Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1998 :: January ::
Re: Postmodern
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0013  Saturday, 3 January 1998.

[1]     From:   Paul S. Rhodes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 2 Jan 1998 13:55:08 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.003  Re: Postmodern

[2]     From:   Laura Fargas <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 2 Jan 1998 23:09:59 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.003  Re: Postmodern


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Paul S. Rhodes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 2 Jan 1998 13:55:08 -0600
Subject: 9.003  Re: Postmodern
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.003  Re: Postmodern

Lord what fools these post-modernists be!   There, I hope I established
a link, however tenuous, between this current thread and the topic to
which this list claims to be dedicated, the works of Shakespeare.

I really do not think that this discussion should take place on this
list, but since Mr. Hawkes seems intent upon making my sense of humor
look bad, I feel compelled to defy my deeply held cyber-conviction that
a mailing list should stay on topic and respond.  Yes, I did find the
Jenny Jones piece hilarious, and, yes, Mr. Hawkes, I found it funny
precisely because I think post-modern thought is inherently ridiculous
and deserves all the ridicule it gets.  Yes, Mr. Hawkes, I believe that
Bach is objectively better than, say, Journey or Alice Cooper or the
Spice Girls.  I believe that Shakespeare's writing is objectively better
than say the writing of, say, Andrea Dworkin.  Oh, I also think that
what he says about the sexes is objectively more profound than what she
says.  None of this means that I think that the status quo is hunky
dory, as you do explicitly suggest.  No, no, Mr. Hawkes, that isn't the
case at all.  Because I also believe in high ideals that man (oh, I know
I'm gonna really get it now for using "man" to mean "human being"-that's
a crime against the Holy Correct Ghost) must always try to realise, I
can look at the status quo, see how woefully short it falls of the lofty
ideals of peace, harmony, and love, and, thus, say quite objectively
that the status quo is entirely the opposite of hunky dory.  This does
not mean, Mr. Hawkes, that I have the tendencies of an oppressive
tyrant, as you would suggest.  No, I would suggest that it is a
precisely the post-modernist that has these tendencies.  Because the
post-modernist denies the very possibilities of transcendent verities,
he is attempting to rob humanity of hope.  For quite simply the one who
denies transcendence condemns, whether he knows it or not, humanity to
the prison of time with no hope of liberation.

Well, that's my two-cents.  I hope I haven't wasted anyone's time.

Paul S. Rhodes

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Laura Fargas <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 2 Jan 1998 23:09:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 9.003  Re: Postmodern
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.003  Re: Postmodern

T. Hawkes to the contrary notwithstanding, "post-modernist" does not
inevitably equate with "humor-impaired."   I thought the sendup was
hilarious, and I simultaneously remain grateful for what, I agree, is
the genuinely moral project of deconstructive analysis of literary
texts, political institutions, and any other unfortunate subject that
happens to attract our attention.

Laura Fargas
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.