Well, I haven't read Derrida, and I haven't been around in Academia long enough to see the effect that all of this "newfangled theory" is having on our appreciation of literature. I must say, though, that I found this piece much more disturbing than funny, which was not my reaction to Gulliver's Travels. Would the intellectuals Swift was satirizing have been amused at some of the action in that book? It strikes me as plausible, even if they denied the aptness of the analogy. Could postmodern critics possibly be amused by this piece? Far less likely, to my mind. But maybe I have a poor sense of humor.
I guess, too, in regards to the larger argument on this thread and the other, that I come with a built-in and possibly naive prejudice on behalf of esteemed authors. Though I haven't read Derrida, I find it hard to believe that his thought is as simple-minded as I've seen it represented here; most great writers see all of the issue they deal with and are pushed in the direction they are not by whim but by their perception of some over-riding necessity; again, I don't know what it might be in Derrida's case, except that I doubt he's as irresponsible as he's being made out to be. So when I get around to reading him, I will approach him as I do everyone else: looking for what he has to teach me rather than what I can criticize him for. And that's the way I read all the "Great Books," which Tom distrusts so much, not to criticize, but to appreciate them. Criticism is far easier to do, in my opinion, especially if we take old authors on our terms rather than their own, and I think one stretches oneself and learns more when one does the latter.
Chris
|
Threaded Mode
