<< WHEREAS, tater tots ... | Front Page | Samuel Johnson's Anti-Aesthetic >>
Friday, April 22, 2005
The Chuck Klosterman Guide to Debating about Literary Theory
Readers of Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs may remember Klosterman’s formula for being “relentlessly dynamic” in conversation:
When discussing any given issue, always do three things. First make an intellectual concession (this makes the listener feel comfortable). Next, make a completely incomprehensible--but remarkably specific--"cultural accusation” (this makes you insightful). Finally, end the dialogue by interjecting slang lexicon that does not necessarily exist (this makes you contemporary).I decree that this formula is now the preferred method of debating the historicity of aestheticism, not to mention the aesthetics of historicism, here on the Valve. Here are some examples:
- We all recognize that the symptom has been etiolated in the fluorescence of postmodernity, but the neo-Delandians have embraced the liberality of “activism,” so we need to formalize this kickstand in the jimmy.
- Ever since Baudrillard’s commentary on Neo-Optics, the soteriologists have concluded that I.A. Richards believed falsely in the “brain,” but the network-centric umwelt wouldn’t fetch three shillings in today’s Slauson swap-meet.
- I can’t believe that people are still, after Evanston’s intervention in the historiography of the turn away from the theoretical turn, argufying that this mapping of post-materiality moves wouldn’t fetch sap from amber.
Try your own in the comments.
Comments
Even those of us who accept the partially metonymic nature of the Zizekian unconconscious find it hard to agree with (de)theorized historical interventions, for the page will not be turned by a dog without breath.
I think you’re probably right about the direction that discussion of this topic has taken lately. But the way you’ve phrased it, the radicalizable members of the audience who are just coming to terms with disintermediation are going to seize upon the statement. There is a real risk that this issue seriously might pumpkin up all over the place and then where will we be?
I think you are right to focus on the discursive aspects of literary theoretic engagement in the context of a post-ironic cultural milieu. However, Klosterman’s pseudo-reactionary apologies on behalf of low-cultural imperialism undermine the foundations of your strategic intervention. We can’t all get down with the sound, know what I’m saying?
Hmm, it seems as though you might be making fun of me in this post, and if so, you might have a point. Perhaps my comments do fall into a rather predictable rhythm of tonal oscillation. But it’s really no surprise, since, as Heidegger asserts, “the jug’s thingness does not lie at all in the material of which it consists, but in the void that holds.” That said, if you make fun of me again I’ll kick your ass up and down the street, kay?
Add a comment: