On Mar 22, 2010, at 3:34 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> Come on, Doug. We were both there and know that pomo was never a
> coherent set of doctrines or even a collection of specific readings
> (as, e.g., at another extreme New Criticism was). Mentioning
> Foucault and Butler is not enough.
>
> It was the pomoists who "didn't engage actual texts"; Eagleton
> certainly did
I can't find Eagleton's book right now, but I distinctly remember he said in the preface that he wasn't engaging text, but a mood.
To say that "pomoists" don't engage any actual texts is surreal. I just turned to a random page (269) of Of Grammatology and see cites of Homer and Rousseau. Or p. 132, a long engagement with Levi-Strauss. Foucault is one text after another. Ditto Butler. What are you talking about?
Doug