Down these mean streets ...

[Paul Mackin]

On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 22:33, David Morris wrote:
> 
> 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.

It may well be that a new critical theory is needed to challenge the
classical paradigms of the discussion list.

P.
> 
> --- 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