From: s1mbm@isuvax.iastate.edu (michael bruce mcdonald)
Subject: Re: Paglia (was: Cross-Writing)
Reply-To: s1mbm@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:58:13 GMT

In article <1ifpocINN5kv@aludra.usc.edu>, rhogan@aludra.usc.edu (Ron Hogan) writes:
>John McCarthy writes:
>
>>I learned a lot from _Sexual Personae_.  
>
>I did as well.  It's a very intriguing pop summary of WestCiv.  I'd
>also agree that she's very well-read, but not that "almost no-one has
>read as much as she has."  Certainly few people *cite* as much as she
>does, but I'm sure many people, especially academics, have read as much.
>
>>In general, I prefer discussion of the ideas of a book to discussion
>>of the personality or skill of the author.  At least discussion of
>>the ideas should come first.
>
>In *general*, I prefer this kind of discussion as well.  And for most
>cases, it holds true.  Certainly one doesn't need to know the sordid
>details of Foucault's life to discuss his theories: they may *amplify*
>that discussion, but don't provide the essence of the debate.  That's

I don't appreciate your calling the details of Foucault's life "sordid" just
because he happened to be gay . . . Or are you referring to something else?

michael mcdonald


>why I think Paul Johnson's _Intellectuals_ is such a reprhensible book:
>because it's main thesis seems to be, "The people we claim are the great
>shapers of modern thought were all depraved, immoral, and had lousy
>personalities."
>
>In certain cases, though, the writer's personality is totally infused
>with the writing, and Camille Paglia's _Sexual_Personae_ is exactly
>what I have in mind.  If a writer is going to survey WestCiv/WestLit
>and dismiss Sterne with a casual, "I don't see why people think
>Tristam Shandy is funny" (again, I'm paraphrasing; my copy of SP is
>on the East Coast, and I'm on the West), that to me represents a blatant
>positioning of her own opinion as the arbitrer of truth.
>
>Which is what everybody else does; they just pretend to be more
>objective about it.  But if you're going to use the "this is how
>history is because this is how I say it is" argument, you have to
>be able to back it up with more than repeated assertions.
>
>And let's face it, Paglia herself contributes to the identification
>of her personality with the book's content through every TV or
>magazine appearance she does.  Compared to Paglia's form of responding
>to her critics and to other contemporary writers, I've been a model
>of restraint. and certainly less *ad hominem* than she is.
>
>SP isn't a bad book.  But it's hardly the masterpiece that Camille
>Paglia claims it is, either.
>
>And the Vintage trade paperback *did* have a snazzy cover,
>but that's to be expected.  Some of the sharpest minds in
>book design are working in that department-- witness the
>Black Lizard books and many of the Vintage Internationals,
>especially the Martin Amis, Julian Barnes, and Vladimir
>Nabakov-- and Jeanette Winterson's _Sexing_the_Cherry_.
>
>If one were to buy books solely on the cover, Vintage
>trade paperbacks might be the way to go.
>
>Ron Hogan
>
>but then there's the Grove Press trade pbs of Burroughs...
>