File under: Say it ain't so

Sun Oct 24 11:39:54 UTC 2010

Not sure if you mean Derrida himself for the works of Derrida or the
language construct Derrida-the-narrator-of-the-works-of-Derrida.

And do I detect a regressive modernist desire for certainty in your
request?

"Those who say do not know. Those who 'know' do not know either."

JL

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> Subject:      Re: File under: Say it ain't so
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bravo!  You've made all this, and the lit-crit school to which it
> belongs, all understandable to me.  Now could you explain Derrida?
>
> Joel
>
> At 10/23/2010 10:21 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> >But don't you see? Don't you *see*?  A reader knows Jane Austen only
> through
> >the mental construct of "Jane Austen," an imaginary "person" formed from
> >subjective impressions of a novel or novel said to have been written by
> >"Jane Austen."
> >
> >Prof. Sutherland's research reveals that no matter how many so-called
> "Jane
> >Austen';s" there may be, the "Jane Austen" credited with the "authorship"
> of
> >_Persuasion_ specifically is not Jane Austen in any definitive sense, but
> a
> >largely fictive "Jane Austen," who is really part Jane Austen, and part an
> >unidentified editor, presumably male and very possibly the Gifford
> >character.  What is even more important is that it is now impossible for
> the
> >reader to deny responsibility for the mental construction of this "novel"
> >"Jane Austen" who corresponds to no actual person who ever lived.
> >
> >Thus, the conspiracy of Jane Austen (whom we will provisionally accept,
> >without final proof, as the actual name of an actual person who actually
> >wrote the manuscript of _Persuasion_ examined by Prof. Sutherland) and
> some
> >unknown person or persons, possibly male, to create the quite imaginary
> >persona of "Jane Austen, author of _Persuasion_, is finally exposed to the
> >light of day.
> >
> >In the latest version of the story (
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101022/stage_nm/us_austen), a further
> editor,
> >Robert Chapman, who is known to have been male, is quoted as having wished
> >"if only we could destroy these manuscripts because they are disturbing
> the
> >view of Austen that we preserve," a blatant and familiar move in the male
> >project to deny woman's authenticity in the name of an indefinable,
> elitist,
> >phallocentric "literature."
> >
> >  The most crucial result of this analysis is that even though not one
> word
> >of the received, published text of _Persuasion_ has been altered, the
> >meaning of every word has in fact been changed by the radical alteration
> of
> >our understanding of the relationship of the text to the general
> >Enlightenment fetishization of "authorship" itself, and, moreover,
> >by our apprehension that the real woman named Jane Austen (1775-1817) may
> >indeed have been the unknown editor's love slave, regardless of gender.
> >
> >In the words of Kristeva, "If Shakespeare was Bacon, King Lear becomes a
> >figure of infinite jest."
> >
> >JL
> >
> >On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu
> >wrote:
> >
> > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > > -----------------------
> > > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > > Poster:       Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
> > > Subject:      Re: File under: Say it ain't so
> > >
> > >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
>  > > At 2:12 PM -0400 10/23/10, Federico Escobar wrote:
> > > >"Unpick" also struck me as an interesting choice of words. It was
> probably
> > > >suggested --I'm speculating gratuitously-- by the ideas of precision
> and
> > > >care conveyed by "picking a lock"; since the alleged precision of
> Austen's
> > > >style was "undone" by the new study (which I'm surprised it took 200
> years
> > > >to perform), then it was "unpicked."
> > >
> > > I wouldn't think so, at least as far as the lock-picking goes.  The
> > > use of "unpick" for 'pick (a lock)', as a directly pleonastic un-verb
> > > of the "unloose", "unthaw", "unempty" variety, has long been archaic.
> > > The much more standard use over the last few centuries is related to
> > > sewing or knitting:  to unpick a sweater or whatever is to remove the
> > > stitches.  So here it's the garment Austen's prose styling carefully
> > > (or perhaps not so carefully) constructed, along with her reputation,
> > > that would be "unpicked" by this finding.  Perhaps relevant is the
> > > first OED cite for this sense of "unpick":
> > >
> > > 1808 JANE AUSTEN Let. 7 Oct. (1932) I. 217 Your gown shall be unpicked.
> > >
> > > LH
> > >
> > > >
> > > >I also noticed that the author seemed inexplicably surprised by the
> blots
> > > >and crossings. The explanation I supplied was that it was a way of
> > > opposing
> > > >the description of Austen's writing process offered by her brother:
> > > >that "everything
> > > >came finished from her pen". She probably emphasized the blots to
> unpick
> > > >people's idea of publisher-ready mansucripts flowing steadily and
> > > >unblotchedly from Austen's pen.
> > > >
> > > >F.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Jonathan Lighter
> > > ><wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com>wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>  ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > > >>  -----------------------
> > > >>  Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > > >>  Poster:       Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
> > > >>  Subject:      Re: File under: Say it ain't so
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > > >>----------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------------
> > > >>
> > > >>  Note too Prof. Sutherland's use of "unpick" to mean "undo"
> (generally).
> > > >>  (OED
> > > >>  allows for a "fig." sense, but the below has no metaphorical
> context):
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>  "Austen's unpublished manuscripts unpick her reputation for
> perfection
> > > in
> > > >>  various ways: we see blots, crossings out, messiness -- we see
> creation
> > > as
> > > >>  it happens, and in Austen's case, we discover a powerful
> > > >>  counter-grammatical
> > > >>  way of writing."
> > > >>
> > > >>  Fascinating is the gratuitously defensive phrase, "a powerful
> > > >>  counter-grammatical way of writing." All writers (with the famously
> > > alleged
> > > >>  exception of Shakespeare) blot, cross out, etc., all the time.
> > > Irrespective
> > > >>  of any later editorial improvement, that is not a weakness in Jane
> > > Austen's
> > > >>  writing. It just shows she had no word-processor.
> > > >>
> > > >>  BTW, a second look an hour later reveals that Yahoo has
> nonsexistically
> > > >>  replaced the invidious "male editor" headline.
> > > >>
> > > >  > JL
> > > >>
> > >
> > >  ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the
> truth."
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------
>  >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org