Down these mean streets ...

[Paul Nightingale]

David Morris wrote:

> 
> OK, you weren't refering to MY education, per se, but the general lack
of
> "critical theory that's, generally speaking, ignored as being
irrelevant
> to the
> 'proper appreciation' of literature."  But let's back up a bit.
Despite
> your
> claim that I'm calling you an elitist,

Which you haven't denied.

> you've just passed over my question
> of
> if it's possible to communicate the ideas you're aiming for without
the
> jargon.
>  That's where I started with all this.

No, you started by trying to put me on the defensive. When I analysed
(sorry, interpreted - another running gag) your first post ("Hence the
rhetorical devices you employ are designed to put me on the
defensive") you responded: "How astute", which I'm entitled to take as
your (flippant?) agreement, an open admission that besting me was rather
more important than the issue itself.

> >
> > 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.
> 
> I have a very limited knowlege of critical theory.

As indeed we all have.

>  I have read some (not
> all)
> of an introduction to Lacan called The Unconscious Structured Like a
> Language.
> I found it interesting.  So I have a concept of the nature of the gap
> between
> the signifier and signified, but I by no means have mastered it.  I
plan
> to go
> back and finish it (starting over) soon.  But that focuses on
psychology,
> so I
> don't have an understanding of its literary application.
> 
> But now that we're talking politely - and we did get offtrack because
of
> the
> misunderstanding you mentioned above - can you answer my first
question?
> Do
> these concepts need the jargon to survive?

That was not your question. In the first instance, you asked me to plead
guilty (and subsequently you added that my guilt was not in doubt). The
question you now ask is rather more serious (as indeed I said/implied in
my first response). I'll get back to you later.