Spivak sez...

Jim heartfield jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk
Wed Oct 13 08:21:04 PDT 1999


In message <Pine.PMDF.3.96.991012154539.538976853A- 100000 at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>, Dennis R Redmond <dredmond at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU> writes
>Eagleton can be interesting, but he misses the point: theory does not
>think in sentences. It's the grammar, the space between the sentences,
>through which the lightning-bolt of content flashes.

Eloquent, but meaning what, exactly? Is grammar the 'space between sentences'? Does theory really dispense with sentences. I often tell students to listen to the meaning, not the form of words. But I suspect that GC Spivak would object. In my experience, bad sentences suggest weak thoughts.

I am glad to hear from Doug that Spivak spoke well, because when I saw her she was like a nutty old bag lady, flicking back and forward through a great ledger of tightly written notes, reading out passages of her own rather densely packed thoughts, as though the order they came in was of no great account. The overall impression was of someone deep in the pit of schizophrenia. Apart from that, I am of course deeply prejudiced against her because she denounced me as a 'racist' on the grounds that I quoted Francis Bacon, and therefore supported the colonisation of nature by reason (as I've related before). I haven't read her book, so I won't comment. Eagleton's review though, was well argued and seemed convincing. He can be pious, it is true. But generally, he is on the side of the angels. -- Jim heartfield



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list