----- Original Message -----
From: "Dominic Fox" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: today's low / "Rain"
>I find I want to distinguish between "bourgeois" (ideologically captivated)
>avant-gardism and some other kind (say Kathy Acker's, to pull an example
>out of my hat; although she could certainly tell a story). In other words,
>I don't agree that the techniques and procedures of the various
>avant-gardes are necessarily ideologically impotent; but do agree that they
>are capable of being used in ideologically impotent ways, and that the
>dominant ("mainstream") use of them is as impotent as one would expect.
>
> Badiou is, incidentally, a very clear and cogent writer; as far as one
> might wish from Derrida or Lacan.
>
> Dominic
>
I will have to read him. Typically, I've bought two books on him, and his
"Ethics," and set them aside. I think I'm a bit allergic to anyone who was
ever attracted to Maoism. --- the techniques ... of the various avant-gardes
are not necessarily ideologically impotent; but ... they are capable of
being used in ideologically impotent ways" --- I have to agree with that.
Simply because I DON'T put style first in criticizing poetry, but motive and
world-view - which are ultimately mysterious, objects of speculation, and an
embarrassment to criticism.
