« March 2007 | Main | January 2008 »

April 28, 2007

There is nothing better for my 100th entry on this blog than to post a picture just for you, Dr. Jerz.

No matter how rough things get, you'll always know that Mario agrees with you.




Posted by KevinMcGinnis at 2:04 AM | Comments (2)

April 26, 2007

Literature, History, Politics

Literature, History, Politics

Catherine Belsey…I think I picked the wrong essay.

Belsey identifies in her essay “Literature, History, Politics” that “to bring these three terms together explicitly is still to scandalize the institution of literary criticism, because it is to propose a relationship between the transcendent (literature), the contingent (history) and the merely strategic (politics)” (428). This, however, is not her claim, but instead the claim of academia, who, she feels, wishes to control he concept of literary criticism as being limited to the author’s intention and the text, without regard to additional outside influence.

“The sole inhabitant of the universe of literature is Eternal Man…whose brooding, feeling presence precedes, determines and transcends history” (428). This notion of the Eternal Man, Belsey feels, is the ideal reader in literary criticism, as it shows itself as constant and static, without the need of temporal change of motives, i.e. history and politics. This Eternal Man, however, is then identified with “the suppression of history with a new and resounding authority. Ironically, Saussure’s analysis of language as a system of differences was invoked to initiate the elimination of all difference” (429).

This analysis, Belsey notes, “permitted Roland Barthes on behalf of anarchism to identify Eternal Man as the product and pivot of bourgeois mythology” (429). In observing this, Belsey has identified that the quintessential example against the inclusion of history was a product of history. The concept of Eternal Man, instead, was a construct of the elite and learned in an ideal and unrealistic sense.

Belsey even goes on to note that as “linguistic habits alter, cultures are transformed. Difference, history, change reappear. (429). This begins to form her argument that history, and therefore politics, are able to mutate from generation and literary era to the next as the means by which stories are told change. As the linguistic approach is modified, so, too, is the meaning and inherent source behind the meaning.

Belsey then goes on to discuss the various issues surrounding the politics of literature, invoking the then-American President Ronald Reagan. “While the American Deconstructionists play, Reagan is preparing to reduce us all to radioactive rubble to preserve our freedom. The control of meanings – of freedom, democracy, the American way of life – the control of these meanings is political power, but it is a mistake to suppose that the abolition of the signified is the abolition of power” (430).

This idea that literature endures exclusive of its surroundings seems absurd to many of us, even Belsey claims that we are in “a history of the forms in which people become conscious of their differences and begin to fight them out.” Let’s take a moment and look at these two ideas. That history and literature are mutually exclusive of one another, and that people are awakening to the notion of differences betwixt one another. Even though Belsey wrote this essay in 1983 (even before I was alive, mind you), can it be applied to today? What connections can be made between the two?

There are, of course, various new forms of literature, such as Harry Turtledove’s novels which are of an alternate history and novels about the impending zombie war. But there are also works which directly relate to the differences in cultures which we have been told, for a long time, didn’t exist in literature.

Belsey claims that “representative experience is understood to be whatever a lot of people said they felt, and it is held to be the origin of, and to issue in, representative behaviour” (431). Her argument then moves on to identify that we, as readers, experience “a different history of the family, sex, and marriage. This is the history not of an irrecoverable experience, but of meanings” (432). This is where new-historicism finds its roots, in the ever changing definitions of certain social and society constructs. The institution of marriage has changed progressively since its inception. In centuries past, marriage was determined by arrangement of political power or wealth, not love. Marriage then became about love (as well as holding on to some of the previous beliefs, such as name and bloodline), and now has moved into a realm being explored – can “marriage” exist between two men or two women, instead of a pairing of one of each?

We will not allow this to become an ideological debate, but it is a notion to consider. Belsey admits that until this point she has had little to show involving literature. She claims that we must identify “literature as distinct from its residue, popular fiction” (432). She then insists that we “replace the quest for value by an ‘analysis of the social contestation of value’” (432). In establishing that we must search for the social value, Belsey clearly sates that “the effect of this project, in other words, is to decenter literary criticism, to displace “the text,” the “primary material,’ from its authoritative position at the heart of the syllabus, to dislodge the belief in the close reading of the text as the critic’s essential and indispensable skill” (432).

Belsey concludes in noting that “What is to be read closely is criticism, official reports on the teaching of English, examination papers, and all the other discursive displays of institutional power” (432).

