Sorta Like the Schoenberg one plus the malaise and Weimar and WW3

Posted by Max | Fri Sep 6th 2002 1 a.m.

Post-Modernism?!
Michael Albert

A little over two years ago, preparing to ride from Boston to New York to
attend the Socialist Scholars Conference, I asked a scholar friend to
explain "post-modernism" in the four to five hours we would spend on the
road. He accepted, and we rode-he lecturing and me listening.

When we got to New York if someone had walked up and asked, "What is
post-modernism?" I could not have answered. Four hours and I still didn't
know what "post-modernism" referred to. Three interpretations spring to
mind.

My tutor was an idiot incapable of explaining one concept in four hours.

I am an idiot incapable of understanding one concept in four hours.

The concept is idiotic, a vague pastiche of mush covering a range too broad
to clarify in four hours.

The third possibility, as you might guess, is my favorite. But how could a
concept which engenders shelves of books be nearly empty? Here's my
hypothesis: Literary theory is largely a sham literary theorists use to
cajole regal treatment from their professional cohorts, bosses, students,
and broader intellectual community.

How can I commit such blasphemy?

First, calling an academic discipline phony is often common sense, not
blasphemy.

Take mainstream economics. Nearly the entire "neoclassical" economic edifice
is constructed to legitimate the rewards of economists by pleasing the
corporate piper who pays the bills. Thus, mainstream economists mainly
"prove" capitalism's worth or indicate how capitalists can better pursue
their own ends and rarely try to understand how the system works, who
benefits, who loses, and why.

Or take academic political science. Again, the idea is not actually to
understand the government-who would pay scholars to do this?-but to
"theorize government" in ways that justify official behavior.

I doubt that Z readers would recoil in horror at these condemnations of
mainstream economics and politics. I even think most Z readers would
probably find supporting evidence quite convincing. For example, surveys
reveal that economics graduate students accept these horrible assertions
about their own profession, and the best first-hand documentation of the
inner workings of the U.S. government, such as the Pentagon Papers, are
exactly the materials that political science departments never bother to
study.

But literary theory? Surely this can't be phony. After all, the most obscure
practitioners of literary theory are often radicals and self-serving
mystification is never radical.

Nonetheless, suppose you are an English literature teacher and you want a
high salary, intellectual status, and tenure. How does reading and
discussing literature warrant receipt of such goodies? Wouldn't admitting
that such matter-of-fact activity was the essence of teaching English
literature make it hard to justify big bucks, big status, tenure, and paid
trips to distant conferences? To justify these rewards there must be a
"theory" that takes years to master and that some people employ better than
others, at least in their own eyes.

Enter literary theory, an incomprehensible tangle of concepts and phrases
made so dense and vague that:

No one who isn't willing to suspend rationality can use it.

No one can possibly get enough of a grip on it to counter or refute it.

Anyone who attempts to can be ridiculed on the grounds of not understanding
the theory in the first place.

Thus, with their incomprehensible "discourse" in place, literary theorists
have a defensible academic niche. The fact that many students feel like
dummies because they don't have a clue what's going on is apparently
insufficient reason for anyone in the club to rock the boat.

Now I admit that the above is very harsh and no more than an undefended
hypothesis. And I also admit that the reason for the lack of supporting
textual evidence is because my attempts to find a literary theory book that
I can comprehend sufficiently to assess have been futile. Here's the kind of
"discourse" you have to comprehend to read even what the less obscure
literary theorists say about novels, movies, MTV, modern architecture, pop
songs, and modern literature: post-modern moment, binarisms, overdetermined
conflict, pure systematicity, post-structuralism, hermeneutic,
metanarrative, deconstruction, irreducible materiality, semiotics, and
dialogism.

Not understanding these tangled terms and doubting the need to use them to
comment sensibly on pop music's Talking Heads, TV's "The Young and the
Restless," Hollywood's Star Wars, baseball's Dodgers Stadium, or
literature's Ishmael Reed, I more than happily grant that my hypothesis that
these terms mean nothing may be wrong. Perhaps "irreducible materiality" and
"pure systematicity" are exactly the concepts needed to "theorize" Madonna.
But if so, it still ought to be possible for literary theorists to describe,
popularize, and generally make understandable what their results are so the
rest of us can know there is something real going on behind all the obscure
terminology. Even the most difficult physics can be described so average
persons get a good idea of the main results and questions. If it can be done
for theories about quarks, gluons, big bangs, and black holes, it ought to
be able to be done for theories about everyday culture and communication.

