>note to eric: i swear i have an immense difficulty comprehending most of
>the writings of subcommandante marcos of the EZLN, and i'm told that this
>is because it is steeped in the mythic stories of chiapas and mexico. and
>i swear that i still can't make head or tail of recent conversations on
>this list on the US business cycle and spending, no matter how hard i tried
>(and then got easily distracted), because i assume its steeped in the
>mythic stories of washington commentators and the US treasury. but it's
>never occured to me to argue that this is the fault of those who talk like
>this, as if there should be a universal idiom, that it should be mine or
>defer to mine. wouldn't that be an unpleasant kind of narcissism?
Well, sure. I think perhaps we miscommunicated on this. In my initial post I purposefully avoided that old argument about clear vs. unintelligible writing, pomo vs. mo, etc. Frankly, I'm rather tired of that whole debate, which I think has lead nowhere. The (deeply hidden) "message"--dig the way I pomoistically put quotes around that word to show that it's a...oh, never mind--embedded in my post was actually criticizing Spivak for reviving that tired conversation as a defense of herself (see my response to Doug). So I agree with what you have written here. Abstractly, at least; perhaps in "real-life"--there I go again--situations we would have differences.
>why would spivak, bhabha or said have to write in language that eagleton,
>or you or i, understand? why is it so easy to forget that an idiom is
>learned? said mentions someplace that the only adults who never really
>forget this are those who come from a culture and language which is either
>marginal or different to the one in which they write and work. perhaps
>this remembrance makes demands that 'everyone should write so everyone can
>understand' sound incredibly hypocritical. who knows? it sounds like that
>to me.
Again, I agree. I think. I'm not sure I see it as hypocritical. Self-centered and arrogant seems more accurate.
In fact--and I write this just to prove my own credibility in this regard--I am at the moment one-third of the way through Ulysses (my first time!). Talk about learning new idioms! Yes, Jimmy Joyce writes in English, but I am learning whole new languages of novel structure, thought, and experience, idioms that I have never experienced before and that force me to constantly reevaluate the one that I use. So I certainly wouldn't expect Spivak, or anyone else, to write in my idiom. That would be, well, maybe hypocritical is the right word.
Eric