[lbo-talk] has this been posted to the list before?

[shag]

At 04:24 PM 6/4/2008, Dennis Claxton wrote:
>At 01:10 PM 6/4/2008, Seth Ackerman wrote:
>
>
> >This implied audience is imagined as remarkably docile. Subservient
> >to the oracular voice of
> >Butler's text, and dazzled by its patina of high-concept
> >abstractness, the imagined reader poses
> >few questions, requests no arguments and no clear definitions of terms.
>
>
>It's time to wave a white hanky I guess.  This perfectly describes
>Butler's defenders here.

it is a sly bit of rhetoric, isn't it though. she's accusing butler of 
imagining those sorts of people as her readers. it's a personal attack on 
butler -- logical fallacy yes? -- which suggests that she writes like she 
does, not because her readers are mindless followers of every shiny object 
before them, but because butler doesn't want any real critics or thinkers 
to read her work, can't even imagine that they exist. Hence, she doesn't 
bother to be clear and writes only for her own amusement.

shag