On Thu, 2 Dec 1993 09:42:59 -0500 <DBOUSE@ALBION> said: >"Cinema and the Postmodern" -- okay, I'm going to ask the obvious, >because I fear we have all been taken to the Emporer's tailors. >The postmodern WHAT? Have we reached a point in intellectual discourse >where we no longer need nouns? Or is it implied that we will all fill >in our own? (your noun here). >The postmodern ETHOS? "THINGS Postmodern"? >As nebulous as these are, they are more precise -- and better English -- >than "the postmodern." The state of the English language is precisely >what is at issue. What passes for profound theoretical insight today >is all too often merely a cynical (or desperate) manipulation of language >to give the appearance of complex thought. Derek, loved your diatribe. I guess Humpty Dumpty was the original (deconstructed) deconstructionist. "Words will mean whatever I say they mean -- the question is, who's in charge." Actually, since I enjoy a sense of mystery in things, I enjoy reading some of the French-like English, but there's no doubt that a major strategy behind much of it is to make statements that are unanswerable. I think my favorite of this genre is Derrida's "Spurs/Eperons" which printed the French and an English "translation" on facing pages -- so the text could slip and slide between as well as within languages. But my pet peeve is the relentless repetition of cliche jargon -- as in recasting sentences so you can say things like "The work was a site of suture between the arboreal and the funereal." "Site" this, "suture" that -- it's enough to make one reach for the shredder. And there are such serviceable words in the language already. Regards, Robert Robert Withers Film Department That was zen, this is tao . . . Brooklyn College Brooklyn, New York 11210 Bitnet: [log in to unmask] (718) 951-5664 Internet: [log in to unmask]