 |
 |
I know what you mean about the theory trends as reflected in titles with "body"/"bodies": before that it was "desire" in every title (and an unsatisfying read to follow in many cases!). Still earlier, I overheard one of the Duke English Dept. old guard muttering to himself as he tottered down the corridor: "Everywhere you go, it's nothing but lesbian, lesbian, lesbian." And in the mid-'80s, while attending a conference and listening to a paper by a very well-known film theorist sporting a Marlene Dietrich hairdo and a silver-lame dress, a friend sitting next to me leaned over and whispered, "If she says 'gaze' ONE more time...." It's the fashionableness that's annoying, isn't it--not the theory per se? Last year an academic friend (with pretty impressive theoretic creds. herself) predicted that the Next Big Thing in theory would be--yup, fashion--so there you are.... Candice on 8/21/01 7:38 PM, Matthew Francis at [log in to unmask] wrote: > I meant in English Departments, of course, Josephine. In my first year at > Southampton, not one of the English Dept postgrad seminars was devoted to > poetry, and the rest of literature was easily outweighed by film and theory > (much of which could not accurately be described as *literary* theory). The > word 'body' or 'bodies' seemed to be in the title of every paper > (transgressive bodies, political bodies, economy of the body etc), to the > extent that I was beginning to think the subject should be renamed Anatomy. > > As for tattooing, I have nothing against it except that I wasn't planning > to study it (and it sounds painful). It does get into _Moby-Dick_, after > all. > > Best wishes > > Matthew