Comments on: The master’s voice

By: Umair Muhajir

Umair Muhajir — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:29:48 +0000

I also disagree with the notion that all those who were appalled at the obit were merely left-wing ranters. Among them were people whose work is very insightful and serious, such as Thomas Keenan, Avital Ronell, Gayatri Spivak and Judith Butler (but perhaps these are the very left-wing ranters you have in mind). The letters to NYT circulated online afterward (a handful of which were published in the NYT) indicated in many cases a nuanced appraisal of Derrida’s legacy, not legions of unthinking acolytes.

By: Umair Muhajir

Umair Muhajir — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:15:31 +0000

What I did not like about the obituary was the fact that for most of it the obituary relied on bitter and rather partisan critics of derrida. The NYT does not do this with other academics (recall the obituary on Isaiah Berlin). Giving extensive rein to Richard Wolin in Derrida’s obit is a bit like allowing Slavoj Zizek to go hogwild in Berlin’s. The result was that the view presented of Derrida’s work and thought was rather skewed, to the point where in my view it misrepresented his work.

By: Nara

Nara — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:40:13 +0000

the hatchet job on the derrida obituary

Umair, What exactly did you not like about the obit? Please do not take some left wing professors rants seriously. I think Kandell got it right.

By: Umair Muhajir

Umair Muhajir — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:45:04 +0000

I didn’t like it because I found it banal, especially in its reworking of the Orpheus myth– didn’t see how Rushdie’s treatment added to my understanding of the myth, or vice versa. Further, I didn’t find his to be a meaningful meditation on the whole rock “scene,” and to this reader he seemed a bit out of his element.

By: Manish Vij

Manish Vij — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:37:02 +0000

All you who didn't like Ground: why not?

By: Eddie

Eddie — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:25:40 +0000

Midnight’s Children is a triumphant novel. That is Rushdie’s permanent achievement–a novel that will probably be read 100 years from now. His stregnth is clearly exuberant language; his characterization is so-so (when he’s considered against the very best novelists: Naipaul, Saramago, Marquez and a few others). The last couple of novels have been disasters. He needs one more big one to grab that Nobel, or he does something in literary non-fiction, otherwise he may be out of contention.

By: Umair Muhajir

Umair Muhajir — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:16:09 +0000

Haven’t read it yet, but from the sound of things this is going to be better than the excrescential fury and ground beneath her feet (the latter just seemed fake)…don’t think he’s ever going to surpass Satanic Verses, but that would be a tall order… As for the NYT: people, you’re talking about a paper that had a policy of not reviewing Foucault’s work until some years ago (according to my former prof Perry Meisel); there was the hatchet job on the derrida obituary– when does that paper ever get it?

By: Manish Vij

Manish Vij — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:47:50 +0000

Oh no you di’nt…

By: Raju

Raju — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:44:16 +0000

"No offense Manish but I really don't understand Sepia Mutiny's obsession with M.I.A. She's such a poser!"

dude, you went there...

By: bb

bb — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:16:07 +0000

“SepiaMutiny Effect from July Onwards: I am starting to like M.I.A.

You know, I had to throw it in there, since she hasn’t been mentioned in the last two hours or so.”

No offense Manish but I really don’t understand Sepia Mutiny’s obsession with M.I.A. She’s such a poser!