Monday, February 25, 2008

Jarrett "Obbligato" Part Two

p77 "we know what improvisation is because we know what it isn't." I'm starting to think that this kind of negative-definition thinking prevents any actual exit from dualistic thinking in binary relationships. Jarrett comments on dualism hierarchies but uses them at the same time. I wonder if defining what something IS rather than what it is not could be considered a strategy to challenge dualistic logic (and the systems of power that it ideologically supports). 

p81 Jarrett suggests that heuretics = invention ; hermeneutics = imitation or interpretation

First of all: is this right? Secondly: why are imitation and interpretation lumped together?

can't stand the whole "hymen" metaphor. especially with the verb "breach." (82)

Not really sure what Jarrett is calling a writer's "signature." Form? Voice? Formvoiceargument? This needs clarification.... Jarrett's signature may be what is irking me so.

And then the names. Okiedokie. We like words now don't we? Although "the interdependence of jams and jars" (95) speaks clearly enough about dynamic relationships between form and argument, discourse and position. 

p101 Jarrett cites Fitzgerald saying that Jazz had "no interest in politics at all." True? Oversimplified? Misrepresentative? Commonly accepted notion? Yes to all?

1 comment:

erindor said...

Kendra, I really have to say that I agree with you about Jarrett's use of binary oppositions. I understand that the majority of western culture thinks in terms of opposites, and as a result it is sometimes necessary for the sake of communication to rely on binary oppositions even while attempting to undermine them, but that sort of approach is composed of some really shifting, quicksandy soil. In Jarrett’s case, it works to a certain degree – it does get us thinking about the nature of either/or debates and classifications – but he seems unable to actually take the next step: figuring out how to communicate his points without falling back on the very binaries he critiques! I feel your frustration.

On another note, I have to disagree with you about the term “hymen.” I liked the whole metaphor, but maybe that’s just the creative writer in me, always loving to push the sexual envelope.