Seamus/Bloch/'lit'

Elaine Jude Leyda ejl1386 at tam2000.tamu.edu
Fri Jun 30 03:22:11 MDT 1995


	Yes, Seamus, Williams is often preferred over Eagleton, his
teacher and one whom he had to 'overcome'. But Williams collapses the
base & superstructure, and everything becomes a form of communication.
Undialectical and, if I recall, a bit 'utopian' in its own way: his
notions of democratic communication are in a way now sorely dated, but at
the same time, sorely needed. Jameson is a hard nut, on some counts,
bringing so much of Heidegger, structuralism, and so on into things. A
handy book, which everyone may yawn at by now but which I recently found,
is called _Marxist Aesthetics_ b y Herni Arvon, trans. Helen Lane, NY:
Cornell, 1973, Intro Fredric Jameson.
	Regarding your mention of drug-use in those sub-cultures...you
say drugs are used for both immediate and totally mediated experiences. ?
I am somewhat confused by this. As I recall, one of the appeals of drugs
during the 60s was the possibility of a totally UNmediated
experience--ie, I'm thinking here of Norman O Brown, RD Laing, etc. [Not
Marucse, who strongly disapproved of using drugs to 'escape': see his
'debate' with NO Brown for that.] One of the problems is that life in
late capitalism _is_ totally mediated (or 'totally administered', if you
prefer Adorno).
	One interesting thing to note, however, and something that few
seem to pay attention to is that Eagleton, Jameson, Frank Lentricchia
(for a time) all take a 'rhetorical turn' to do battle against
'bourgeois' aesthetics, garnering weapons from rhetoric for that purpose.
See, in the Eagleton vein, the conclusion of his _Literary Theory_.
Jameson & Lentricchia are especially, as is Hayden White, indebted to
Kenneth Burke, and say so.
Ciao,
Elaine



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list