shag carpet bomb wrote:
>
>
> Since I remember making this
same analysis and reading others make in 1994,
> it was even more irritating.
:-)
I agree with everything you say, but I still think it _might_ be worthwhile to write such a book every five years or so. My reason: The people you describe in your post would include, if the year were 1964, a certain Carrol Cox. The difference between 1966, say, and now is that nothing or virtually nothing is going on in the world to give such a book thrust. But if/when mass movements emerge again, in _that_ context some of the people you sneer at now will read books you describe, and a spark will be struck. And since one cannot, as I keep saying, predict when/where/from what sources such movements may emerge, it is necessary to keep a constant flow of the kind of book you describe. (I haven't read it and I missed whateer post named it. I'm just going on what people on this thread have said.)
About 30 years ago he and a co-author whose name I forget published an an essay in Critical Inquiry entitled "Against Theory" that created quite a storm about it in that journal. It's thesis was no theory could constrain the interpretation of a text.
Carrol