a "p.s.",
Matthew, your reference to Steiner spurred me to take a look again at
Foucault's response ('Monstrosities of criticism'), during a coffee break.
It is incredible, and I felt I should share it's best gem with the
list--it's opening. It reaffirmed to me all anew why I continue to read
the man ...
"There is criticism to which one responds, other criticism to which one
replies. Wrongly perhaps. Why not lend an equally attentive ear to
incomprehension, triviality, ignorance, or bad faith? Why reject these as
so many incidents, regrettable for family honor? Is one correct in
believing them inessential to the activity of criticism? I wonder if there
is not an unfortunate defense reaction involved here: one is afraid, of
course, of acknowledging that these criticisms reach and concern the book
which they abuse; one is afraid of acknowledging that the book has, in a
certain manner, formed and nourished them; but above all else, one is
afraid of recognizing that they are nothing else, perhaps, than a certain
critical grid, a certain manner of coding and transcribing a book, a
singularly systematic transformation. The impostures with the critical
space are like monsters within the realm of living: nevertheless coherent
possibilities.
But they are still waiting for their St. George. I hope that one day
the old divisions will be abolished. The vague moral criterion will no
longer be used which opposes the 'honest' and 'dishonest' criticism--the
'good' criticism which respects the texts of which it speaks, and the 'bad'
criticism which deforms them. All criticism will appear as
transformations, proximate or far-ranging transformations, but which all
have their principles and their laws. And these _petit textes_ with the
sloping brow, the crooked legs, and the veering eye, that one commonly
despises, will enter in the dance where they will execute movements neither
more nor less honorable than the others. One will no longer seek to reply
to them nor to silence their din, but rather to find the reason of their
misshapenness, their lameness, their sightless eyes, their long ears."
... breathtaking ...
_______________________________________________________
Ian Robert Douglas,
Associate Lecturer & Fulbright Fellow,
Watson Institute of International Studies,
Brown University, Box 1831,
130 Hope Street,
Providence, RI 02912
tel: 401 863-2420
fax: 401 863-2192
"Foucault's death was something terrible, not only
because Foucault died, but because France lost a very
important presence who caused imbeciles to hesitate to
speak out, knowing that Foucault was there to respond."
- Gilles Deleuze, 1985
Matthew, your reference to Steiner spurred me to take a look again at
Foucault's response ('Monstrosities of criticism'), during a coffee break.
It is incredible, and I felt I should share it's best gem with the
list--it's opening. It reaffirmed to me all anew why I continue to read
the man ...
"There is criticism to which one responds, other criticism to which one
replies. Wrongly perhaps. Why not lend an equally attentive ear to
incomprehension, triviality, ignorance, or bad faith? Why reject these as
so many incidents, regrettable for family honor? Is one correct in
believing them inessential to the activity of criticism? I wonder if there
is not an unfortunate defense reaction involved here: one is afraid, of
course, of acknowledging that these criticisms reach and concern the book
which they abuse; one is afraid of acknowledging that the book has, in a
certain manner, formed and nourished them; but above all else, one is
afraid of recognizing that they are nothing else, perhaps, than a certain
critical grid, a certain manner of coding and transcribing a book, a
singularly systematic transformation. The impostures with the critical
space are like monsters within the realm of living: nevertheless coherent
possibilities.
But they are still waiting for their St. George. I hope that one day
the old divisions will be abolished. The vague moral criterion will no
longer be used which opposes the 'honest' and 'dishonest' criticism--the
'good' criticism which respects the texts of which it speaks, and the 'bad'
criticism which deforms them. All criticism will appear as
transformations, proximate or far-ranging transformations, but which all
have their principles and their laws. And these _petit textes_ with the
sloping brow, the crooked legs, and the veering eye, that one commonly
despises, will enter in the dance where they will execute movements neither
more nor less honorable than the others. One will no longer seek to reply
to them nor to silence their din, but rather to find the reason of their
misshapenness, their lameness, their sightless eyes, their long ears."
... breathtaking ...
_______________________________________________________
Ian Robert Douglas,
Associate Lecturer & Fulbright Fellow,
Watson Institute of International Studies,
Brown University, Box 1831,
130 Hope Street,
Providence, RI 02912
tel: 401 863-2420
fax: 401 863-2192
"Foucault's death was something terrible, not only
because Foucault died, but because France lost a very
important presence who caused imbeciles to hesitate to
speak out, knowing that Foucault was there to respond."
- Gilles Deleuze, 1985