From: Webb, Steve (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Feb 28 2002 - 07:44:01 MST
I never meant to imply that none of these people have valid points to make. In response to Alex's question, the reason that some people find these works frustrating is that the authors seem to want to put forth a rational argument, but choose to obfuscate their ideas by dressing them up in an unnecessarily baroque language. This is less annoying when we're dealing with fiction or poetry, or when we just want to free-associate ideas rather than think in a rigorously rational manner. It is in the latter sense that I've read and appreciated works like Baudillard's _In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities_, Latour's _Aramis_, and McLuhan's _Understanding Media_. If you approach these books expecting to get find a fully fleshed-out theory you're going to be frustrated. But if you approach it like beach combing and just wade through the literary curlicues and bric-a-brac looking for interesting ideas and metaphors you're bound to find some real gems.
(Note also that the analysis wasn't mine, I was quoting from the Atlantic Online.)
From: Richard Steven Hack [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:19 PM
Subject: RE: Poetry (was Hakim Bey )
I agree with your analysis of the French (and derivative "pomo" )
thought. However, the point to keep in mind that some of these people DO
have valid - to some degree, presumably - points to make and dismissing it
all as "crap" might be premature. Not that I haven't done it in some
I guess you have to decide whether the topic being discussed is worth the
energy and time needed to decipher the propositions being made from the
poetry being used to make them.
Richard Steven Hack
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:41 MST