So, please, someone tell me what I can read to understand literary theory so
that I can withdraw my hypothesis and write an informative summary. I'll bet
not one percent of Z's readers can define the earlier listed terms. So
wouldn't it be sensible to let the rest of us in on the action, assuming
there is any?

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
  • Pall Thayer | Sat Sep 7th 2002 1 a.m.
    Post-modernism is tough because we're living in it. It's like if you
    spent your life inside a certain house. You know the inside of the house
    very well but if you had to tell someone what the house looks like from
    the outside, you're in trouble. You have to be able to step outside to
    do that and since post-modernism has been applied to pretty much every
    facet of our lives today, you really can't do that. Sit next to someone
    else when you attend your next Socialist Scholars Conference and in the
    same four hours, you'll most likely get an entirely different, although
    equally complicated, explanation of post-modernism. No-one has really
    reached an agreement on what exactly it is.

    At least that's how I understand it.

    Hinn 7.09.2002 kl. 03:08 ritadhi Max Herman:

    >
    >
    > Post-Modernism?!
    > Michael Albert
    >
    >
    > A little over two years ago, preparing to ride from Boston to New York
    > to
    > attend the Socialist Scholars Conference, I asked a scholar friend to
    > explain "post-modernism" in the four to five hours we would spend on the
    > road. He accepted, and we rode-he lecturing and me listening.
    >
    > When we got to New York if someone had walked up and asked, "What is
    > post-modernism?" I could not have answered. Four hours and I still
    > didn't
    > know what "post-modernism" referred to. Three interpretations spring to
    > mind.
    >
    > My tutor was an idiot incapable of explaining one concept in four hours.
    >
    > I am an idiot incapable of understanding one concept in four hours.
    >
    > The concept is idiotic, a vague pastiche of mush covering a range too
    > broad
    > to clarify in four hours.
    >
    > The third possibility, as you might guess, is my favorite. But how
    > could a
    > concept which engenders shelves of books be nearly empty? Here's my
    > hypothesis: Literary theory is largely a sham literary theorists use to
    > cajole regal treatment from their professional cohorts, bosses,
    > students,
    > and broader intellectual community.
    >
    > How can I commit such blasphemy?
    >
    > First, calling an academic discipline phony is often common sense, not
    > blasphemy.
    >
    > Take mainstream economics. Nearly the entire "neoclassical" economic
    > edifice
    > is constructed to legitimate the rewards of economists by pleasing the
    > corporate piper who pays the bills. Thus, mainstream economists mainly
    > "prove" capitalism's worth or indicate how capitalists can better pursue
    > their own ends and rarely try to understand how the system works, who
    > benefits, who loses, and why.
    >
    > Or take academic political science. Again, the idea is not actually to
    > understand the government-who would pay scholars to do this?-but to
    > "theorize government" in ways that justify official behavior.
    >
    > I doubt that Z readers would recoil in horror at these condemnations of
    > mainstream economics and politics. I even think most Z readers would
    > probably find supporting evidence quite convincing. For example, surveys
    > reveal that economics graduate students accept these horrible assertions
    > about their own profession, and the best first-hand documentation of the
    > inner workings of the U.S. government, such as the Pentagon Papers, are
    > exactly the materials that political science departments never bother to
    > study.
    >
    > But literary theory? Surely this can't be phony. After all, the most
    > obscure
    > practitioners of literary theory are often radicals and self-serving
    > mystification is never radical.
    >
    > Nonetheless, suppose you are an English literature teacher and you
    > want a
    > high salary, intellectual status, and tenure. How does reading and
    > discussing literature warrant receipt of such goodies? Wouldn't
    > admitting
    > that such matter-of-fact activity was the essence of teaching English
    > literature make it hard to justify big bucks, big status, tenure, and
    > paid
    > trips to distant conferences? To justify these rewards there must be a
    > "theory" that takes years to master and that some people employ better
    > than
    > others, at least in their own eyes.
    >
    > Enter literary theory, an incomprehensible tangle of concepts and
    > phrases
    > made so dense and vague that:
    >
    > No one who isn't willing to suspend rationality can use it.
    >
    > No one can possibly get enough of a grip on it to counter or refute it.
    >
    > Anyone who attempts to can be ridiculed on the grounds of not
    > understanding
    > the theory in the first place.
    >
    > Thus, with their incomprehensible "discourse" in place, literary
    > theorists
    > have a defensible academic niche. The fact that many students feel like
    > dummies because they don't have a clue what's going on is apparently
    > insufficient reason for anyone in the club to rock the boat.
    >
    > Now I admit that the above is very harsh and no more than an undefended
    > hypothesis. And I also admit that the reason for the lack of supporting
    > textual evidence is because my attempts to find a literary theory book
    > that
    > I can comprehend sufficiently to assess have been futile. Here's the
    > kind of
    > "discourse" you have to comprehend to read even what the less obscure
    > literary theorists say about novels, movies, MTV, modern architecture,
    > pop
    > songs, and modern literature: post-modern moment, binarisms,
    > overdetermined
    > conflict, pure systematicity, post-structuralism, hermeneutic,
    > metanarrative, deconstruction, irreducible materiality, semiotics, and
    > dialogism.
    >
    > Not understanding these tangled terms and doubting the need to use them=