Dave became a living example of the new historicism, insofar that he connected Belsey’s essay and her points about deconstructionists and their absurdist beliefs being naïve to the song “Land of Confusion” by Genesis, a political satire during it’s time.

Erin identified this notion of taking a pre-existing knowledge into a text as all of us, the readers, being “potters at the wheel” which presents the readers with more “hope than just settling for ideologies smushed into literature.”

Mitchell raises an interesting series of questions, though, by asking “Why is it so wrong to look at the work without an outside presence. IS the work not worthy to stand alone without a footnote as to the significance of it. I like to think that a work is worthy of that task and can complete it.”

Vanessa even went so far as to ask “Was this an argument that history and politics are more important or influential than literature?” Well, what do you think?

It is not that that Belsey simply wanted to say that new historicism was the only way to go, it was that she said it couldn’t be ignored because everything is temporal and the definitions of things change. It wasn’t to state that history and politics are more important than literature, but instead equally as important, though different.

Posted by KevinMcGinnis at 4:20 PM | Comments (0)

April 21, 2007

Jadakiss - "Why"

This is the video for Jadakiss' "Why," a song I was originally going to include in the term project. I could have easily done another 5-7 pages just on this song in relation to the information I had found in the research (and, by means of the video, presented an opposing view).


Posted by KevinMcGinnis at 11:07 PM | Comments (0)

April 19, 2007

Two Kevins Walk Into A Lit Crit Class...

I went to the man's office. I asked Dr. Jerz what he was asking of us for the blog that was to accompany our projects. He looked me dead in the eye and said "I don't know."

After some poking and proding I was able to determine that the blog should be the yin to the project's yang. So, without further ado...

--

I'd like to give a big shout out to my homeboys all over the world, but especially my boyz back in the 412. This one's for you, playa.

Yo, check it. So, me and my boy Kevin Hinton, we decided we wanted to do this project right? So, I says to him "You and me, bro. We're gonna keep it real." He just looked back at me and said "Fo' sho'."

So, we started brainstorming, right, and we came up wit sumpin'.

We took at look at the work of some of our bothers. My boy Kevin, he took a long, hard look at Spike Lee and his film "Do The Right Thing." He took a look at two writers, too. Dostoevsky and Black with their novels Crime and Punishment and The Broken Hearts Club.

Me? I took a look at my boy Tupac and his song "Changes." You can check out his beats here and here.

We took different paths, though. Kevin's project took the path of mimicking, whereas mine took the observational path. Kevin did was was called "mimetic" criticism of the works listed. Mine was divided; post-modernist criticism for Collateral (man, that movie is the balls, yo. Jamie Foxx is hard as Hell in there), and a socio-historical perspective for Tupac's work.

Oh yeah, check this.We made a website, too. You can check it out here.

Tha's all, y'all. We'll see y'all on da other side. Keep it real. Peace.

Posted by KevinMcGinnis at 3:43 PM | Comments (1)

April 12, 2007

Blog Carnival ver. 2 - Three Amigos Edition

Our wonderful and always hilarious host Kevin Hinton felt it necessary to discuss the wonders of post-modern teachings in this course. While I agree with Mr. Hinton on a large number of issues, I think he's narrowed his pitch down just a little too much; instead of focusing on this class and how post-modernism has changed our views, why don't we examine our lives and everything around us?

The teachings of post-modernism, as we were shown, proclaim that there are essentially no clear cut answers to anything anymore. As a personal note, I always felt as though I had been more of a "modern" thinker, or at least one who knew there were great fractures within the world. As we began to discuss post-modernism, though, I felt the ground begin to shift around me.

Was I really a modernist displaced in a new age or was I a post-modernist who just didn't know it yet? This presents the classical philosophical loop - nothing can be known for sure as ambiguity is your nightly cloak in post-modern teachings, but to know you are a post-modernist goes against those beliefs, even if you agree with them.

Where does the line begin or end, some will ask? Others will point out that simply there is no line, just as "there is no spoon."

Dr. Jerz has even pointed out that I, more than most, are quick to identify pop-culture references and intertextual occurances in literature as well as other forms of media. He also pointed out that my "wit" (if we can call it that) has also become so jaded and emphatically ironic that it errs on the side of being in a perpetual state of sardonic mockery and cynicism.

I have always subscribed to the theory of cynicism and satire (those of you who, unfortunately, know me moderately well know that Iove to push boundaries and call people on their BS). Typically I find these subjects both humorous and informative and, at many times, has given me the edge in life because people often will come to me with their problems.

