From: "Lisa Greenstein" <greenstein-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: walking in the maze
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 22:16:04 GMT




Joseph wrote:
>First, so what if theory has spurned a "literature" of its own?
(Don't read that question as hostile--

OK, then don't read this as juvenile, but to clarify:  I meant the 
'literature' of theory-about-theory-about-theory (it was an, er, playful 
metaphor?), as opposed to literature-in-dialogue-with-theory, such as 
Coetzee et al.
Coetzee's own criticism (White Writing, and other articles) - intertextual 
fiction (Foe particularly) serve as illustration that incorporating the 
'so-called linguistic turn' in both discourses need not dictate opaque, 
esoteric (ab)use of language.  It's hard enough to make meanings without 
extra "tinting", just for the sake of highlighting (actually lowlighting) 
the 'translucence of language'.

>>Why privilege literature as an autonomous work (instead of reading, 
>>textuality, (con)textual enviroment, etc) in the >first place?

Good point!  I think Salman Rushdie acknowledges the interplay of all these 
in Midnight's Children...  By the same token, though, it shouldn't really be 
possible for Theory to stand apart from literature & friends, should it?

As Tim said, thanks so much to everyone who's participating in this 
interesting discussion.

Lisa (who thinks examples and illustrations are more fun than terminology)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



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