>In the course of my works, I utilize methods that are part of the classic
>repertory: demonstration, proof by means of historical documentation,
>quoting other texts, referral to authoritative comments, the relationship
>between ideas and facts, the proposal of explanatory patterns, etc.
>There's nothing original in that [Yoshie: Because of this very lack of
>pretense to 'originality' in the _style_ of writing, Foucault is the most
>readable and useful -- for the Marxists who are interested in the history
>of modern social control -- among all the postmodernists, who are more
>given to the rhetorical gestures of self-reflexivity than Foucault is]
"Indifference to style...is almost always symptomatic of the dogmatic sclerosis of content. The false modesty implicit in a style which believes itself to be dispassionate, as long as it abstains from self-reflection, only succeeds in concealing the fact that it has purified the dialectical process of its objective, as well as subjective, value. Dialectics are paid lip-service, but for such a thinker all has been decided in advance. The writing becomes undialectical."--Theodor Adorno, "Reconciliation Under Duress"
or, as someone else said:
"I got style, miles and miles/so much style that it's wasting."--Steve Malkmus (Pavement), "Frontwards"
I think you've got it backwards (ha-ha), Yoshie. Have you ever read Marx? Guy's got style like a motherfuck. Style to burn. Style, miles and miles. Which of course, besides the brilliance of his thought, is one of the reasons we still read him: because he turns a mean phrase, makes apt allusions writes clear and engaging sentences, and is almost always--gasp!--entertaining.
It is, to my mind, the pomoers whose writing is styleless. Reading Judy B. reminds me of listening to an early Swans record: impenetrable drone punctuated by almost nothing except the occasional heartless yelp. Difference being that I have found the center of Swans music a couple of times.
Eric