Down these mean streets ...

[Paul Nightingale]

>From David Morris:

> 
> >> You prefered to call what I deemed "jargon" as "being educated,"
> 
> > At no point did I say that. At no point did I imply that.
> 
> You blamed the education system for my lack of following your jargon,

Not 'my' jargon but a recognised critical language. Moreover you confuse
(I'm prepared to accept not deliberately) two separate issues. Firstly
you miss what I assumed was an obvious reference to another, now
dead-&-buried discussion. Then you missed the distinction I made (I
think quite explicitly) between critical language that was acceptable
(ie knowledge of modal auxiliaries, taught as part of grammar within
English/language studies) and critical language that might be frowned
upon still (ie the kind of critical theory that's, generally speaking,
ignored as being irrelevant to the 'proper appreciation' of literature).
My comment was flippant (perhaps too much so) as I went from "might
blame education" to "do blame education" - the reference to the earlier
discussion, one I now realise you probably 'missed' because I now
remember you saying you deleted everything.

Perhaps there has been genuine misunderstanding here; although I think
if you're going to criticise a particular line of inquiry you should be
prepared to follow what's being said. So I don't see why I should accept
responsibility.

> and
> then
> asked why someone like me who reads Pynchon wouldn't take the time to
> learn the
> language you were using.

However, here you do get into a tangle, and there's really no excusing
it. I said P was both difficult and also read by, well, fewer people
than some other writers. We don't accuse him of being elitist (although
possibly you do, I've no idea what you think since you never have
anything to say about his writing) and we don't complain that he should
write stories that appeal to a wider readership (perhaps you do). Which
I think corresponds quite closely to the way you attacked critical
theory.

Then I suggest a contradiction between one who is prepared to persevere
with Pynchon but doesn't acknowledge any value in the kind of critical
approach that might itself demand perseverance. It seems to me that you
have to attack critical theory on the grounds of what a given argument
says, and how well it stands up to scrutiny; you don't dismiss it just
because its language is that of a particular "special activity or
group". However, to engage with theory you have to read it first; and
you're prepared to dismiss something you appear to have no knowledge of.
If you wish to prove me wrong on that score (because I still await your
first serious contribution to any discussion) I'm ready to discuss
discourse theory with you.