That's it! The only ism I want to come out of your mouths is jism. Overacademic Bullshit Must Die.

No - my post-marxist theory class did like one theorist per week (such that i'm shaky on Gramsci anyway) and I am too lazy to like actually study these guys for fun, even though it is fun. But where should I start if hypothetically I was going to? it might make understanding In Review easier anyway.

not that i've really talked about him on there actually, & i dunno when i'll get the time to talk about him RIGHT. he's got all these fragments of ideas which spin out and suggest things about talking about music which need to be totally fleshed out and flipped and etc. if they're going to make sense in that context. its all in the way he breaks things that seemed fixed open and the questions he suggests asking.

a-and I've never even *read* him on the Carnival. it seems like another of those things where people take one fragmentary concept from a dude and turn it into his "thing" coz the body of work is too complex. Cf. vygotsky and the zone of proximal development or hell derrida and "deconstruction" or d&g and rhizomes or etc.

HAHAHA THIS THREAD HAS TURNED INTO A DISCUSSION OF BAKHTIN!!!!

Uh. Anyway.

Then I realised I was thinking of a load of shite and went back to dreaming about Halle Berry.

If you must be "intellectual," read some Milan Kundera. He's at least funny.

And it's "Riot Girl," not "Riot Grrl." Good Charlotte can spell.

some also claim it means bisexual, jrvision. Part of me actually wishes their name was Bisexual. It would look pretty badass in their trademark font.

BUT, according to Highway to Hell: The Life & Times of Bon Scott, AC/DC was "named by Margaret Young after a warning sign she noticed on her sewing machine" (!)

night oops (i'm on yr side on the war against boys thread btw)

um, i'm surprised you're arg against ''good'' writing bcz you have ranted abt bad writers in many other threads no?

From frank's essay: ''I've heard Marcus's prose attacked for being too dry. Compared to what, the Great Flood?''

Miccio didn't give any examples but this is why this thread has been so 'successful'. he didn't put a line where good criticism ends and academic crit begins and then where that ends and overacademic crit begins.

http://www.mtv.com/news/images/p/prodigy980507.gif

There's another group here (and I'm sure this doesn't exhaust things), of which I'm a member. Those who love the highly intellectual stuff and feel privileged to read the fantastic stuff here from Sinkah and Kogan and Nabisco and Jerry the Nipper and indeed Sterling - but who have not had the kind of education that means we necessarily have much info about Gramsci and the like in our heads. Kogan's Kuhn thread (on ILE) addresses this point explicitly, by explaining the ideas he wants to discuss. I find that I can generally grasp and follow the ideas reasonably well that people like those I just mentioned bring up, and can even make some attempt to address them at times, and that comes from seeing the ideas talked about, not from any previous knowledge of them (usually) or any knowledge of their originators (which I think is generally the least important bit).

I don't complain if someone cites Gramsci and I don't know what ideas they are referencing. Sometimes I might look something up, if I have the right books to hand. If I don't know, then (at least) that part of what you've said hasn't communicated with me, but there's no rule that says I'm the audience that has to be addressed. There are very many people who know far more than me here, and if you want good talk about Gramsci, you're obviously far better off talking to them than to me anyway. If you wanted to discuss some individual idea of Gramsci's, you've excluded some people who might have had something interesting to say, which seems less desirable all round (that's still far from being something to complain about, I should emphasise). Obviously intelligence doesn't perfectly correlate with knowledge of Gramsci.

Mark, I do see what you mean about the possibility of conventionally "bad" writing to contain nuggets of instinctual insight that "good" writing might obscure. My only caveat would be that writers strive for the instinctual insights rather than the confusion. If confusion results, so be it. But sometimes I get the feeling that certain writers like this willfully allusive style for its own sake.

Oops: "he lucidly explains things that I already had a instinctual grasp of" --> You don't find this valuable in itself? Or would you prefer to keep all your thoughts on an instinctual level? (Personally, I love when a writer does this; it helps me communicate my instincts to others.)