Public service announcement
Ellis:
The fault's mine - I shouldn't have blogged the damn thing in the first place. I generally avoid the topic of Chomsky because it's so hard, in two senses, to write about him critically (which has been the only way I can write about the guy for several years now). On one hand, he writes in a style which makes it unusually hard to make anything stick; on the other, he's got a lot of devotees who will react to any criticism by leaping to his defence as a matter of principle. Oliver Kamm (whom I agree with about practically nothing, except his critique of Chomsky) has evidently got the obsessive dedication and the thick skin which the Chomsky-critic needs. I haven't, frankly - previous engagements with Chomsky's defenders have left me drained, mentally and emotionally. And this is, clearly, the last thing I need right now.
So, I'm a libertarian socialist but I've got it in for Chomsky. Who knows why? Maybe I was frightened by a generative linguist at an early age. Maybe I just can't handle Chomsky's unflinchingly bleak vision of the world. Or maybe I'm not so much a libertarian socialist, more a wet liberal apologist for imperialism - that would explain a lot. Up to you.
But the exhilarating territory of a fraternal disagreement? No thanks, Ellis. Let's not.
Very Small Update: I feel compelled to note that I own five books authored by Noam Chomsky and one by Francis Wheen (which I haven't read). I didn't pay for most of them, mind you.
Absolutely Final Update: Emma Brockes is an ignorant idiot, or at least writes like one; I thought her 'interview' with Chomsky was a really dreadful piece of journalism. This doesn't qualify my own views on Chomsky's work.
there is one dissenting voice on the blogger left. He believes he has located “a devastating case against Chomsky, focusing in particular on the Srebrenica massacre.”Personal to ES: let's not, OK? At least, not just now. After last month's events I'm still turning down and postponing work assignments, so a fraternal disagreement is the last thing I need. Least of all about Chomsky.
Yes, I mean you, Phil.
Well, I’m on to it, comrade. And I think we are are about to enter the exhilarating territory of a fraternal disagreement.
More soon.
The fault's mine - I shouldn't have blogged the damn thing in the first place. I generally avoid the topic of Chomsky because it's so hard, in two senses, to write about him critically (which has been the only way I can write about the guy for several years now). On one hand, he writes in a style which makes it unusually hard to make anything stick; on the other, he's got a lot of devotees who will react to any criticism by leaping to his defence as a matter of principle. Oliver Kamm (whom I agree with about practically nothing, except his critique of Chomsky) has evidently got the obsessive dedication and the thick skin which the Chomsky-critic needs. I haven't, frankly - previous engagements with Chomsky's defenders have left me drained, mentally and emotionally. And this is, clearly, the last thing I need right now.
So, I'm a libertarian socialist but I've got it in for Chomsky. Who knows why? Maybe I was frightened by a generative linguist at an early age. Maybe I just can't handle Chomsky's unflinchingly bleak vision of the world. Or maybe I'm not so much a libertarian socialist, more a wet liberal apologist for imperialism - that would explain a lot. Up to you.
But the exhilarating territory of a fraternal disagreement? No thanks, Ellis. Let's not.
Very Small Update: I feel compelled to note that I own five books authored by Noam Chomsky and one by Francis Wheen (which I haven't read). I didn't pay for most of them, mind you.
Absolutely Final Update: Emma Brockes is an ignorant idiot, or at least writes like one; I thought her 'interview' with Chomsky was a really dreadful piece of journalism. This doesn't qualify my own views on Chomsky's work.
posted by Phil at 11:58 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home