> the relentless tendency down unto the present day to view
> the world as a text, and politics as a pretext for
> turgid, interminable proto-literary theorizing.
I object to this on very similar grounds to my objections to using "dogmatism" as a charge: it is essentially unprincipled. The question is the validity of the substance of an argument, not the personal morals or verbal felicity of the person making the argument..
It is also extremely bad tactics. As a friend of mine used to say, Opportunism is seldom opportune, and this constant whine about style is opportunist.. Most (not all) of those who are called pomo operate from utterly unconvincing premises and arrive at utterly unconvincing conclusions (which, in addition, usually turn out to have reactionary political implications). This is true, for example, of Derrida's *Spectres of Marxism*. So why the fuck quibble about their prose style like a freshman complaining about too tough a reading assignment in World History?
Carrol