[lbo-talk] Prose Style, was Time to Get Religion

Tayssir John Gabbour tayssir.john at googlemail.com
Thu Dec 7 08:14:15 PST 2006


On 12/7/06, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> Most arguments about "obscurantism" have the hidden premise that people
> write obscurely ON PURPOSE. That they _could_ write clearly but do not
> because of improper motives.
>
> But no one has provided one iota of EVIDENCE for this.
>
> An attack on the morals of 10s of thousands of people (without evidence)
> is being disguised as a discussion of rhetoric.
>
> There has been no recognition at all of how fucking hard it is to write
> well.

Even Zizek publicly makes these claims. Commenting on Lacan's TV appearance (whom he obviously admires):

"Look, the way he moves now, and so on, these gestures. I find this ridiculous. He emphasizes, 'One cannot say all the truth. It's impossible materially." This ridiculous emphasis, I think it's pure fake, an empty gesture, as if he makes a deep point there. He does not.

"I read Lacan in a very classical way. What interests me is his underlying propositions, the underlying logic. Not his style. His style is a total fake, I think. I try to forget it, I try to repress it. Maybe it works as a strategy, at a certain point, 'Why not, first we have to seduce people with obscure statements,' but I hate this kind of approach. I'm a total Enlightment person. I believe in clear statements and so on."

I don't even think it's "an attack on the morals of 10s of thousands of people," but rather it's an institutional problem... Happens in many lines of work for understandable reasons, including my own field. (And leftists of all people should welcome serious criticism, for being so good at dishing it out.)

Tayssir



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list