probably because neither Zizek nor Reed would say that the reason we should care about the poor is because they are victims and the working class literature is only good because they create literature by "overcoming an obstacle, the obstacle of being working class or poor."
it's not that he's wrong about that. rather, it's that he refuses to acknowledge that no one who advances the study of working class literature actuallyl wants to ignore those conditions and pretend that we are now valorizing working classness or poverty.
i mean, do you see the bad subjects crowd as uniformly interested in valorizing working classness so that we could all sit around and ooo and ahhh about how cool it is to be working class?
reading Michaels you would think that is exactly what all of us were up to. The anthology you once tried to put together? For Michaels, it would be just one more piece of shit in a pile of acaemic crap where we are admonished to valorize working class culture.
is that what you thought you were doing?
I thought not.
shag