the riotous life

Omlor says
>>Walter,
>>
>>I would begin by asking for a working familiarity with the primary texts.
>>Criticism, if it is to be useful, should be specific and part of a careful
>>act of reading specific works, not a vague and largely reductivist and
>>misinformed and misleading series of generalizations that reveal more what
>>isn't known about the subject matter than what is or is not worth
>>debating.

Your definition of a legitimate anaylsis of "deconstruction" is
coming from a perspective, as I recognized earlier, with more depth
in the particular area. Instead of addressing my questions, however,
it is disspointing to see you look down and decide to start sniping.
This vague issue of "working familiarity" is, for Omlor, a handy
go-to phrase to readily divide valuable criticism from incessant
carping.
Or to to seperate readers who run from those who sit.
The type of criticism in question, used primarily for literature, is
not a user-friendly process but instead a very risky endeavor.
Discovering the merits or flaws of Omlor's irksome D word could have
been done without some of the discord mentioned by some on the list
many posts ago.
He chose to abstain, but did provide us with a dressed-down form of
his stance, no less.

>
>But then Omlor says:
>>
>>My problem is not that John G. does not have such a working familiarity
>>with
>>the texts he seeks to criticize (he very well may, although I have
>>certainly
>>seen no evidence of it in anything he has ever written on this list). My
>>problem is that he believes he does not need even to be "knowledgeable"
>>about
>>an author's work before he criticizes that author.
>

My last hope, now defunct, was to have Omlor answer my question
concerning a poem as a closed thing-in-itself.
Guess I'm too rusty on Martin H to ask. No knowledge.
According to Omlor, is apparent when discussing Derrida, his
warnings, and "deconstruction", especially as it pertained to
Salinger,
I am learning disabled. Don't criticize what ya can't understand.
And there's no argument here. What's frightening is his view my lack
of membership-compounded by other palpable shortcomings-to his
Lyceum Club for which Omlor suggests a reckless, unrefined state of
mind. Considering the multitude of responses this thread has
generated, can anyone else surmise how we reach an impasse when
Omlor requires one to have "working knowledge" of Derrida before we
can criticize him?
And I was writing about Derrida specifically, John, not authors in
general.

>
>
> This is simply an
>>irresponsible position as far as I am concerned, and suggests to me an
>>intellectual laziness that I have no desire to encourage.
>>
>>And as far as Robbie's request for some sort of "demonstration or
>>explanation" concerning specific aspects of Derrida's work or specific
>>texts
>>by him -- we can certainly do that all again (if you go back a couple of
>>years, we had a small discussion of such matters, as I recall). But I
>>would
>>only participate in such a discussion if it was grounded in actual reading
>>of
>>actual works,certainly not with anyone who feels that a working
>>knowledge of specific texts is not necessary prior to criticism.
>

Again, this position is more snootiness and suggests a wayward
attitude toward the original argument than a concern for what I
said. Since you been taking issue with the scant interpretations of
Derrida for quite some time, that comment does not seem totally off
the mark. You define a "working familiarity" as "working knowledge"
both of which you have a firm grasp of while others are denigrated
as footloose, irresponsible readers. You've set the parameters, but
why?
It's a Chimera, isn't it Omlor?
That makes it safe for rationalizing, doesn't it?
But exactly.

>
>>
>>Still, those who are interested

No thanks Omlor. I don't play well with others.
Now let's stop this kung-fu match before someone loses an eye.

Cordially,

John Gedsudski
Adjunct Professor of Sciolism
Philistia Community College
501 Boorish Drive
NY,NY

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Mar 5 16:01:51 2003