> finally, thanks katha for finally putting into words exactly what the
> problem with her writing is. fact is, i read portions of her diss as an
> undergrad [a prof went to grad school with her]. that was fairly
> accessible. so, perhaps you could tell me, since i've only ever worked
> with two editors. don't the editors play some role here? i realize that
> i've worked with folks whose aim was specifically to publish for a wide
> audience, so our goal was to be accessible --so the editors were tough. so
> is it that different when it comes to academic press publishing?
>
I think how much editing you get on a book varies a lot. A famous prof like Butler probably gets what she wants. There's much less editing on books in general that there used to be, because of cutbacks. If a writer who can't write (David halberstam is supposed to be a famous example) has a manuscript that has terrific best-seller potential, a commercial publishing house will fix it up for him/her. I don't think academic publishing houses have those resources.
But there ARE writers -- even at The nation! -- who feel they have something to say and know they can't really get it across: can't organize, write clearly, make logical arguments etc. those people often seek out editorial help and are truly grateful! I think if JB felt that she had a problem, there would have been people she could have turned to.
But nothing JB has ever said suggests she wants to express herself more clearly, more accessibly, more concretely. Au contraire, she dismisses these criticisms as veiled attacks on her radical politics. I really think the obscurity of her writing is part of the mystique. It marks it as the property of an in-club of initiates. i thought it was pretty funny the way my students went on about how 'elitist" Betty Friedan was, for writing about middle class women. "the Feminist Mystique" is written to be read by ordinary people, and in fact reached millions. Judith Butler's writings are truly elitist, in the sense that only a tiny elite can read them.
My students (going for masters at New School) were fascinated with Butler, but none of them could really give an account of her argument in gender trouble. I think what they liked was that it was a way of thinking about feminism that was about clothes, makeup, body language and self-presentation -- things they are very interested in. Thus, one student gave this as an example of how she "performed her gender differently": when she visits the boat club where her boyfriend sails, she likes to dress up a bit and carry on intelligent conversations with the other guys who hang out there. She feels the men find a contrast between "feminine dress" (slacks and sweater, a little jewelry, a scarf) and brains -- and she enjoys confronting them with the fact that a woman can have both.
so: wearing conventionally "nice" clothes is "transgressive"! If only her mom knew.
Katha