a few months ago i was reading the discussion page for 'hauntology', the consensus seems to have been to get rid of it as it wasn't sufficiently clear or popular
i mean, talk about delibidinising. its like being listed in the encyclopedia brittanica!
Yeah well who is going to do that? No one to my knowledge has yet thoughtfully engaged Derrida's use of the term, least of all K-punk, who sometimes sounds like warmed over Derrida circa Speech and Phenomena -- paying lip service to Spectres of Marx as a 'response to Fukuyama's concept of the end of history' or whatever it was that K-punk wrote, was not, erm, anything remotely resembling an engagement with Derrida's text, much less thought. (If I am wrong, by the way, I will be more than happy to admit it.) The usage of hauntology among music bloggers still strikes me as extraordinarily unclear, and in many cases, just plain confused. If that changes I will take back my words, but I don't see any sign . . . was interesting when Penman noted that accumulating lists with the word 'ghost' in it hardly counts as an argument.Yes I saw that too. I think if someone re-wrote it from a more explicitly Derridean PoV
The usage of hauntology among music bloggers still strikes me as extraordinarily unclear, and in many cases, just plain confused. If that changes I will take back my words, but I don't see any sign . . . was interesting when Penman noted that accumulating lists with the word 'ghost' in it hardly counts as an argument.
The fact that colleges and universities won't except work that references wikipedia is telling.
The only place I see Wikipedia taken seriously as a source are on things like blogs and internet forums. It's too unreliable to be used by anyone working in publishing. I work as a fact checker and copyeditor for a number of publishers, all of whom regularly issue strong warnings that Wikipedia should not be used as a source under any circumstances.