Re: The real problem...

What would happen if we pulled a somewhat Foucauldian move, then...the
last name of the author seems to be serving as shorthand for an
interpretive principle governing a discreet body of work, linking them
together so that they serve as primary sources of reference for one
another. For example, you might use _Of Grammatology_ to inform your
reading of _Glas_,but you wouldn't necessarily use Pynchon's _Mason and
Dixon_ in the same way for either of those works.

But once we've introduced this interpretive principle, it seems like
we're giving the living, breathing, personal author privilege over the
interpretation of his own work. What else does it mean to use the
author's last name in this way?

I think for this discussion it'd just be more useful to distinguish
between What Derrida Thinks and How We Read His Works.

Jim

Omlor@aol.com wrote:

> Jim,
>
> Yes, the confusion is a common one. We use a shorthand often,
> referring to the texts or work by the last name of the author. This
> sometimes confuses matters.
>
> Everything I have written here has been about what is written.
>
> How's that for a fun sentence?
>
> All the best,
>
> --John

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Aug 14 15:18:24 2003