Re: What to make of Holden
Paul Kennedy (kennedyp@toronto.cbc.ca)
Thu, 05 Aug 1999 16:19:05 -0400 (EDT)
OK... If it's "You show me yours, and I'll show you mine...."
I've read Lacan, Derridas (sp?) and Foucault.... (I had much more fun
reading the medieval scholastic idiots whom they most resemble in
intellectual history....)
(I've also read MOST of Chomsky--and met him six or seven times.... And the
ONLY time he makes sense is when he's talking about REAL life.... IE the
books that DON'T get published in the US of A because they're deemed--by
that country's 'revolutionary' government--to be 'subversive'.....)
Masturbation should ONLY be a last ditch defense!
Cheers,
Paul
>In a message dated 8/5/99 5:55:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>kennedyp@toronto.cbc.ca writes:
>
><<
> Let me say from the beginning that I've never read the post-Structuralists
> (or whatever we're supposed to call all the bullshit that's usually badly
> translated from the French) or any of the other latter-day literary
> theorists who, for my money, quite obviously enjoy masturbation much more
> than they enjoy sex. What a bunch of hooey! -- Paul>>
>
>I agree with just about your whole post (esp. reading other writers...and not
>just one), but this gave me pause:
>
>First rule of intellectual honesty is that if you haven't read an author, you
>don't have a right to an opinion. It is true that much of post-structuralism
>is maturbatory, but there's some pretty intelligent observations about
>language and how it is used too (and what our use of language means).
>
>Spouting opinions about a book, an author, or a philosophy wihout reading
>primary sources first -- THAT'S hooey. No different from people counting the
>number of "fuck yous" in Catcher and not bothering to read what they mean
>within the context of the novel.
>
>Jim
>
>PS I've never read the archives myself :)
>
>