--============_-1222047992==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>(Judith Surkis (1996) No Fun and Games Until Someone Loses an Eye:
>Transgression and Masculinity in Bataille and Foucault (Diacritics Vol 26 no
>2 Summer 1996 p.29).
Thank you for the Surkis [Circus? :)] reference.
>This seems to me to be a similar criticism of Foucault's writing as the
>grievance expressed by Guibert.
I'm unfamiliar with Guibert's criticism/grievance. Can you provide a
cite please?
>Though Surkis's complaint is that Foucault
>ignores the 'female partner' in Bataille's writing in Eroticism, similarly
>Guibert expresses regret (?) at Foucault's refusal to describe (for example
>in a Blanchotesque style?) the loss of the male object of homosexual desire.
How would you characterize it as Blanchotesque?
>For me the problem with both views is that they elide the transcendental and
>sovereign status of the desiring 'lover'. (For me 'Lover' is a problem word
>as it is also transcendental or implies an absolute state. Maybe it would be
>better to say imaginary lover. Or better still imaginary object of desire.)
Sounds vaguely Lacanian?
With thanks, Bob
--============_-1222047992==_ma============
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
<excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>(Judith Surkis (1996)
<italic>No Fun and Games Until Someone Loses an Eye:
Transgression and Masculinity in Bataille and Foucault</italic>
(Diacritics Vol 26 no
2 Summer 1996 p.29).
</smaller></fontfamily></excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>
Thank you for the Surkis [Circus? :)] reference.
<excerpt>This seems to me to be a similar criticism of Foucault's
writing as the
grievance expressed by Guibert.
</excerpt>
I'm unfamiliar with Guibert's criticism/grievance. Can you provide a
cite please?
<excerpt>Though Surkis's complaint is that Foucault
ignores the 'female partner' in Bataille's writing in
<italic>Eroticism, </italic>similarly
Guibert expresses regret (?) at Foucault's refusal to describe (for
example
in a Blanchotesque style?) the loss of the male object of homosexual
desire.
</excerpt>
How would you characterize it as Blanchotesque?
<excerpt>For me the problem with both views is that they elide the
transcendental and
sovereign status of the desiring 'lover'. (For me 'Lover' is a problem
word
as it is also transcendental or implies an absolute state. Maybe it
would be
better to say imaginary lover. Or better still imaginary object of
desire.)
</excerpt>
Sounds vaguely Lacanian?
With thanks, Bob
</smaller></fontfamily>
--============_-1222047992==_ma============--
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>(Judith Surkis (1996) No Fun and Games Until Someone Loses an Eye:
>Transgression and Masculinity in Bataille and Foucault (Diacritics Vol 26 no
>2 Summer 1996 p.29).
Thank you for the Surkis [Circus? :)] reference.
>This seems to me to be a similar criticism of Foucault's writing as the
>grievance expressed by Guibert.
I'm unfamiliar with Guibert's criticism/grievance. Can you provide a
cite please?
>Though Surkis's complaint is that Foucault
>ignores the 'female partner' in Bataille's writing in Eroticism, similarly
>Guibert expresses regret (?) at Foucault's refusal to describe (for example
>in a Blanchotesque style?) the loss of the male object of homosexual desire.
How would you characterize it as Blanchotesque?
>For me the problem with both views is that they elide the transcendental and
>sovereign status of the desiring 'lover'. (For me 'Lover' is a problem word
>as it is also transcendental or implies an absolute state. Maybe it would be
>better to say imaginary lover. Or better still imaginary object of desire.)
Sounds vaguely Lacanian?
With thanks, Bob
--============_-1222047992==_ma============
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
<excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>(Judith Surkis (1996)
<italic>No Fun and Games Until Someone Loses an Eye:
Transgression and Masculinity in Bataille and Foucault</italic>
(Diacritics Vol 26 no
2 Summer 1996 p.29).
</smaller></fontfamily></excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>
Thank you for the Surkis [Circus? :)] reference.
<excerpt>This seems to me to be a similar criticism of Foucault's
writing as the
grievance expressed by Guibert.
</excerpt>
I'm unfamiliar with Guibert's criticism/grievance. Can you provide a
cite please?
<excerpt>Though Surkis's complaint is that Foucault
ignores the 'female partner' in Bataille's writing in
<italic>Eroticism, </italic>similarly
Guibert expresses regret (?) at Foucault's refusal to describe (for
example
in a Blanchotesque style?) the loss of the male object of homosexual
desire.
</excerpt>
How would you characterize it as Blanchotesque?
<excerpt>For me the problem with both views is that they elide the
transcendental and
sovereign status of the desiring 'lover'. (For me 'Lover' is a problem
word
as it is also transcendental or implies an absolute state. Maybe it
would be
better to say imaginary lover. Or better still imaginary object of
desire.)
</excerpt>
Sounds vaguely Lacanian?
With thanks, Bob
</smaller></fontfamily>
--============_-1222047992==_ma============--