The Burning Key: Materialist Feminism in the Works of Joyce

Guest Poster: Hans von Ludwig, Department of Deconstruction, University of Illinois

1. Contexts of meaninglessness

The primary theme of the works of Joyce is the difference between class and society. In a sense, if neocapitalist narrative holds, we have to choose between Lyotardist narrative and the subdeconstructive paradigm of consensus. Foucault’s analysis of materialist feminism implies that the purpose of the participant is social comment.

Therefore, Cameron states that we have to choose between Debordist image and the neotextual paradigm of discourse. Many appropriations concerning the paradigm of dialectic class exist.

In a sense, the premise of neocapitalist narrative implies that context is a product of the collective unconscious, but only if materialist feminism is valid; otherwise, Sontag’s model of Debordist image is one of “Lacanist obscurity”, and hence fundamentally meaningless. Marx uses the term ‘neocapitalist narrative’ to denote the common ground between sexual identity and narrativity.

It could be said that the characteristic theme of McElwaine’s model of Debordist image is the role of the reader as observer. Debord uses the term ‘postcapitalist discourse’ to denote not situationism, but subsituationism.

2. Materialist feminism and cultural postcapitalist theory

“Class is part of the genre of consciousness,” says Sontag; however, according to Hubbard, it is not so much class that is part of the genre of consciousness, but rather the collapse, and some would say the fatal flaw, of class. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a semioticist socialism that includes sexuality as a reality. The primary theme of the works of Gaiman is the bridge between society and culture.

Therefore, Lacan promotes the use of materialist feminism to attack sexism. The main theme of Buxton’s analysis of Sartreist absurdity is a neodialectic whole.

But the example of neocapitalist narrative which is a central theme of Gaiman’s Death: The High Cost of Living emerges again in Neverwhere. The characteristic theme of the works of Gaiman is the rubicon, and eventually the meaninglessness, of constructive sexual identity.

3. Narratives of Absurdity

If one examines the pretextual paradigm of discourse, one is faced with a choice: either reject cultural postcapitalist theory or conclude that the task of the reader is significant form. However, if neocapitalist narrative holds, we have to choose between material discourse and the postcapitalist paradigm of narrative. Any number of narratives concerning neocapitalist narrative may be revealed.

“Society is unattainable,” says Foucault; however, according to la Fournier, it is not so much society that is unattainable, but rather the futility, and some would say the dialectic, of society. In a sense, Baudrillard uses the term ‘cultural postcapitalist theory’ to denote the role of the participant as reader. The premise of the semantic paradigm of consensus states that truth is intrinsically elitist.

But the subject is interpolated into a neocapitalist narrative that includes consciousness as a reality. A number of appropriations concerning not theory per se, but subtheory exist.

In a sense, Finnis implies that the works of Gaiman are postmodern. Bataille uses the term ‘materialist feminism’ to denote the role of the participant as observer.

However, the main theme of Humphrey’s essay on neocapitalist narrative is a mythopoetical paradox. Derrida suggests the use of materialist feminism to modify and read art.

But the subject is contextualised into a predialectic narrative that includes consciousness as a whole. Neocapitalist narrative suggests that society has objective value.

About these ads

9 Comments

  1. April 1, 2011 at 11:11 am

  2. Phil Derksen said,

    April 1, 2011 at 11:16 am

    That’s what I’ve been trying to say for years!

  3. Jeff Cagle said,

    April 1, 2011 at 11:40 am

    “When I think of all the … glorble snop I’ve tried so hard to explain.
    They all look amused, and a little confused.

    Why can’t they see what I mean?
    It’s very snouffly.

    Nobody understands me, nobody febber nood
    Fibble-de-zean di naizzy,
    I hate being misunderstood.”

    — Sandra Boynton, as sung by Meryl Streep.

  4. Cris Dickason said,

    April 1, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    Adrian – Oh that Calvin!

    I think I detect non-genuine narrative that originated from a random text-generating program.

  5. greenbaggins said,

    April 1, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    Why, Chis, whatever would give you THAT idea? Aside from the obvious, I mean.

  6. Joel de Leon said,

    April 1, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    I’m either too ignorant to understand what this all means or this is an April Fool’s prank.

  7. greenbaggins said,

    April 1, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    It is the latter, Joel. I got it off a postmodern essay generator. It’s complete gobbledygook.

  8. April 2, 2011 at 2:41 am

    I knew it all the time, of course. (wink, wink)

  9. April 2, 2011 at 2:43 am

    Actually, Harry Blamires, the English literary critic who’s also a believer, wrote a very fine commentary on Joyce’s “Ulysses” about 40 years ago. He thinks it’s the finest novel of the 20th century. Even better, he wrote a VERY fine commentary on Milton’s “Paradise Lost” which I found fascinating. Blamire’s in his early 90s now.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 342 other followers

%d bloggers like this: