Re: The real problem...

Responses below:

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

>Yes, John he does not use the word deconstructionism but he does something
>to several texts in his texts and then claims that if we have read his text
>carefully we can see something important about language but if we do what he
>does then it is no method and all those Literary paganni out there are doing
>that something with a method (well or poorly) he claims does not exist.
>Daniel
>

I think this is a good response. He does seem to be applying a "method"
of sorts in some of the stuff I've read, but it's a method of inquiry
designed to support a specific philosophical argument, not a method of
literary criticism applied randomly to every literary text he gets his
hands on. In other words, the point of the texts I've read wasn't the
promotion or development of a method, but the support of a specific
thesis. To take a method away from it, then, is to miss the point.

The abilities of the person using the "method" (deconstruction as a
technique of literary analysis, not Derrida's work) makes all the
difference in the world, btw, especially in this case. Many literary
critics employed the method in ways that deserve every criticism you and
Luke and anyone else here may want to make. It's stupid and senseless
and obscures the literature under consideration -- closer to sophistry
than analysis. When someone with some intelligence uses it, though,
it's shown me facets of texts I've never even considered before --
opened my eyes to possibilities that I hadn't previously considered. It
makes the text mean more than it had meant before.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Aug 14 11:51:34 2003