Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: February ::
Re: Bloom [Arche and polari]
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0243  Friday, 12 February 1999.

[1]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 11 Feb 1999 15:32:58 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0236 Re: Bloom

[2]     From:   Brian Haylett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 11 Feb 1999 19:34:42 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0210 Re: Bona Bard

[3]     From:   Maijan H. Al-Ruwaili <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Fri, 12 Feb 1999 01:40:02 +0300
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0236 Re: Papp Lear; Bloom


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 11 Feb 1999 15:32:58 -0000
Subject: 10.0236 Re: Bloom
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0236 Re: Bloom

>>>Speech
>>>will always escape the nets of writing and reading. Poor Bloom.
>>
>>>T. Hawkes
>
>>>Tell that to Socrates ...
>>>Robin Hamilton
>
>Better yet, tell it to Derrida.  Arche-writing, anyone?
>
>David Knauer

But what position would Molly take in this debate?

Robin Hamilton

[Editor's Note: What about Edith as de Man notes his discussion of
"What's the difference" in "Semiology and Rhetoric"? --Hardy]

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brian Haylett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 11 Feb 1999 19:34:42 -0000
Subject: 10.0210 Re: Bona Bard
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0210 Re: Bona Bard

>I thought i(t) was (despite the obvious etymology) "polari",

>I followed the spelling of Partridge's 'Dictionary of Historical Slang'
>where he refers to 'the parlary'. {Snip} A plague on both their >latties. Speech will always escape the nets of writing and reading. >Poor Bloom.
>
>T. Hawkes

Oxford Companion to the English Language heads its entry as POLARI,
which is also used in the titles of the two books it quotes. However, it
does allow the alternatives of PALARIE, PARLYAREE and (hooray) PARLARY.
Thus are we spared the horror of Hawkes following a Partridge on a
flight of fancy.  And I like Bloom.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Maijan H. Al-Ruwaili <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Fri, 12 Feb 1999 01:40:02 +0300
Subject: 10.0236 Re: Papp Lear; Bloom
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0236 Re: Papp Lear; Bloom

David Knauer wrote

>>>Speech
>>>will always escape the nets of writing and reading. Poor Bloom.
>>
>>>T. Hawkes
>
>>>Tell that to Socrates ...
>>>Robin Hamilton
>
>Better yet, tell it to Derrida.  Arche-writing, anyone?

"Speech is arche-writing because that is the Law." (Of Grammatology:
quoting from a failing memory). But then most of the discussion on this
list is phono(logo)centric if not phallo(logo)centric; it should be so,
it seems, because everyone seems to want, as Derrida puts it, to
"hear-one-self speak." As Derrida quotes Nietzsche(?) in Dissemination,
"Socrates is he who does not write." One would love to know why,
throughout history, are those who are against writing are the ones who
heavily depend on writing (whether actually such as Rousseau or Plato
who believes that a good teacher should "writing" on the soul of his
student). Perhaps one should consult Derrida's reading of Hamlet in his
Specters of Marx or his comments on RJ in Acts of Literature.

Maijan
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.