    > to
    > comment sensibly on pop music's Talking Heads, TV's "The Young and the
    > Restless," Hollywood's Star Wars, baseball's Dodgers Stadium, or
    > literature's Ishmael Reed, I more than happily grant that my hypothesis=

    > that
    > these terms mean nothing may be wrong. Perhaps "irreducible
    > materiality" and
    > "pure systematicity" are exactly the concepts needed to "theorize"
    > Madonna.
    > But if so, it still ought to be possible for literary theorists to
    > describe,
    > popularize, and generally make understandable what their results are so=

    > the
    > rest of us can know there is something real going on behind all the
    > obscure
    > terminology. Even the most difficult physics can be described so average
    > persons get a good idea of the main results and questions. If it can be=

    > done
    > for theories about quarks, gluons, big bangs, and black holes, it ought=

    > to
    > be able to be done for theories about everyday culture and
    > communication.
    >
    > So, please, someone tell me what I can read to understand literary
    > theory so
    > that I can withdraw my hypothesis and write an informative summary.
    > I'll bet
    > not one percent of Z's readers can define the earlier listed terms. So
    > wouldn't it be sensible to let the rest of us in on the action, assuming
    > there is any?
    >
    >
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
    > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
    >
    > + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
    _____________________________________
    Pall Thayer
    myndlistamadhur/kennari
    artist/teacher
    Fjolbrautaskolanum vidh Armula (www.fa.is)
    http://www.this.is/pallit
    _____________________________________
  • Pall Thayer | Sat Sep 7th 2002 1 a.m.
    OK, I've thought about it and here comes my take on post-modernism. A
    good example of post-modernism would be IID42. Not exactly a lack of
    understanding of predefined concepts and basic knowledge but rather a
    redefinition. Disregard for ideas seen by others as truths or rules. For
    instance claiming that someone elses English is "bearly" legible. Now
    most of us would understand this as something to be read only by bears.
    But IID42 appears to mean that the English in question doesn't adhere to
    his/her own private set of rules. Very post-modern.

    Hinn 7.09.2002 kl. 03:08 ritadhi Max Herman:

