 |
 |
Jamie: > > A propos, I'm wondering how many poets here are much concerned with or > even interested in literary theory? I tend to glaze over after a few pages, > and I don't say that with any particular pride. > Jamie > Know the feeling, Jamie. In an earlier life, I once went to my then Head of Department clutching a note from my doctor saying I was to be excused from having to read Derrida on medical grounds. And when I read Sokal's Intellectual Impostures (or Fashionable Nonsense as it was retitled for US consumption), I found the chapters of scientific epistemology (relatively) easy going, but the other chapters did my head in. It puzzled me as to why he excepted Foucault from his shotgun condemnation of The Theorists, then it struck me, "Sheesh, it's the [expletive deleted] Wobblie connection, but!" The interchapters on epistemology are, I think, the most interesting part of the book but the political subtext is ... interesting. A fun read if you skip what it's ostensibly about, most of the chapters on literary theory, and especially the quotes. Which is what most people go to it for. Just a thot. Robin > > > On 27 Oct 2016, at 18:08, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> > > wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPad > > And what 'literary theory'? I think I'm the only person to have made > > explicit reference to any literary theorists. To Giorgio Agamben > >> > >>> On 26 Oct 2016, at 14:52, David Lace <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Jamie and perhaps Peter, seem to be looking at this whole thing as if > >>> literary theory didn't exist. Jamie says he accepts the > >>> "problematical" nature of the discussion, yet always avoids areas that > >>> really address the "problematics". It is like an art critic having no > >>> notion of Cubism etc, and saying only photo-realist portraits can > >>> really be called paintings. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------Original Message------------------- > >>> > >>> > >>> Tim Allen wrote: > >>> > >>> I am not saying that the addition of music doesn't change the > >>> reception of the words, because of course it does, but multiple things > >>> change the reception of the words. There is no such thing as pure > >>> words - there is no such thing as the unmediated, the unaccompanied > >>> poem - the words act within contexts of the accompanying world. >