From: "Kyle Norwood" <norwood-holloway-AT-worldnet.att.net>
Subject: PLC: Phil-Lit and Phillitcrit
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 00:50:45 -0800


Howard Hastings thinks that people on Phil-Lit are out to get
Phillitcrit (and others think vice versa).  Howard also suggests that
Phil-Lit is not "cutting edge."  

I'm currently subscribing to both lists, and it seems to me that they
are both currently less interesting than the old Phil-Lit (though of
course it's Christmas time and things are slow).  I'll agree with
Howard that Phil-Lit is grumpier about the New than it used to be, as
long as Howard admits that the New is not automatically better than
the Old.  And what constitutes a "cutting edge" depends on what edge
you're occupying and what you want to cut.  Rush Limbaugh's followers
and Andrea Dworkin's followers surely think their idols are "cutting
edge."  I happen to think that what Richard Rorty calls "postmodern
bourgeois liberalism" remains the cutting edge, and that both the far
right and the (so-called) far left tend to be reactionary in their
authoritarianism.  What was so good about the old Phil-Lit, I
thought, was the debate between different cutting edges, left and
right and center--there were some nice fencing matches.  

But there's no use crying over spilt milk, and I'm certainly not
trying to revive debate about who knocked the glass over.  I'll
continue to subscribe to both lists, hoping each day to hear someone
say something interesting.  "No one can know how glad I am to find /
On any screen the least display of mind" (Robert Frost, though he
said "sheet" instead of "screen").

All best,

Kyle Norwood

Los Angeles, California
<norwood-holloway-AT-worldnet.att.net>



     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---