    >
    >
    > Post-Modernism?!
    > Michael Albert
    >
    >
    > A little over two years ago, preparing to ride from Boston to New York
    > to
    > attend the Socialist Scholars Conference, I asked a scholar friend to
    > explain "post-modernism" in the four to five hours we would spend on the
    > road. He accepted, and we rode-he lecturing and me listening.
    >
    > When we got to New York if someone had walked up and asked, "What is
    > post-modernism?" I could not have answered. Four hours and I still
    > didn't
    > know what "post-modernism" referred to. Three interpretations spring to
    > mind.
    >
    > My tutor was an idiot incapable of explaining one concept in four hours.
    >
    > I am an idiot incapable of understanding one concept in four hours.
    >
    > The concept is idiotic, a vague pastiche of mush covering a range too
    > broad
    > to clarify in four hours.
    >
    > The third possibility, as you might guess, is my favorite. But how
    > could a
    > concept which engenders shelves of books be nearly empty? Here's my
    > hypothesis: Literary theory is largely a sham literary theorists use to
    > cajole regal treatment from their professional cohorts, bosses,
    > students,
    > and broader intellectual community.
    >
    > How can I commit such blasphemy?
    >
    > First, calling an academic discipline phony is often common sense, not
    > blasphemy.
    >
    > Take mainstream economics. Nearly the entire "neoclassical" economic
    > edifice
    > is constructed to legitimate the rewards of economists by pleasing the
    > corporate piper who pays the bills. Thus, mainstream economists mainly
    > "prove" capitalism's worth or indicate how capitalists can better pursue
    > their own ends and rarely try to understand how the system works, who
    > benefits, who loses, and why.
    >
    > Or take academic political science. Again, the idea is not actually to
    > understand the government-who would pay scholars to do this?-but to
    > "theorize government" in ways that justify official behavior.
    >
    > I doubt that Z readers would recoil in horror at these condemnations of
    > mainstream economics and politics. I even think most Z readers would
    > probably find supporting evidence quite convincing. For example, surveys
    > reveal that economics graduate students accept these horrible assertions
    > about their own profession, and the best first-hand documentation of the
    > inner workings of the U.S. government, such as the Pentagon Papers, are
    > exactly the materials that political science departments never bother to
    > study.
    >
    > But literary theory? Surely this can't be phony. After all, the most
    > obscure
    > practitioners of literary theory are often radicals and self-serving
    > mystification is never radical.
    >
    > Nonetheless, suppose you are an English literature teacher and you
    > want a
    > high salary, intellectual status, and tenure. How does reading and
    > discussing literature warrant receipt of such goodies? Wouldn't
    > admitting
    > that such matter-of-fact activity was the essence of teaching English
    > literature make it hard to justify big bucks, big status, tenure, and
    > paid
    > trips to distant conferences? To justify these rewards there must be a
    > "theory" that takes years to master and that some people employ better
    > than
    > others, at least in their own eyes.
    >
    > Enter literary theory, an incomprehensible tangle of concepts and
    > phrases
    > made so dense and vague that:
    >
    > No one who isn't willing to suspend rationality can use it.
    >
    > No one can possibly get enough of a grip on it to counter or refute it.
    >
    > Anyone who attempts to can be ridiculed on the grounds of not
    > understanding
    > the theory in the first place.
    >
    > Thus, with their incomprehensible "discourse" in place, literary
    > theorists
    > have a defensible academic niche. The fact that many students feel like
    > dummies because they don't have a clue what's going on is apparently
    > insufficient reason for anyone in the club to rock the boat.
    >
    > Now I admit that the above is very harsh and no more than an undefended
    > hypothesis. And I also admit that the reason for the lack of supporting
    > textual evidence is because my attempts to find a literary theory book
    > that
    > I can comprehend sufficiently to assess have been futile. Here's the
    > kind of
    > "discourse" you have to comprehend to read even what the less obscure
    > literary theorists say about novels, movies, MTV, modern architecture,
    > pop
    > songs, and modern literature: post-modern moment, binarisms,
    > overdetermined
    > conflict, pure systematicity, post-structuralism, hermeneutic,
    > metanarrative, deconstruction, irreducible materiality, semiotics, and
    > dialogism.
    >
    > Not understanding these tangled terms and doubting the need to use them=

    > to
    > comment sensibly on pop music's Talking Heads, TV's "The Young and the
    > Restless," Hollywood's Star Wars, baseball's Dodgers Stadium, or
    > literature's Ishmael Reed, I more than happily grant that my hypothesis=

    > that
    > these terms mean nothing may be wrong. Perhaps "irreducible
    > materiality" and
    > "pure systematicity" are exactly the concepts needed to "theorize"
    > Madonna.
    > But if so, it still ought to be possible for literary theorists to
    > describe,
    > popularize, and generally make understandable what their results are so=

    > the
    > rest of us can know there is something real going on behind all the
    > obscure
    > terminology. Even the most difficult physics can be described so average
    > persons get a good idea of the main results and questions. If it can be=

    > done
    > for theories about quarks, gluons, big bangs, and black holes, it ought=

