Re: Unthinkable in Literature

--============_-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============--

Partial thread listing: