who you talk to. The writers themselves probably
wouldn't admit to being nihilist if they were. A great many of their
"followers" use them as an excuse for nihilism or some variant thereof.
("See?! After we take everything apart, there's really just nothing
underneath!") A notable example would be Stanley Fish, who told us so
eloquently that language is simply a continual power move. I can think
of few things more depressing.
: In any case, your assertion
: about the 'natural and most obvious conclusion to their writings'
: indicates that you've read them. I'm pretty much positive that you
: haven't -- not even a single essay, much less one of their books. Can
: you give me any evidence at all to support what you're saying?
Well, you see, I happen to look at fellows like Derrida in probably a
different way from both his "followers" and those who typically criticize
him. I know this sounds weird, but I read his work much as I would a
poet's. Derrida's work, on the whole, is so incoherent to itself (if
taken as a reasoned philosophy) that one almost has to -invent-
interpretations to actually devise a reasoned system of thought. The very
lack of ability, as Noam Chomsky once said, to explain the whole Idea is
quite appalling. Even you seem to balk at explaining it to me.
: In my
: field, the way we normally do this is to take an excerpt from something
: one of them wrote and explain why it's wrong. I swear to the many arms
: of Vishnu that I'll mail you my left eyelid if you can produce a
: coherent criticism -- as brief as you like -- of anything written by the
: favorite writers of those who call themselves 'postmodernists' e.g.,
: Derrida, Foucault, de Man, Butler, Lyotard, Deleuze, Haraway -- heck, or
: even anybody tangentially *related* to these, i.e., Saussure,
: Levi-Strauss, Said, Althusser, Fish, Gilbert, Benjamin, Heidegger,
: Nietzsche, Bakhtin, Blanchot, Kuhn, Jauss -- so many to choose from!
Perhaps I will when I can get a spare minute. At the moment, personal
goings-on prevent me from doing much more than my current set of
obligations requires, but, I assure you that I certainly intend to start
taking the pseudo-mystics to task. (I don't guarantee that I'll be
entirely coherent and/or correct in my comments concerning these guys,
since my point in doing so is to struggle, develop, discover, and reason
out what I perceive to be the next logical step, my own Idea.)
: > (It is interesting to note, though, that most of those "seminal"
: > blokes don't seem to be able to explain the whole "theory" to
: > simple-and-clear-minded lads like me.)
:
: Sincere suggestion: Start with Saussure's _Course in General
: Linguistics_ -- just the essay on signification and linguistic value.
: Then maybe Foucault's "What is an Author?" Then move on to Paul de
: Man's "Semiology and Rhetoric" in _Allegories of Reading_. If you like
: Foucault better than de Man, move onto _Discipline & Punish_. If
: vice-versa, go for Derrida's "Structure Sign & Play in the Discourse of
: the Human Sciences," or the first few chapters of _Of Grammatology_.
: These are good launching pads.
I've read a couple of those, actually, parts of Derrida and some of
Foucault, most notably, but you still forgot to add the part where
you tell me what it is that "postmodernism" -is-. Again, the only
defense is lack of definition.
Some simple questions. Please give simple answers, since I'm
simple-minded:
1) What is the main purpose of language?
2) What is the main purpose of writing?
3) What are the main connections between origin, message,
and medium?
4) Will the Cubs ever win the World Series?
--Gurk
--
Literal Smerpologist Gurk http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/www/smerp.html
s m e r p o l o g y : t h e c u r e f o r w h a t a l e s y o u
"I think that Smerpology is better than having six girlfriends."
-Bill L. Clinton
Robert Teeter
Maynard Handley (hand...@apple.com) wrote:
: Who was it who, when asked on to comment on the "tragedy of the Iran-Iraq
: war" replied, "The only tragedy is that one day it will end"?
Henry Kissinger said something about it being a pity they
both couldn't lose.
: Am I the only one who feels a little like that as I see this battle played out?
Yes.
--
Bob Teeter (rte...@netcom.com) | "Write me a few of your lines"
http://www.wco.com/~rteeter/ | -- Mississippi Fred McDowell
"You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment." -- Francis Urquhart
"Only connect" -- E. M. Forster
G*rd*n
Maynard Handley (hand...@apple.com) wrote:
| : Who was it who, when asked on to comment on the "tragedy of the Iran-Iraq
| : war" replied, "The only tragedy is that one day it will end"?
rte...@netcom.com (Robert Teeter):
| Henry Kissinger said something about it being a pity they
| both couldn't lose. ...
I suggest piling Iran on Iraq, and then piling the both of
them on Dr. Kissinger -- slowly enough so I can hear his
glasses pop.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{