    > to
    > be able to be done for theories about everyday culture and
    > communication.
    >
    > So, please, someone tell me what I can read to understand literary
    > theory so
    > that I can withdraw my hypothesis and write an informative summary.
    > I'll bet
    > not one percent of Z's readers can define the earlier listed terms. So
    > wouldn't it be sensible to let the rest of us in on the action, assuming
    > there is any?
    >
    >
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
    > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
    >
    > + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
    _____________________________________
    Pall Thayer
    myndlistamadhur/kennari
    artist/teacher
    Fjolbrautaskolanum vidh Armula (www.fa.is)
    http://www.this.is/pallit
    _____________________________________
  • D42 Kandinskij | Sat Sep 7th 2002 1 a.m.
    On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Pall Thayer wrote:

    > good example of post-modernism would be IID42.

    No baby. You're a little hyena who is here to pick
    due to Max and I.

    > Disregard for ideas seen by others as truths or rules.

    This is nothing of relevance to my behavior.

    > instance claiming that someone elses English is "bearly" legible.

    Yawn. Picking on typos. standard internet flaming taken to
    artistic posturing. Sod off.

    `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
  • portholeaccel | Sat Sep 7th 2002 1 a.m.
    redefining to equal a new percepctive. a new stratagem to better understanding of forms because with in this frame of the real it fails to equal in parts or the whole. it leaves to many unanswered questions. lacking to comprehend certian significants of the matrix. its our logic failing although usefull there seems to be more then just this single strategem, that line and this a+b=a a kind of free for all exhale to better grasp the universe as a whole. the referance to past failures, the anxiety of personal identity, and the code with in everthing the falling apart the coming back together to redifine i love that word. identity is more complex then what has been presumed whether personal pop gene or cultural. it is a challenge to logic and/or modernist notions it is political regurgitation of human behavoirism and a revolt of predetermined fate. it can be the most ridiculous sarcasim have you seen thoughs hardees commercials CAPTILIST______ _______ in the blanket. using this sarcasim to sell. that pissed me off i would like to hear more of what you have to say about this if you think i am mad that would be nice to know too.
    Pall Thayer
    wrote: OK, I've thought about it and here comes my take on post-modernism. A
    good example of post-modernism would be IID42. Not exactly a lack of
    understanding of predefined concepts and basic knowledge but rather a
    redefinition. Disregard for ideas seen by others as truths or rules. For
    instance claiming that someone elses English is "bearly" legible. Now
    most of us would understand this as something to be read only by bears.
    But IID42 appears to mean that the English in question doesn't adhere to
    his/her own private set of rules. Very post-modern.

    Hinn 7.09.2002 kl. 03:08 ritadhi Max Herman:

