Well, I didn't have any problem with the graphicness of the description, though I'd concede it wasn't necessary to the basic point made, just to the fun, the 'play' of the language, so to speak. In fact, having read 'of Grammatology' and a Reader to Derrida's work, I would say that he is making a fairly crude point in excruciatingly drawn out fashion, with malice aforethought against Literature with a capital 'L'- rather like Dahmer actually.
I don't think he's done much damage to Literature that wasn't already implicit in Modernism, with Beckett, Joyce and Eliot, yes, Eliot (IMHO), in the vanguard, but then, society doesn't end because of a mass murderer, so the analogy's a good 'un. As to the particularities and what they might mean, and whether they hold true, no-one has yet ventured to guess.
And, by the way, remember that this is a performance piece!
Mmm Mmm- I'm sitting at Michael's table. What's first on the menu?
[This message has been edited by edeverett (edited September 22, 2003).]
|