Stuff

[litotease]

1. I distinctly remember that much of what I read on LJ/DW, back when I was gainfully employed, was prefaced with "I should be working on my [homework/paper/thesis/some other school related thing], but I'm [writing/reading/vidding] fannish stuff, instead!" And I remember thinking how nice it was going to be to have some free time once I got back to school...
   
   BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


2. A lot of our readings reference the writing of dead white guys that I should have already read but haven't--Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, Lacan, Foucault... I feel like I've jumped into the middle of a very long discussion (decades long, centuries long--which is, I think, an accurate description) and am having trouble picking up all of the conversational threads.
   
   I would love suggestions for either:
   
   
   • Good, introductory books on any of these guys (or others I should be familiar with.
   
   
   • A basic, key article/paper/argument from any of 'em that I should tackle to start.
   
   

In thanks, may I offer music? (Seriously, check out the awesome chick rocking slide on the electric cigar box guitar.)

Comments

[katesnotes]

The dead white guy conversation is ongoing and I have never felt that I have conquered it (despite the fact that I am just about to get my PhD). However, it does get easier to wing it.

In terms of what you should read - I am a big believer in primary texts so I always think you should read whichever dude is currently under discussion. Part of the reason for this is that everyone writing about them since is also part of that long ongoing discussion and if you read them you will have to work out their perspective as well.

With Marx you should read "the Communist Manifesto" it is short, easy and intended for a general audience. Everything else he wrote should be, in my opinion (and remember I am now part of the conversation myself), interpreted with reference to the Communist Manifesto.

When I started reading Marx my parents had these books published by the communist party that had all of Marx's writings on particular subjects eg on historical materialism. These were very useful and I am sure some version exists on the internet or in your library.

The thing to remember with the French writers is that their academic style is not the same as the Anglo (or even German) style. They never actually make the point, they will often write circularly around and around it. It is very annoying from a Anglo perspective. It means that you will probably have to read everything several times before it makes sense. With Foucault, "Birth of the Clinic" and "Discipline and Punish" are relatively easy to read - still very circular and French but he is telling a story in them. "Archaeology of Knowledge" and "the Order of things" are harder but I enjoyed them more. I haven't read any of the others.

I think I began to understand Foucault when I read Edward Said's "Orientalism". I think its introduction contains the best explanation of Foucault that I have read. He also explicates Gramsci and Raymond Williams there as well. However, I know other people who find Said very difficult - I think he wrote beautifully.

I am sorry I have gone on for so long in your journal - these things seem to take many words. I hope you don't mind - sorry again.

[litotease]

LOL - I welcome all the words very much!

The dead white guy conversation is ongoing and I have never felt that I have conquered it

I am finding it both frustrating and strange that there is no lower-division requirement for a class that covers these texts. While I understand that there is much that is problematic with requiring students to read dead white guys at the expense of other voices, if those other voices make it into academia, they reference the dead white guys in their own works. Just off the top of my head, I remember from last semester that at minimum Judith Butler references Hegel, Althusser, Nietzsche, and Foucault in Gender Trouble; Veena Das in Life and Words--which we're reading this week--references Wittgenstein, Derrida, Cavell, and Foucault in her first chapter. ::headdesk:: ::headdesk:: ::headdesk::

[The French writers] never actually make the point, they will often write circularly around and around it.

Oh dear God, Foucault; I keep having the feeling that if I had the time to go through The History of Sex: Volume I with a Sharpie (to black out every single parenthetical clause and tangent) it might--might!--make his actual argument visible enough so that I could begin to parse it.

With Marx you should read "the Communist Manifesto" it is short, easy and intended for a general audience.

Thank you! That's exactly the kind of suggestion I needed. I've got a copy of The Marx-Engels Reader at my elbow, but I keep looking at it and thinking "I can't read another book right now!!!" An essay or two, I can probably manage. =)

these things seem to take many words

LOL--apparently they do! I hope you don't mind the long response.

I am just about to get my PhD

Congratulations! That's a massive accomplishment.

What's your area? What's your dissertation on? ::is nosy and curious:: (Please feel free to NOT tell me. I more than understand not wanting to put real life info on a public journal.)