When I realized that post-modernism was playing a larger part in my life was when I observed how many of my answers to serious questions were things like "Well, you know how it goes" and "that's that...can't change it now." I provided ambiguous answers to serious questions because there is no finite and true answer to what people were asking. I neither have the wisdom to answer these nor is it my place to interject my opinions into other's affairs.

I have found that I tend to reference these things to the film and inherent joke "The Aristocrats." For the uninitiated, "The Aristocrats" is a documentary about the joke of same name, told by over 100 different comedians, and the history behind the joke. The joke, as it stands, is an old Vaudville-era routine that comics tell to other comics and is never told on stage. It is often refered to as "the writer's joke," because there is no constraint other than knowing the first line, and that can be amended, and knowing the punchline (and not saying "Aristocats," as Dana Gould did).

Why do I refer to this often? Because there is no one-way to tell it. It is entirely up to the speaker to tell it how they see fit, and in doing so, create a new and magical journey. The punchline is terribly under-delivered and purposefully shallow. The fun is the journey. That is what Lit Crit is all about. The journey is the fun part, not the end result.

Finding one, clear, ultimate meaning in Joyce's Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man is not the point of the text - looking at the style and making you brain explode over how the narrative was composed...there's some fun. Even in that, though, we are limiting ourselves.

In every day life we look at things and say "Well, that's how the cookie crumbles," but post-modernism wants, nay, begs us to ask why the cookie crumbled. Did it have to? In such a manner?

Did any of this make sense? Sure, I know a few parts did. Did it cohere and follow a logical progression? Not really, but isn't that what life is all about?

Could it be boiled down to something as simple as that we, in the editorial sense, have lost direction? Could it even be that we've discovered all we can, at least in the present, and must then deconstruct everything we've learned?

It isn't to say that post-modern thinking is entirely negative, but there is a pessimistic tone about it. We knew something in a certain way. Let's break it down and rebuild it, but not use permanent materials to do so...let's leave some room for change.

If nothing else, post-modernism, unlike Modernism, sees a future where things aren't as bad. We just don't know it yet.

Much like Kevin said, though...if this has confused you, well, good. It was supposed to. There is nothing certain and nothing pure. We can believe there is, but we can't prove it. Think about that and think about things in your everyday life. Think about Religion. Think about Love. These are tenets upon which many of us have built and devoted our lives, but we have absolutely no proof and cannot every show something as "real." That doesn't devalue or it or make it so that we no longer want it.

Post-modernism isn't there to convince us to just end it all. It encourages us to explore things, in every avenue, even ones we don't like, but to never cease searching because we found something we like.

Politics is as good as any of an example. I think everyone in this room knows my political stance. That doesn't mean I just follow along, happy as a clam to everything my party does. If you thought I was critical of the other guys...whoooo boy, just you wait until you hear me rip into my own team.

We can't be certain of anything because once we stop looking and thinking, we're dead. Breathing is all that would separate us from being dead. When it comes to intellectual matters and matters of the heart, well, can we ever be really certain? No. Can we believe it at all costs? Without a doubt.

Post-modernism teaches us to not go gently into our own goodnight. We can't ever stop fighting and, sometimes, we'll be confronted by an adversary we didn't want to face because we didn't agree with it. There are more sides to an issue than just the ones that make us feel good. Life is not gumdrops and rainbows all the time. It is a terrible harsh and unforgving place, but it is also the wildest and most crazy journey and experience we're in for. Grab hold and go for the ride, just make sure to open your eyes along the way before it passes us by.

Posted by KevinMcGinnis at 4:16 PM | Comments (1)

Blog Portfolio ver. 2.0

Here I sit, broken hearted...

Wait, wait. I can't really go finishing that one. Here we are again, friends and family, at the show that never ends. Come inside, com inside. We will take you places never before seen and show you things that will melt the flesh from your bones.

This is

The blogging portfolio, version 2.

Coverage



Keesey: Making Complexity Slightly Simpler Through Cunning Use Of Extended Philosophical Theories Of Reality: Or, The General Introduction



The Melvilleian (Villian? What?)! Poetic Justice Becomes Melville



Intro: What Is Literature? Who Said What, Where, And Why - How Things Said Three-Hundred Years Ago Are Being Seen Nowadays



Elliot: Tradition And Those Who Follow It - A Lesson In How Not To Play Jazz



Apparently Valerie, Lorin and Myself Were On The Same Wavelength



Gilman's Wallpaper: A lesson in Poor Interior Design



Keesey: The Man, The Myth, The Legend - Ch. 1 Intro



Hirsch: If the Rubik's Cube were a written work, this would be it.



