====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
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. -- محمد فتحي كلفت Mahammad Fathy Kalfat ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
