[Fwd: Re: Is Bad Writing Necessary?]

[ssherman]

the situation is actually worse than Katha originally stated.  Not only are 
graduated students expected to learn to write that way--they are expected to 
learn to think that way to!  According to the nominalist logic (sic) of 
'radicals', if one part of the world oppresses another part (which we might 
call the south, or the third world), then to identify that part of the world 
(again, as say, 'the third world') is to participate in the oppressive 
structure.  If capitalism is an oppressive system, then to call it a system is 
to participate in it.  In fact, since we all know how hierarchical and 
oppressive structures are, better to emphasize contingency, permeability, 
trangression, etc...  Analyzing the structures becomes akin to supporting 
them, and, although this may seem insane to most readers of this list, trust 
me I am not distorting their message.  In interview situations  they can act 
like quite the minature cops, trying to guard their fortresses against anyone 
who wishes to identify systems, oppressed groups, etc.

Steven Sherman

===== Original Message From lbo-talk at lists.panix.com =====
>On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Dennis R Redmond wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Katha Pollitt wrote:
>>
>> > language. Unlike the audience of either orwell or Adorno, grad students
>> > are not really free to say Butler is turgid and barely
>> > comprehensible--their job is to learn to write that way too!
>>
>> Oh yes we are free to say so, especially if the program is any good at
>> all. Comp Lit programs in particular are places where critical
>> thinking is cherished and respected, and where folks are expected to do
>> the unexpected, if that makes any sense.
>
>Really?  And can they later expect to find permanent jobs
>afterwards?  (I really don't know the answer w.r.t. comp lit,
>but in my experience in academia, you would not.)
>
>
>--
>
>Joseph Noonan
>jfn1 at msc.com