We'll not discuss the poetic justice in our discussing The Tempest while a storm is headed our way.



Willy Shakes: The Obedience and Political Equation



Watson? Can you Hear Me? Watson, I need you!



Old McDonald had a theory...



Keesey: Third verse, not quite the same as the first...



O Ye Bedford Guide, How I Sleep Better With Thee Under My Pillow



I still have a hard time trusting somebody named "Wolfgang"



The Formal Keats



What Is and What Isn't in "Benito"



You know what...



Gender and Literature, what some might refer to as a "sticky wicket"



Gilbert and Sullivan....wait, no, Gilbert and Gubar.



Donovan: This isn't any McNabb, that's for sure



Brann: Not for Breakfast Anymore



Paris: Not a Hilton



Keesey: Not just a flying enemy in the Legend of Zelda



Everyman



Ye Olde Bedford Guide, Yar Har



Tricksy Russians, Yes



Intertextuality...sounds kinda sexy, doesn't it?



Culler: Structure, Literature (sorry, I'm too ill to come up with original titles)



Don Keesey: Poststructuralism...criticism...and other isms. Ism.



Derrida: I'm not going to BS you guys...this just made me fall over and spin in a circle, kind of like the Stooges



Liz Wright: I went to high school with gal by that name...there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell she would ever write something like this.



The Tempest of Stephen Miko, Thursdays at 7 on FX.



Resistance is Futile



Does anal retentive have a hyphen in it?



A return to Innocence: Don Keesey's exile to Historical-Cultural Criticism



Literature and History: Eagleton soars once more


Depth


Elliot: Tradition And Those Who Follow It - A Lesson In How Not To Play Jazz



You know what...



Gender and Literature, what some might refer to as a "sticky wicket"



Watson? Can you Hear Me? Watson, I need you!



Gilman's Wallpaper: A lesson in Poor Interior Design



Gilbert and Sullivan....wait, no, Gilbert and Gubar.



Resistance is Futile



Don Keesey: Poststructuralism...criticism...and other isms. Ism.



Keesey: Not just a flying enemy in the Legend of Zelda



Brann: Not Just For Breakfast Anymore



Donovan: This isn't any McNabb, that's for sure



Gilbert and Sullivan....wait, no, Gilbert and Gubar.



Blog Carnival!
Blog Carnival



Blog Carnival ver 2: Three Amigos Edition


Interaction



Watson? Can you Hear Me? Watson, I need you!



Keesey's Intro: Chapter 2 as a study of what Chapter 2 is, why it is and how Chapter 2 is integral to the study of Chapter 2 without considering



Melville...he still haunts me. Everywhere I go, he's there. He is my past, present and future.



Apparently Valerie, Lorin and Myself Were On The Same Wavelength



Elliot: Tradition And Those Who Follow It - A Lesson In How Not To Play Jazz



Gilbert and Sullivan....wait, no, Gilbert and Gubar.



Donovan: This isn't any McNabb, that's for sure



Discussions



Apparently Valerie, Lorin and Myself Were On The Same Wavelength



Keesey's Intro: Chapter 2 as a study of what Chapter 2 is, why it is and how Chapter 2 is integral to the study of Chapter 2 without considering



Watson? Can you Hear Me? Watson, I need you!



Gilbert and Sullivan....wait, no, Gilbert and Gubar.



Donovan: This isn't any McNabb, that's for sure



Timeliness



Watson? Can you Hear Me? Watson, I need you!



Apparently Valerie, Lorin and Myself Were On The Same Wavelength



Don Keesey: Poststructuralism...criticism...and other isms. Ism.



Derrida: I'm not going to BS you guys...this just made me fall over and spin in a circle, kind of like the Stooges



Liz Wright: I went to high school with gal by that name...there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell she would ever write something like this.



The Tempest of Stephen Miko, Thursdays at 7 on FX.



Resistance is Futile



Does anal retentive have a hyphen in it?



A return to Innocence: Don Keesey's exile to Historical-Cultural Criticism



Literature and History: Eagleton soars once more


Xenoblogging



Comment Primo
A Hirsch Interpretation - Kevin "Kelo The Great" Hinton



A Devil in A Blue Dress - Kevin Hinton



It's Just The Same Ol' Stuff


The Comment Grande
Donald Keesey gives me a complex - Valerie Masciarelli



Melville's Relation to American Society - Jason Pugh



Wildcards!



