POMO rants (was dfw ... nobel specks)

[Meg Larson]

----------
| From: still lookin 4 the face i had b4 the world was made
<traveler at afn.org>
| To: MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu
| Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
| Subject: Re: POMO rants (was dfw ... nobel specks)
| Date: Thursday, May 22, 1997 2:07 PM
| 
| On Wed, 21 May 1997 MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu wrote:
| 
| > Paul York and Max continue the tiresome rant.  C'mon guys.  Insert the
<snip>

| *shrug* I'm just describing what I experienced in the English department
| at the U. of Fla.  I'm not saying all postmod thought is without
| substance...over time I have grudgingly come to respect some of it.  But
I
| have almost no use for what I have read of, say,  Derrida (except his
Tower
| of Babel essay).  And what really bugs me--what I was really poking fun
at--
| are the hordes of derivative hacks who have no original thought at all,
| not even creatively destructive thought of Derrida's, et al sort.
|
I'm sorry that your college English dept. was constructed this way; I would
think that U of FL would be much more on top of things than my l'il 'ol
commuter U.  If this is all you got from Derrida, then you have my
sympathies, b/c JD is NOT about destruction.  I have been fortunate at SVSU
to find a precious few members of the English department that I can hang
around, that take time to explain things like you mention and  can point
out the validity of "alternative" viewpoints.  In my experience, the people
who diss Derrida don't understand Derridean thought, much like tha
anti-Pynchonites you describe.  A-and having just spent four months
independently studying postmodernism, I can confidently say--you don't know
Jack about pomo.   
   
Does spreading malice which only further highlights
| > the dangerous anti-intellectual streak of our culture help things? 
|
And I, aspiring academic myself, dread this kind of thing the most:
academic name-calling, finger-pointing, anti-intellectual infighting.

| *sigh* As far as I'm concerned, many post-mod academics are right at the
| bleeding edge of our anti-illectualism!  Look at what they're doing:
| attacking the possibility of communication, language, thought,
everything.
| It is intellectual fatalism, but intellectual trends always filter down
and
| become popular sooner or later.  Our culture is being infected with this
| attitude of utter futility, and with the idea that the only way to
analyze
| something is to debunk and dissect it.
|
I find this line of thought incredibly amusing, as it comes from someone on
THIS list.  Of course, yer right, in that MANY pomo ack's are like this,
but to ignore the other percentage is the kind of thing pomo tries to draw
attention to: it's not one-sided, it's not either/or; it's just there--deal
with it but don't pretend it doesn't exist.  I get fucking tired of ack's
who proceed to tell me what's of importance and what's not.  First off, the
pomo ack's yer talking about are pomo hacks; pomo doesn't try to attack
anything or anybody and if that's the impression they left you with, they
should die horrible deaths.  Postmodernism is just one more way of looking
at things; it's not an "attack or be attacked" mode of thinking; it's
thinking from a different POV.  Secondly, what is infinitely scarier to me,
as a college student and future college teacher, are the stalwarts who just
keep shoving the same old shit down every student's throat b/c that's what
was shoved down their throats; these, imho, are the *real* _threats_ to
intellectualism.  
 
| Yes, there are cynical elitist morons in every field, and academia has
| always had more than its share.  But IMO, a century of "revolutionary"
| thinking, in which each new generation attempts to revolt against the 
past
| generation's revolts, has produced a sterile and frankly revolting
| situation in the intellectual world.  

In what way(s)?

I think PoModism is substantially
| problematic.  I'm not just attacking its most ludicrous representatives,
| but its whole ethic.

A-and what do you see as its ethic?  Pomo IS problematic; read Linda
Hutcheon and she'll explain the problematics to you.  But so is everything
else.  What's wrong with a theory that tries to point that out? 

|<snipping yet again> 

| > Or maybe he said:
| > What is it with that silly use of diagrams, circles, slashes, that
basketball coaches feel so 
| > clever about using these days?  "Half-court trap," "The Rotating
Switch-Off," whatever.
| > Past  basketball coaches (even pseudo-basketball coaches) were able to
make their
| > points without this sort of crap. 
|  
| > See what I mean?  And at least these are real basketball terms!  You'd
| > never let someone *argue* like that, yet when it comes to bashing
| > academics, its the same nonsense alla time!  Why?
|
Aha!  it's *real* and it's okay for a basketball coach to use these things,
b/c b-ball is real!!!  Yet, postmodernist thinking isn't real so we
pomo-ists aren't allowed to have terminology to describe more precisely
what we mean.
 
| As you point out, "these are real basketball terms!"  But what are the
PoMos
| (I know that is an unsatisfactory generalization) talking about & with
what
| terminology?  Far less substantial theories about criticism about
literature
| and language.  It does begin to look like highly abstracted but
irrelevant
| gamesmanship.  So, not so removed from basketball, maybe.  But probably
far
| less important.

|Well, I hate to burst yer bubble (NOT!) but there *is* terminology, and it
explains what the Pomos are talking about.  It might be far less important
to you, pal, but to some of us, ack's, hacks, and wannabes alike, use pomo
theory as a tool--one of many--a lens, if you will, through which to view
the world.  You may have had your run-ins with the hacks, but don't throw a
blanket on the rest of us who are just trying to see the Big Picture in all
its vividness.  A-and if you want less substantial theories about lit, hang
out with the new critics. 

| And I don't know about you, but I've seen way too much unoriginal
| application of the sort of punctuation nonsense I critiqued above.  I
think
| your comparison is specious.  I'm not attacking all specialized lingo,
just
| a certain conceited kind.
| 
| > > I know, these bold PoMos are supposed to
| > >be deconstructing language itself.  But if so, then nothing they write
can
| > >convey meaning.  So give up and commit suicide already! 
| 
Once again, here's some more examples of shooting wildly in the dark.  All
I can say is the boy just ain't gettin' it.

 
| > No:  If so, then nothing YOU write can convey meaning :-}
|
I say one big damn LOUD amen to that!

| Max went on to say a lot of misinformed things about Derrida, and the
destruction of language (he said deconstruct, but I knew what he really
meant).  I had no intention of getting up on the pomo soapbox, but it's
this opinionated, only one way to see things and let's slam anyone who even
considers presenting another way to see the world attitude that I find
utterly offensive.  Not you Max, just yer attitude about something you've
obviously done no personal investigating thereof.

And guess what foax?  That's the news and I AM OUTTA HERE!

Postmodern but sick of the misrepresentation of it, 
Meg

|