Down these mean streets ...

[David Morris]

If this is the Critical Theory take on Beckett I'd say you're right.

But I'd like to say that PN is very defensive, thus his focus on my implying
that he is elitist in his use of jargon.  As I said, elitism is not the focus
of my question, despite my challenging tone.  The value of his language choice
was my question: JARGON.

--- Terrance <lycidas2 at earthlink.net> wrote: 
> Paul Nightingale wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 
> Why bother? You guys are obviously not into the same stuff. 
> 
> maybe of there wuz a text in this argument? 
> 
> I know! Beckett! 
> 
> You've both, no doubt, read SB. 
> 
> OK, just to keep the jargon thing going, Derrida too. 
> 
> The conclusions offered by this study do not point to any meaning
> Beckett has found in absence or the ontological ramifications of
> Derrida’s insistence that the meaning lies without the text. Beckett’s
> work examined as an exercise in narrative and textual representation
> exposes traditional constructs of language and rules of the narrative as
> so grossly inclusive as to strip language of its significance, leaving
> it devoid of
> meaning.  With no other tool for communication, the ludic summation of
> Beckett’s discourse and narrative is ironic— we are forever subject and
> confined to linguistic laws which compromise the ability of a word to
> name or signify, to exactly say.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com