Life's Poetics: Life Lessons and Other Assorted Goodies About Me



With due credit to my buddy Mike



Oh Snap

Posted by KevinMcGinnis at 3:26 PM | Comments (0)

April 10, 2007

Literature and History: Eagleton soars once more

"...emerges a 'superstructure' - certain forms of law and politics, a certain kind of state, whose essential function is to legitimate the power of the social class which owns the means of economic production. But the superstructure contains more than this: it also consists of certain "definite forms of social consciousness" (political, religious, ethical, aesthetic and so on), which is what Marxism designates as ideology."

As I had said about Keesey's introduction, this, too, falls into the category that can easily be used to evaluate and critique popular culture. By Eagleton identifying these items, specifically, my attention, one more, turned to music. Obviously, some strong connections can be made to Rap and Hip-Hop, but it is not exclusive to that. Punk music is a bastion of socio-historic study. A group such as Bad Religion, in name alone, begins touching on these issues. Their songs are hard driven and their lyrics are equally biting, satiric, accusatory, etc.

Unfortunately, my music defense doesn't hold too much water when we start getting into that kind of top-40 claptrap music you hear on lite-rock stations. They do have themes, but pretty much every song involves love in one form or another. Don't get me wrong, it is a wonderful topic which should be openly discussed and at great length, but it is also a tired subject for music.

Essentially, the socio-historic criticism is the ability to push people's boundaries and invade their personal space. If one can say/write/do something that causes someone else to question their own beliefs, well, then it has been a victory for the day. Note that it doesn't mean it is aimed to completely and totally change people, because you can't change someone if they don't want to change in the first place, but instead it should open people's eyes and make them a little more awake and conscious of their surroundings.

At least, that's what it means to me.

Posted by KevinMcGinnis at 7:39 AM | Comments (0)

A return to Innocence: Don Keesey's exile to Historical-Cultural Criticism

I'll admit...when I saw Historio-cultural criticism, my eyes lit up a little. I know I've said before that I fall into various categories of criticism, specifically formalist and historical, but I think my natural inclination is Historical-Cultural. Take a look back at some of my rantings about hip-hop and other various musics/art forms. Rap and Hip-Hop stems almost entirely from a historical and sociological background. This is all stuff that is going to be covered in the joint presentation by myself and Mr. Hinton next week, though.

I think Keesey (and by proxy Foucault) summed up my theory in one statement: "they think of history in terms of power relations and they are fascinated by the 'circulation' of power within society." Listen to a rap song from the early-to-mid 1990's and you can see this sentiment expressly displayed. Anyone else remember the East Coast-West Coast feud? This all boils down to "power" and, in a moment of wide generalizing, the rap culture defines power by guns, women, drugs, and escapades (which, oddly enough, in modern day has become Escalades, but we'll not go there).

This is going to be fun.

Posted by KevinMcGinnis at 1:09 AM | Comments (1)

April 9, 2007

Does anal retentive have a hyphen in it?

I'm sorry. I never thought I would actually be laughing at one of these essays. I understand that these people are just doing their jobs (wonderfully, might I add), but this "debate" over the spelling of Wallpaper had me on the floor. Seriously...c'mon. I'd like to think I'm at least a moderately learned person, insofar that I can at least get through these without passing out...but doesn't there come a time where we (the editorial "we") are just splitting hairs over things? I don't know...that's a debate for another day.

I appreciate the discussion on ambiguity in Gilman's story...I've been saying for a long time that part of the glory of the story was that it wasn't clearly cut and that I don't think there were any "true answers" to the questions we had. Did she kill herself? Why did John faint? These are terribly ambiguous questions which, really, can't be answered. Post-structuralist theory claims that the text will unlock the mystery, but is there substantial enough evidence for prove once and for all that X happened because of Y? At every turn where one example can be found, a counter-example can also be found.

The fun is not in resolution, but instead in the journey. We are all post-modernists by birth. If we subscribe to that theory is a different decision, but we all are part of the movement. It becomes increasingly difficult to accept one way or one idea as the dogma of criticism. Even if one embraces post-modernism, they are by association embracing all the other philosophies, too, but accepting them as flawed.

Posted by KevinMcGinnis at 11:48 PM | Comments (0)

Resistance is futile

A brief aside, first. I think I've finally started understanding why I've grown so angry with this text. I think I finally found why people such as Dave and myself have such negative reactions to these essays anymore. Its not even so much we disagree with their ideas and works, quite the opposite, but it has reached a point where the actual authors aggravate me to no end. What makes me say this? Look at the first page of Guetti's essay - she spends the entire time fluffing up and dancing around her fellow critics, especially de Man, and builds up the likes of Derrida. I've come to know that a few names carry some weight. Frye, Derrida, Hirsch, etc, all carry some serious weight around the lit-crit world.

