Re: Bad Writing?


Been away for a few days, hence no reply. But I think Clare has done this
already, making what I would have said largely superfluous. But, to concede
a little, AK is torturous, and F spends more time explaining what he is not
doing, than what he is. That said, I think it's one of his most rewarding
books, and with Birth of the Clinic, one of the most neglected.

Best wishes


-----Original Message-----
From: colin holmes <c.holmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, February 22, 1999 05:49
Subject: Re: Bad Writing?

>Clare, thank you for responding to my query about the little excerpt from
>I can't read French, and translation is always problematic, but yours is
>certainly clearer and more suggestive of a meaning to me than the Sheridan
>Smith translation - thank you.
>I tend to think of discourses as three-dimensional entities, rather like
>global amoeba, claiming vacant or disputed discursive space, and having
>ever-changing surfaces, so 'dissolving' and 'solidity' are terms that I can
>cope with. Even so, like you, I find it difficult to quite grasp Foucault's
>point here, and it seems to contradict what he has said earlier in the
>book. Surely archaeology does try to expose precisely those sorts of
>(otherwise) seamless links and transitions? In parts of 'Archaeology',
>transition points, and points of contact and exchange, are an explicit
>focus of attention. I wonder if there is a qualifying statement in the
>Since one person dismissed my original query by saying that the sentence
>was "perfectly lucid", are we perhaps missing something? Perhaps Stuart E,
>John R, Tom D and others have a view about the passage, and context, in
>question (?)
>Kind regards,
>Colin Holmes,
>Western Sydney

Partial thread listing: