From: Erik D Lindberg <edl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 18:45:54 -0500 (CDT)
On Mon, 10 Apr 1995, Stephen Katz wrote:
> right be Mr. Gumps about it; in other words, we do have an obligation
> not to be stupid, and criticize poor intepretations, like Miller's.
In general I agree, completely, though I also am not very familiar
with the Miller text. But I would like to express some sentiments that
are parallel to some of the ones we've heard lately, though I will also
try to offer a mediatory (somewhat) observation.
I have also been on the list for about a month and have been fairly
dissapointed, too. This is largely because most of the exchanges serve
only a biliographic function, giving lists of relavent books. I would prefer
more discussion (but that has to happen somewhat spontaneously, I
But in serving a bibliographic function, the list does, at the same
time, work largely to regulate which books are legitimate and which aren't.
This isn't to say that the people who offer bibliographical advice aren't
being nice and helpful. But if that's ALL the list does, well, we all
know how Foucault would interpret it. . . . The recent posts about the Miller book can be seen as a more extreme version
of the same regulating function.
Why not start this ethos of "criticism" by DISCUSSING the Miller book. I
know it is controversial, but I also know of good scholars who have found
some of Miller's interpretations useful. Is there anyone out there who
can offer some sort of defense of the book? Will those who don't like it
give an argument why? I am interested in hearing both views.
Erik D. Lindberg
Dept. of English and Comparative Lit.
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, WI 53211