    >
    >
    > Post-Modernism?!
    > Michael Albert
    >
    >
    > A little over two years ago, preparing to ride from Boston to New York
    > to
    > attend the Socialist Scholars Conference, I asked a scholar friend to
    > explain "post-modernism" in the four to five hours we would spend on the
    > road. He accepted, and we rode-he lecturing and me listening.
    >
    > When we got to New York if someone had walked up and asked, "What is
    > post-modernism?" I could not have answered. Four hours and I still
    > didn't
    > know what "post-modernism" referred to. Three interpretations spring to
    > mind.
    >
    > My tutor was an idiot incapable of explaining one concept in four hours.
    >
    > I am an idiot incapable of understanding one concept in four hours.
    >
    > The concept is idiotic, a vague pastiche of mush covering a range too
    > broad
    > to clarify in four hours.
    >
    > The third possibility, as you might guess, is my favorite. But how
    > could a
    > concept which engenders shelves of books be nearly empty? Here's my
    > hypothesis: Literary theory is largely a sham literary theorists use to
    > cajole regal treatment from their professional cohorts, bosses,
    > students,
    > and broader intellectual community.
    >
    > How can I commit such blasphemy?
    >
    > First, calling an academic discipline phony is often common sense, not
    > blasphemy.
    >
    > Take mainstream economics. Nearly the entire "neoclassical" economic
    > edifice
    > is constructed to legitimate the rewards of economists by pleasing the
    > corporate piper who pays the bills. Thus, mainstream economists mainly
    > "prove" capitalism's worth or indicate how capitalists can better pursue
    > their own ends and rarely try to understand how the system works, who
    > benefits, who loses, and why.
    >
    > Or take academic political science. Again, the idea is not actually to
    > understand the government-who would pay scholars to do this?-but to
    > "theorize government" in ways that justify official behavior.
    >
    > I doubt that Z readers would recoil in horror at these condemnations of
    > mainstream economics and politics. I even think most Z readers would
    > probably find supporting evidence quite convincing. For example, surveys
    > reveal that economics graduate students accept these horrible assertions
    > about their own profession, and the best first-hand documentation of the
    > inner workings of the U.S. government, such as the Pentagon Papers, are
    > exactly the materials that political science departments never bother to
    > study.
    >
    > But literary theory? Surely this can't be phony. After all, the most
    > obscure
    > practitioners of literary theory are often radicals and self-serving
    > mystification is never radical.
    >
    > Nonetheless, suppose you are an English literature teacher and you
    > want a
    > high salary, intellectual status, and tenure. How does reading and
    > discussing literature warrant receipt of such goodies? Wouldn't
    > admitting
    > that such matter-of-fact activity was the essence of teaching English
    > literature make it hard to justify big bucks, big status, tenure, and
    > paid
    > trips to distant conferences? To justify these rewards there must be a
    > "theory" that takes years to master and that some people employ better
    > than
    > others, at least in their own eyes.
    >
    > Enter literary theory, an incomprehensible tangle of concepts and
    > phrases
    > made so dense and vague that:
    >
    > No one who isn't willing to suspend rationality can use it.
    >
    > No one can possibly get enough of a grip on it to counter or refute it.
    >
    > Anyone who attempts to can be ridiculed on the grounds of not
    > understanding
    > the theory in the first place.
    >
    > Thus, with their incomprehensible "discourse" in place, literary
    > theorists
    > have a defensible academic niche. The fact that many students feel like
    > dummies because they don't have a clue what's going on is apparently
    > insufficient reason for anyone in the club to rock the boat.
    >
    > Now I admit that the above is very harsh and no more than an undefended
    > hypothesis. And I also admit that the reason for the lack of supporting
    > textual evidence is because my attempts to find a literary theory book
    > that
    > I can comprehend sufficiently to assess have been futile. Here's the
    > kind of
    > "discourse" you have to comprehend to read even what the less obscure
    > literary theorists say about novels, movies, MTV, modern architecture,
    > pop
    > songs, and modern literature: post-modern moment, binarisms,
    > overdetermined
    > conflict, pure systematicity, post-structuralism, hermeneutic,
    > metanarrative, deconstruction, irreducible materiality, semiotics, and
    > dialogism.
    >
    > Not understanding these tangled terms and doubting the need to use them
    > to
    > comment sensibly on pop music's Talking Heads, TV's "The Young and the
    > Restless," Hollywood's Star Wars, baseball's Dodgers Stadium, or
    > literature's Ishmael Reed, I more than happily grant that my hypothesis
    > that
    > these terms mean nothing may be wrong. Perhaps "irreducible
    > materiality" and
    > "pure systematicity" are exactly the concepts needed to "theorize"
    > Madonna.
    > But if so, it still ought to be possible for literary theorists to
    > describe,
    > popularize, and generally make understandable what their results are so
    > the
    > rest of us can know there is something real going on behind all the
    > obscure
    > terminology. Even the most difficult physics can be described so average
    > persons get a good idea of the main results and questions. If it can be
    > done
    > for theories about quarks, gluons, big bangs, and black holes, it ought
    > to
    > be able to be done for theories about everyday culture and
    > communication.
    >
    > So, please, someone tell me what I can read to understand literary
    > theory so
    > that I can withdraw my hypothesis and write an informative summary.
    > I'll bet
    > not one percent of Z's readers can define the earlier listed terms. So
    > wouldn't it be sensible to let the rest of us in on the action, assuming
    > there is any?
    >
    >
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
    > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
    >
    > + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
    _____________________________________
    Pall Thayer
    myndlistamadhur/kennari
    artist/teacher
    Fjolbrautaskolanum vidh Armula (www.fa.is)
    http://www.this.is/pallit
    _____________________________________

    "The things that make you a person

    also prevent you from being one"

    ---------------------------------
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
Your Reply