Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 03:47:35 -0500
Subject: Re: MB: Re: inside, etc.



--------------E07DA0269A3D94D91DFC131F

Dear amd:

I have a feeling my initial missive was read as ANTI-academic or as drawing a
sharp distinction between the academic and the creator which eradicates the
possibility of one pervading the other; I know, of course, that this need not be
the case at all, i.e., I did not mean to generalize.  My mail was more in
reference towards a certain tendency of some academics to do little but drop
names and flex the muscles of jargon and erudition - it was not intended as a
blanket condemnation of the academy by any means! I simply feel that Blanchot's
concerns are, as George Quasha said, very REAL outside the hallowed halls of the
Ivory Tower as well as inside.  In my experience, Blanchot (at least in America)
has often been relegated to the realm of academia as a writer/thinker of obscure
appeal to any but those studying criticism, as a writer/thinker who cannot be
read/enjoyed by those outside these hollowed halls. It is the limits which such
thinking engender that makes most writing in America often so shallow, simple and
uni-faceted.

Claire




amd wrote:

> Dear George,
>
> I'd be grateful an email of your work. Perhaps, it might enact a discussion
> that might be fruitful for the members of the list. A point I'd like to
> comment on Claires' remark about locating the work of Blanchot.
>
> I find a crude differentiation in Claire's idea about the academic and
> non-academic. I am not sure what does this classification entail? If the Act
> is actually the predominance idea in how Blanchot is read, this does not
> necessary reach to a point of furrowing such crude distinctions. Actually, I
> do not know what academics/non-academic mean in the stream of the Act of
> creation. If you occupy the status of the Act itself you cannot just see one
> pole of the differentiation, the academics. The academics is an impure
> element that is invaded and dessiminated with the non-academics and *the net
> yet*. The Act is a flash that reverbates through the sea of differenciated
> formations. Each one of them would couple without necessary presuming a
> dialectical opposition.
>
> amd
>
>
> >>
> >>Does anyone on this list ever question these (and other such) notions in
> >>terms
> >>of creativity/the creator (artist/writer), instead of simply in academic
> >>terms?  It seems to me the ACT of creation is Blanchot's chief
> >>concern/obsession, not academic comparisons and distinctions. I'm not
> >>trying
> >>to say anything negative about the list - this has simply to do with my own
> >>interest in Blanchot.  I would very much like to hear any one else's ideas
> >>on
> >>his perception of the act and engage in a discussion of it's meaning - both
> >>Blanchot's meaning, and those of other writers on this list.
> >>
> >>the floor is open and I await ...
> >>
> >>Claire
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>"We live in the dark.  We do what we can. We give what we have.
> >>Our doubt is our passion.  Our passion is our task.  The rest of the
> >>madness
> >>is art."
> >>- Henry James
> >>http://www.StudioCleo.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

--
"We live in the dark.  We do what we can. We give what we have.
Our doubt is our passion.  Our passion is our task.  The rest of the madness is
art."
- Henry James
http://www.StudioCleo.com


--------------E07DA0269A3D94D91DFC131F

HTML VERSION:

I have a feeling my initial missive was read as ANTI-academic or as drawing a sharp distinction between the academic and the creator which eradicates the possibility of one pervading the other; I know, of course, that this need not be the case at all, i.e., I did not mean to generalize.  My mail was more in reference towards a certain tendency of some academics to do little but drop names and flex the muscles of jargon and erudition - it was not intended as a blanket condemnation of the academy by any means! I simply feel that Blanchot's concerns are, as George Quasha said, very REAL outside the hallowed halls of the Ivory Tower as well as inside.  In my experience, Blanchot (at least in America) has often been relegated to the realm of academia as a writer/thinker of obscure appeal to any but those studying criticism, as a writer/thinker who cannot be read/enjoyed by those outside these hollowed halls. It is the limits which such thinking engender that makes most writing in America often so shallow, simple and uni-faceted.

Claire
 
 
 

amd wrote:

Dear George,

I'd be grateful an email of your work. Perhaps, it might enact a discussion
that might be fruitful for the members of the list. A point I'd like to
comment on Claires' remark about locating the work of Blanchot.

I find a crude differentiation in Claire's idea about the academic and
non-academic. I am not sure what does this classification entail? If the Act
is actually the predominance idea in how Blanchot is read, this does not
necessary reach to a point of furrowing such crude distinctions. Actually, I
do not know what academics/non-academic mean in the stream of the Act of
creation. If you occupy the status of the Act itself you cannot just see one
pole of the differentiation, the academics. The academics is an impure
element that is invaded and dessiminated with the non-academics and *the net
yet*. The Act is a flash that reverbates through the sea of differenciated
formations. Each one of them would couple without necessary presuming a
dialectical opposition.

amd
 

>>
>>Does anyone on this list ever question these (and other such) notions in
>>terms
>>of creativity/the creator (artist/writer), instead of simply in academic
>>terms?  It seems to me the ACT of creation is Blanchot's chief
>>concern/obsession, not academic comparisons and distinctions. I'm not
>>trying
>>to say anything negative about the list - this has simply to do with my own
>>interest in Blanchot.  I would very much like to hear any one else's ideas
>>on
>>his perception of the act and engage in a discussion of it's meaning - both
>>Blanchot's meaning, and those of other writers on this list.
>>
>>the floor is open and I await ...
>>
>>Claire
>>
>>
>>--
>>"We live in the dark.  We do what we can. We give what we have.
>>Our doubt is our passion.  Our passion is our task.  The rest of the
>>madness
>>is art."
>>- Henry James
>>http://www.StudioCleo.com
>
>
>
>
>

--
"We live in the dark.  We do what we can. We give what we have.
Our doubt is our passion.  Our passion is our task.  The rest of the madness is art."
- Henry James
http://www.StudioCleo.com
  --------------E07DA0269A3D94D91DFC131F--