reply to Dennis

[Gary MacLennan]

At 09:54 AM 6/23/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Gary wrote:
>
>>my complaint about a lot of post modernism is that it is just
>>Nietzschean balderdash dressed up in complex language.
>
>
>I agree, but there's bullshit writing of all kinds.  If you throw out a
>generalized 'postmodernism' do you include Frederic Jameson or David
>Harvey? And how do you respond to Terry Eagleton, who criticizes what he
>calls 'the illusions of postmodernism' but  makes a big effort to
>understand the attraction? Is he just wasting his time?
>
>>I am  at a loss to understand your reference to my remarks on the
>>'materiality of homosexuality'.  If you care to enlarge I will reply.
>
>
>I only wanted to point out that you were holding off-the-cuff comments made
>at a conference up to critical scrutiny and that your own quickly written
>note is at least as spongy as anything Brown said.
>
>

Spongy !!! how dare you!  Them's fighting words, Claxton.  

But the problem with working within a Bhaskarian framework is that it lays
one open to such off the cuff philistinism.

But to be serious, Dennis, my thoughts on postmodernism have develped over
long bitter years.  If you ever come to Brisbane I will try and introduce
you to some pomos here.  They were beyond vicious to the Marxist Left when
they were dominant.  Now that the new realists/pragmatists/policy types are
taking them out, we old Lefties could be forgiven, IMHO,  for the odd smug
smile.

Now Eagleton is an uneven writer.  Some of his stuff is very good but there
is a fair lot of pot boiling going on in between.  Not like us.

As for Jameson, I do not count him in the pomo camp at all. 

The point I was trying to make was not primarily about the bad writing of
the post-modernists.  You are quite correct when you say there is shocking
writing on all sides. However for me the crucial point is that the pomo
project is neo-Nietzschean in essence - even when the writing is reasonable
as in Foucault's last books on sexuality.

regards

Gary