From: "mladd" <mladd-AT-gateway.net>
Subject: Re: walking in the maze
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:39:32 -0700


Yes, but isn't there something potentially liberatory about
recognizing the power inherent in an object that generates
such simple, "natural" pleasure?
-----Original Message-----
From: Bianca Isaki <isakib-AT-hotmail.com>
To: postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
<postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Date: Thursday, April 13, 2000 11:16 AM
Subject: re: walking in the maze


>Tim wrote:
>
>>I still don't understand how the plum must be political, especially
>"damnably" so, Ismail Talib.
>
>I would venture to guess that a plum can be damnably political because it
is
>among the material objects  that are signs and  signifiers of the
>inescapeable operations of power of this unegalitarian world.
>
>----Original Message Follows----
>From: Tim Durkin <tdurkin-AT-loyola.edu>
>Reply-To: postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>To: postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Subject: re: walking in the maze
>Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:02:16 -0400
>
>Hi all,
>
>Never meant to downplay the thoughts and writings of literary critics as
>somehow less than what our sisters and brothers in the physical and natural
>sciences are about.  That seems to have touched a nerve, though.  I'm just
>trying to talk through the use of the word "theory" versus the word
>"criticism."  It seems to me that traditionally, theory has had a specific
>meaning, and to apply the word "theory" to one's work (be it scientific or
>philosophical), one's work generally has some qualifications to meet, one
>of which is prediction.
>
>I just finished reading _The Elegant Universe_ by Brian Greene (Vintage,
>2000), and I wish that I'd brought it in today so that I could quote
>directly...  The book describes the development of the newest theory in
>physics, Superstring theory, which so far claims to be the Theory Of
>Everything, like the Unified Field that Einstein spent the end of his
>career looking for.  The author, a scientist with a great deal invested in
>the validity of this theory, states that no one can know for now if the
>theory is indeed true or not, because we do not, as yet, have the tools to
>test its predictions.  This from a guy doing ultra-contemporary, post
>quantum-mechanics stuff; he still needs the predictions proven before he
>can claim his own work valid.
>
>So why do we say theory?  Why not criticism?
>
>I still don't understand how the plum must be political, especially
>"damnably" so, Ismail Talib.
>And would a child not learn to see if no one were there to teach
>them?  Doesn't seem likely.
>
>If you put two people with the same politics in that same room to read the
>same poem, would they respond to it the same?  Again, seems
>unlikely.  Thank goodness.  How boring would this world be if the effects
>of literature were that predictable.
>
>I'm not talking about the escape from the political being the condition
>of  everyday life.  I am talking about the possibility of mitigating the
>effects of the political on our understanding of literature in order to
>examine and enjoy it on the level of language.  How to do that
>mitigation?  Perhaps by understanding many different politics and one's own
>as fully as possible--in order to see how politics might shape one's
>reactions--then questioning that shaping, and pushing one's understanding
>in directions other than the most obvious.
>
>Chris, in reference to your second-to-last-message, I think that you're
>right; our thought is closer than maybe it seemed at first.  I'll repeat
>what I've repeated all along: I'm not saying that criticism is useless, or
>that it adds nothing to the discussion and understanding of literature.  It
>can bring a lot to the table.  I do not believe, though, that it's helpful
>or necessary at all times (see my masterful "windows" metaphor from what
>feels like weeks ago).  I still like petting breed cats and alleycats
alike.
>
>I don't disagree that we live in a political world; I do disagree that it's
>entirely political, unless we're defining politics as any- and
>everything.  Maybe we can advance a group definition of politics for the
>sake of this discussion.
>
>Oh, and Ismail Talib, I'm not a Professor, at least not professionally (I
>do occasionally profess various things)... you can call me Tim.
>
>
>
>     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
>
>     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



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