Re: teed off

My goodness,

I'm not really sure to which of the two posts John has sent I am supposed to
reply. But not much needs to be said in response to either, since they say
very little about my original post or in any way support John G.'s original
claim.

So let's keep it neat,

John originally wrote, concerning some of his fellow list members:

"Seems they are lost in the world of interpretive decuntstructionism."

This seemed to me, and still seems to me, like a silly and completely
unsubstantiated claim. I have never seen any evidence of any sort here that
any of the regular posters to this list are in any way actively involved in
or even regularly participating in "the world" of deconstruction here on this
list (or in their professional lives, for that matter). I have never seen
any one of them ever offer a single reading of Salinger or a single post here
on Salinger's work that could properly, in any way, be called a
"deconstructive" act of reading.

Consequently, I see no evidence to support John G. original, rather ignorant
claim.

And, not that it matters, but I do get my students to read Crime and
Punishment. And, not that it matters, but I almost never teach students
"what Derrida thinks of literature" (outside of the rare specific course on
his work). I do, however, teach them to debate without succumbing to simple
ad hominem arguments and to write with some care and to offer specific
evidence to support their original claims. I have not, as any reader can now
quite plainly see, had the pleasure of having John G. in any of my classes.

Indeed, the fact that John G. thinks that students in university lit. classes
or those being taught by people who post here are being subjected to real
"deconstruction" in any rigorous way in the current classroom is simply more
material evidence that he has no idea what is happening in the field of
literary studies these days and his critiques of the academy are made wholly
out of ignorance and should consequently be quickly and easily dismissed.

Also, there is this, from John, concerning Derrida:

"But I take issue with the stance that I have to be knowledgeable of him
before I can criticize him."

At this point, any debate concerning the writings of Derrida (or anyone else)
ends for me. That is simply not how I choose to do my work.

Finally, as to the mysterious murmurings about by "creative muscles," I must
admit to being confused. Other than my teaching, my creating of entirely new
courses and seminars each semester, my guest lectures at other colleges, and
my writing and performing my poetry at readings and slams, I suppose John G.
is right. Unless you count golf as a creative act. I know I do.

Anyway, thanks for the response, John. It confirmed my own expectations and
assumptions concerning the validity of your original claim.

All the best,

--John

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Mar 3 17:33:41 2003