Tolerance and Allegory missing word

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

No need to apologize, hell you are the one that sticks close
to the text round these parts, so you have an argument. 

David Morris wrote:
> 
> Sorry to be so reactionary.  It was late and I was tired.
> 
> I must admit that some of this litcrit "science" of the text bothers me,
> because I see it akin to stuffing the text into a form of our making, not
> allowing it to be itself, as you suggest is the fault with Derrida.  This
> attitude of mine has been expressed before on-list in objecting to attempts
> to dissect the surreal from the "real" events in GR.  On the other hand, the
> context you and others provide in linking Pynchon's text to his
> predecessors, both American and other, I find illuminating.  So I'm not
> consistent.
> 
> Sorry again,
> Carry on,
> 
> David Morris
> 
> >From: "Terrance F. Flaherty"
> >
> >In the archives are 5 posts that define these terms, under
> >"msat" I think. If we treat each novel as the unique works
> >that they undoutably are, no "science" of them is possible.
> >I am attempting not to reduce the art, but to discuss it in
> >a meaningful way. I think Paul knows what I am talking about
> >here, if not I assume he will ask. One year ago I joined
> >this list, one of my first posts, asked that folks define
> >postmodernism and use it consistently.  When I use the term
> >postmodern, I often use it as toynbee did in 1875, to
> >describe an historical cycle, followed by the master
> >narrative of history (Lyotard) and the inability of such
> >narratives to think historically (Jameson), and its later
> >adjustments to the conventions of historical discourse
> >wherein postmodernism does its slippery thing of
> >problamatizing the notion of historical knowledge.   I also
> >use the term as it used in philosophy, dating to Heidegger
> >and Nietzche and the "death of metaphysics," a philosophical
> >position that has ancient roots in the Sophists. I also
> >complain about the tactics, I attribute to Derrida
> >principally, of deconstructing great texts with the banal
> >tactic he is now infamous for and refused to respond to, of
> >cutting off a text--Plato is a good example---destroying its
> >meaning and in the process, upsetting the ethics of
> >philosophical hermeneutics. I use the term as it is used in
> >literary criticism by both McHale and wood. I don't want to
> >get into putting TRP in a box. I know that using these terms
> >alienates certain members here, and so I try to avoid them,
> >I have attempted to argue for one year, that a close read of
> >TRP's texts as a traditional American writer--note I, as
> >many do, recognize that postmodern literature in America
> >needs to be considered in light of American literary history
> >and its unique developments. I use these two
> >terms--Menippean Satire and Encyclopedea--with full
> >knowledge of their limitations, but it is not my intention
> >to use them to hide behind, to sound smart, to avoid direct
> >discussion of specific passages or texts, to alienate
> >anyone, to label, to reduce. I am attempting to have
> >meaningful discourse, something I sometimes doubt is
> >possible here, but I nonetheless keep attempting.
> >
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com