Re: Franny sectioned

Camille Scaysbrook (c_scaysbrook@yahoo.com)
Tue, 03 Aug 1999 12:11:24 +1000

Scottie Bowman wrote:

>     '... The point is - as Anna's anecdote illustrates - ...'
> 
>     What Anna's anecdote illustrates is the pathetic aping 
>     by the American educational establishment of chi-chi 
>     French literary theory - & the slavish adherence to 
>     the same by a whole generation of Americans 
>     (&, sadly, Ozzies) for whom conformity of thought 
>     is, evidently, the highest good.

Well, someone's in fine fettle today. I arrived at the opinions of the
`chi-chi French literary theorists' totally independently of them. It was
only when I came to university that I realised that I had tuned into a
zeitgeist and that I was not the only one who had noticed certain phenomena
occuring in literature. So this would discount your theory of `conformity'
- which, I might add, was certainly no hallmark of any class I ever
attended where said Frogs were discussed. There is always - and probably
always will be - vigorous discussion of the vicissitudes of their theories.
One of my lecturers openly remarked that he thought Derrida was full of
crap.

I don't ask you, or anyone, to agree with these theories, only to consider
them as an option. This is why I don't discount Freud entirely. I take what
I believe is relevant of his theories and toss them into my own melting pot
of ideas. Surely this is the only true way out of conformity.

(To any French people on this list, don't worry, I find the idea of
subscribing a way of thinking to an entire race is pretty absurd, too)

Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com


_________________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com