This is just another example of what a pretentious ass Eagleton is. What is genuine revolutionary art but a posturing notion? Furthermore, the vitriol directed at liberalism is the language of the right. There is insight among the disillusioned conservatives, to be sure, but this is hardly a perceptive analysis. Better you should read Raymond Williams' THE POLITICS OF MODERNISM than this crap.
On 11/29/2010 6:56 AM, M.F. Kalfat wrote: > In *Marxism and Literary Criticism*, Eagleton concludes a section entitled > "Base and Superstructure" in chapter one, "Literature and History" with > this: > > Whether those insights are in political terms ‘progressive’ or ‘reactionary’ > (Conrad's are certainly the latter) is not the point – any more than it is > to the point that most of the agreed major writers of the twentieth century > – Yeats, Eliot, Pound, Lawrence – are political conservatives who each had > truck with fascism. Marxist criticism, rather than apologising for that > fact, explains it – sees that, *in the absence of genuinely revolutionary > art*, only a radical conservativism, hostile like Marxism to the withered > values of liberal bourgeois society, could produce the most significant > literature. [emphasis added] > > > Is it a case of total "absence"? Is it inevitable in a capitalist society? > Could there be exceptions? Can you name some of these if any? For practical > purposes, let's stick to modern literature. > _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
