the same crappy Anglo-Althusserian-Trotskyian (Trostkyists are incompetent Stalinists) Marxist background.

The main difference is that Eagleton is familiar with English grammar and doesn’t mind making sense occasionally. Definitely preferable to Jameson.

I dunno if Jameson is alive. He was up h re for a talk a year or two back, but whatever. Like Judith Butler or Homi Baba (sp?), his books are perfect for opening to a random page, reading whatever you come upon, and wondering if the academy might be the biggest fraud there is.

Late night grumpiness = terrible commenting by me

I’d like to take this moment to apologize to two people whose work I continue to enjoy and learn from for trivializing by association with two clowns by way of a pretentious analogy.

So, I’m sorry, Mssrs. Goldman and Gleeman.

Even Eagleton and Jameson have their moments. I prefer Eagleton just for the clarity. Jameson can be illuminating, but you have to wonder why his editor does absolutely no work.

Without getting any further into something no one else cares about, part of my problem si that both guys are working out of theoretical traditions similar to my own interests, and the “closer you are,” you know.

Jameson’s book on Adorno has to be one of the worst books by a big name written in a long time — not considering in style, of course. Depressingly, there are much, much worse writers than him out there (hello kettle, you’re black).

Gotta stop now. If “theory d_f” meets “baseball d_f,” no good can come of it.