I'm not alone. Some fearless intellectual voyagers are pondering the fundamentals (you might say the colon) of our craft. What treasure do they find?
Quotation marks are ‘queer’, both denoting authority and authenticity, and questioning the status of what passes for natural. They mark performance, although post-structuralism has exploded such distinctions as natural and performed. Most of this section is a study of the lyric and danced memory routines of Bill Jones, whose poses are the physical equivalent of quotations which trouble the distinction between first and third persons and equivocate history, truth, sincerity, sexual identity, and any single ideological position. This equivocation is particularly embodied in the following Joycean and performative chapter, rich in formal experimentation and literary and critical allusion in its play on ‘sem;erot;ics’ and ‘colon:zat;ions’. The final chapter, ‘Cyberpunktuations’ represents the ultimate transformation of the punctuation mark into a visual and affective performance. Electronic communication is ironically one of the most tangible and graphological in its transformation of punctuation marks into emoticons.
Comments open for your scorn… I understand this stuff, and I still think it's, well, not much cop. (Much of it won't be news to you students either, as you all seem to be very much 'post-punctuation').
7 comments:
Any of them ever kissed a girl?
Ha, ha, ha! Genius Ewar, I very much doubt it!
Doubtful, though there you go again Ewar with your normative heretosexuality (I refer everyone else to his comment elsewhere that war protestors need to grow a pair of testicles). You'll never make it in academia!
OH! I missed that comment. I would like to put the counterargument that war protestors are exactly the sorts of people who are well endowed when it comes to testes.
Which of the following do you think is easier and braver:
A) To go out on the street and stand up for what you believe in (not necessarily that the war is illegal, it could be any cause) knowing full well you are likely to get branded as a troublemaker, a criminal record, and maybe even beaten up by the police. I.e. the balance of power is not in your favour(I refer you to the photo cards police use to identify protestors, sorry 'troublemakers', the tipping off by the police to Eon about climate change protestors and the death of Ian Tomlinson and beating up of various other protestors)
or
B) Or to wield your considerable political power and military might (rightly or wrongly) to invade a country that is in turmoil and disarray anyway, (i.e the balance of power IS in your favour) and to do so hiding behind evidence that by this stage in the Chilcot enquiry surely everyone can agree was rather questionable. As Clare Short says - what was the IMMINENT danger re Iraq? Why couldn't the UN weapons inspectors have been allowed more time so other nations like France could be better placed to decide whether or not to support the war. Decisions such as that lead me to believe there were other motivations besides the fear of WMD (a fear I believe there was unsubstantial evidence for) for going to war.
I'm afraid Vole is right. 'Needing to grow a pair' isn't a very sophisticated, well considered, reasoned or compelling argument. Much like the BNP - you're only showing yourself up by coming out with statements like that!
Katherine, thankyou! That makes two.
http://www.crystalyacht.com/images/fishing.jpg
Very funny Ewar!
If you ever do a PhD you'll learn that when you're in the thick of it your sense of humour goes awol!
In my defence I hadn't spotted the original comment so was not well placed to determine whether or not it was meant in jest.
Shall we in unison say to Vole:
'You see, that's the danger of quoting things out of context' ;-)
Well, I've managed to amuse myself no end if not anyone else!
Post a Comment