|
|
38 of 51 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
plagued by vagueness, 23 Oct 2003
By A Customer
I'm a Eagleton "fan", if you judge him to have sufficient celebrity to make that possible. I was introduced to his work via Ideology of the Aesthetic as an undergraduate, and I've always been eager to read his pieces when they appear in the popular press. Although I don't go in for it much, I did read The Gatekeeper, which was a entertaining account of his childhood and later life, which contained a good dose of first-hand accounts of the silliness (and seriousness) of liberal theory and practice.I also have more than a passing interest in high theory, and I've read (and enjoyed) Foucalt, Adorno, Heidegger, Deluze, as well as their acolytes like critic Stephen Greenblatt and philosopher Slavoj Zizek. So I was excited to read After Theory. Here we go, I thought -- a first rate mind comes up against a first rate problem: the status of critical theory in the next generation, and its relationship to the larger culture. Sufficiently excited, even, to order the book from the UK (I'm in the States, and it won't come out here until March 2004.) I'm incredibly disappointed with "After Theory." It is one long ramble about the history of the world and the history of theory (two things with quite different time spans.) There is next-to-zero citation from theorists to illustrate the rather contentious things Eagleton might say at times about the "true nature" of some theorist's project. There is precious little evidence at all, really, and little argumentative effort invested. Instead, After Theory rambles like a tourist bus through various hot spots (9/11, WTO protests, conferences on masturbation, ill defined groups of hungry people in Africa), pausing only to issue a vague judgement or two before shuttling you on to somewhere else. Eagleton has lost the ability to distinguish between start and finish in the broad sense where you try to derive an interesting point from something apparently less interesting. I call it the "Brazil or Indonesia" style of writing. More than once in his chapters (more than once on a page, sometimes), Eagleton will say something very vague and tack on "in Brazil or Indonesia." (Well, sometimes it's Kenya or Indonesia, or Kenya and Ulster -- you get the point.) The problem is that Brazil and Indonesia are (to put it mildly) very different places, and anything you say about the nature of culture or politics that applies to both places is either trivial or contentious or flat out wrong. So, sadly: give this one a miss.
|