[lbo-talk] struttin'

[joanna]

I think the only convincing argument one could make with respect to 
Butler would be to take one of her passages and rewrite it in clear, 
lucid prose. I briefly thought of doing that with the "universals" 
passage that you posted, but I don't have the energy or the time. I 
didn't think it was her obfuscatory worst. I thought it was relatively 
OK for academic prose.

The truth is that it takes a lot of time and work to make things clear. 
I am currently revising about 900 pages of technical documentation. It's 
about the fifth go-round on this set of books, and I still see huge 
amounts of stuff that can be improved.

We are trained to be prejudiced in favor of "powerful" abstractions and 
generalities. Unfortunately.

Joanna

Rotating Bitch wrote:


> Wow that is such a great assertion you have there Carrol! LOL. Can't 
> wait for an actual argument.
>
> Rotating Bitch wrote:
> >
> >>
> > Of course, by the horrid, horrid Butler who writes incomprehensibly.
>
> Every lucid sentence Butler publishes provides further support for those
> who have argued that her major works are deliberately unintelligible in
> order to conceal the fact that their substance is mere tautology.
>
> In the early summer of 1999 I spent an enormous amount of time reading
> and rereading her _Bodies That Matter_. That work is empty of content.
>
> Carrol
>
>
> "You know how it is, come for the animal porn,
> stay for the cultural analysis." -- Michael Berube
>
> Bitch | Lab
> http://blog.pulpculture.org 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>