In an effort to demonstrate his lecturing capability, Lusipurr tells Blitzmage and SiliconNooB a story. Then, after they awaken, Final Fantasy XIII news dominates the panel’s time. Buoyed by this, the participants finally avoid a series of lengthy rants.
6 Comments
-
Lusipurr, I am always interested in hearing a lecture, especially those of a purely academic bent, not just video games all the time – though I do appreciate the social-historical context that games and the industry are often put in, unique to Lusipurr.com! But I have some serious problems with the Roland Barthes stuff…
This summer, I took a Literary Theory class, with excerpts from Foucault, Derrida, Saussure, Barthes, and others. While I do see the merit in some of Foucault, especially on how the discourse of a particular time cordons off what is considered appropriate to talk about, the post-structuralist/semiotics contigent left a horrible taste in the brain. They read as being self-satisfied in their correctness, which takes one particular view of literature and then tries to apply it to everything, up into social criticism. I think that their “signifiers” have little meaning, although I could be wrong because they use so much of their terminology that it’s difficult for one, as you pointed out, to understand their writing without being well-versed in it.
Psychoanalysis has suffered similarly in academic Psychology because of its self-referentiation, to which there is a vastly more hypothetical than empirical basis for. Now, this was only an undergraduate class, so several representative pages rather than entire books were read, but by the time Barthes came around at the end of the semester I had totally had enough. I rarely sell my college textbooks, because they tend to be informative enough to be useful later, but I sold my Literary Theory anthology as soon as possible.
Structuralism and Post-structuralism have points, and may be interesting to read how they play out in particular pieces (I’m thinking now of an introduction to the Illiad I had just read), but have too narrow a viewpoint and are too intellectually self-satisfied. I’m sorry you have to suffer them, though they had been a major force in the later 20th century and one should be at least familiar with their arguements. Their explicit purpsose is “destablizing” the literature, and it works for the reader as well. Ultimately, I learned far more about literary criticism from Literature of Adolescence because the professor tried to show how many interpretations were possible, than from the Derrideans, etc. who simply cut the text into pieces and after having done so, either make irrational connections or fail to see any at all.
Please do continue the lectures though, especially as filler on a low news week. Even if it comes in the form of intellectual sado-masochism.
-
HAHAHAH, Ethos you old so and so. *rubs monocle*
Still, though, I’m happy to listen to these things. Informative, to say the least. Instead of doing whatnot else while listening to this podcast, I made a point to stop and really listen. I for one, wouldn’t mind a small part of each podcast be a reading from whatever you thought interesting, Lusi.
-
Academics go through phases. This one, I hope, is ending soon. In the meantime, consider writing an essay on the failings of post-structuralism and the need for meaning. I’m thinking now of how Tolkien’s “Monsters and the Critics” decried years of misguided Beowulf research. Beat them at their own game.