Why do I bring it up? Because it angers me that she spent a large part of her time showing who she likes and why these people are right and this one is wrong. I can appreciate that on another level, don't get me wrong; the essence of Lit crit is either having an amazingly original idea or totally tearing down someone else's theory. This angers me, though. I see people doing this as nothing more than "the old boys club," or like the Stonecutters from the Simpsons.

Or on a level more to our liking, as Henry Rollins pointed out, it's more like poets who write poems for other poets. "Stuart, this is a revenge poem for your accusatory poem last week at the long beach Alcoholics Anonymous poetry slam night." To me, anyway, this is what reading this text is like. Guetti starts her essay by, essentially, sticking her tongue out, stuffing her thumbs in her ears and waggling her fingers at de Man. I appreciate taking the high road for insulting people sometimes, but it gets to a point when the road has become so high you're no longer in shooting range of the other person.

"Let's try to clarify this by going back once more to the poem, and to its especially rich opening lines; 'Thous still unravished bride of quietness,/ thou foster-child of silence and slow time'. It is remarkable that nearly all critics - among them, Burke, Empson and de Man - tend to leave these lines unread. This is especially surprising in view of the extraordinary weight of figural meaning they bear; why have such ingenious readers resisted such a rich load of interpretable ore?"

Now, let's consider what I said before. Here it is again, in full swing. Once again, I understand that she's doing her best to one-up these well known and respected critics, but each time she mentions one of their names, the words and phrases just drip with satiric commentary. Her commentary, however, in which she discusses Empson once more, helps show me why it falls into the post-structuralist chapter, rather than formalist or, truthfully...anywhere else. She adheres to the text, giving Empson's interpretation based on the text, then interjects with her own, as is the way of the post-structural critic.

Post-modernist? I'm not going to go along with that. She has the puffed-up sense of reverence for her contemporaries that the players in Gnocci's murder did for their beloved host, but that's about as far as I'm willing to tie the two together. Her claim continually presses itself as air-tight and correct. That's not post-modernism.

Posted by KevinMcGinnis at 11:29 PM | Comments (0)

The Tempest of Stephen Miko, Thursdays at 7 on FX.

"I propose, then, to look at the play as if it is, in a stronger sense than is usually conceded, experimental. Shakespeare may be experimenting with the very assumptions that lead us to expect poetic justice, symbolic neatness, and 'resolved' endings for plays. I think, in fact, that he is demonstrating the limits of all three sets of expectations."

I think I'm starting to get the whole post-structuralist movement and post-modernism. Specifically for Miko, though, I think something clicked. Post-modernism is all about never really having a concrete, finite answer to questions of metaphor and symbols and other "why, how?" type questions. Miko, it seems has started addressing this in showing point-by-point, how Willy Shakes plays with the reader's assumptions and perceptions - build them to believe one thing that has been constant or at least somewhat common, and then switch things on them. Hell, he even said one couldn't read it as "just a play" and that it was experimental. That is what is moving/molding/shaping boundaries.

Miko has also embraced the post-structuralist theory by applying the ideas to the text without regard for outside sources, less what the reader brings to the proverbial table.

Posted by KevinMcGinnis at 11:13 PM | Comments (0)

April 6, 2007

Oh man, classic. Total classic.

I though I was going to pee myself when I first saw this on politicalwire.com

"The Change Candidate
Walter Shapiro interviewed John Edwards in Iowa and perfectly captures the "riff at the core of nearly every Edwards pitch to voters."

"Unraveling Edwards' subtext does not require a Derrida-spouting graduate student. Hillary Clinton is the obvious apostle of these 'cautious, incremental steps,' while Barack Obama is the undeniable master of feel-good rhetoric. What is most intriguing about the Edwards 2.0 campaign is how a once carefully calibrated, pro-war, mainstream Democrat has fashioned himself into the candidate of 'big, bold transformational change.'"

Read the transcript of the interview."

--

"Unraveling Edwards' subtext does not require a Derrida-spouting graduate student." Oh man. That's a total classic and it reaffirms the fact that we're doing graduate level work, only with more forum and less research...although this term paper is making me curse daily at various people/things/places/etc.

Posted by KevinMcGinnis at 10:48 AM | Comments (1)