right. *cringe* sorry for overposting. but dadburnitall! we've covered this ground a million times! what's wrong with a division of labor?
judith butler is or was a fave whipping chick, as I recall. yet, when you read her academic books, she isn't trying to reach my dad and his buddies at the elk's club. she isn't even trying to reach terribly many undergraduates! so? are these people whining that they aren't understood by ordinary people? are they even whining that lefties don't get them? if not, then why does anyone care that their jargon excludes you, the reader? do you really want to be let in? and, what would you do if you did get in?
anway, rant over. back to JB. this summer she wrote a piece for the London Review of Books that no one (or very few) would call turgid or incomprehensible. It may not be of interest to my pops, but then she still isn't trying to reach pops when she's writing for LRoB. why hold her up to those standards, when she isn't running around _claiming_ she is trying or even wants to reach the guys keeping the pool cues warm at the elk's club?
The Red-Orange wankers are incredibly turgid writers. Their prose are typically filled to the brim with neologisms that disturb even me, and I'm pretty tolerant of that sort of thing. I seem to recall one sentence running on for a third of a column. But,the Red Orange Marxists weren't interested in reaching the masses. Their target was self-identified leftish academics. So? If your problem is that they're wasting precious time and energy, that's understandable. But, rilly, who honestly cares? I usually disagree with that attitude so much so that I'm glad they're inept.
how many critics of JB's prose are criticizing her because they want her to write better so her ideas are read by more people?
kelley