I'm not sure I actually do have a problem with a few good elegant writer-speakers doing that preaching, but the question is whether there is a balance of preaching and provocation.
-- Nathan Newman
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dwayne Monroe" <idoru345 at yahoo.com>
Subuhi Jiwani sounds like a person of good will. There is, for example, an open admission of jealously towards Roy because of her elegance as a writer and a speaker.
I'm having a hard time though, figuring out what the real point of this critique is.
Is it that simple hero worship is a bad thing and we should follow up our admiration with verifying research? Okay, I agree.
Is it that Roy, and other charismatic speakers and writers who come from non geo-political fields have to prove through painstaking research and heavy footnoting that their assertions are based in fact? Yes, that would be nice but if I'm writing my opinion, not an absolute requirement.
Reading this critique, I get the feeling that it's the simple fact that Roy is popular and speaks in the way that artists do, as opposed to the Chomskyist super footnote approach, that causes dismay.
I've read similar critiques of the anti 'empire' writings of Gore Vidal (not enough facts, just his opinion, language too flowery and so on) and of Zizek (what the hell is he talking about, why won't he get to the point?). Isn't there enough room for the writers of beautiful prose, the wiggy philosophers, the brilliant, ahead of their time, seers and plain folk with sensible things to say? I'm not talking about a froo froo 'celebration of diversity' but an acknowledgement that we need all hands all deck.
No one is above criticism but there's something vaguely petty about this.
DRM
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk