Talk:Fredric Jameson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dense[edit]

This is pretty dense stuff.

I wonder if The Political Unconscious shouldn't be flagged also as one of his best-known works. The analysis of it given is brief enough; perhaps it should also mention that he adopts or adapts material not obviously from the left, for example Northrop Frye and the quadriga.

I'm going to attempt some straight copy edits to improve readabiliy.

Charles Matthews 10:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts, and on the need for copyediting. I haven't had a chance yet to read the large additions to this article carefully, but it definitely needs more on Jameson's literary-critical writing as well as his political thought. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Any editing would be appreciated. I've only begun writing the article and haven't had occasion to properly distribute content in sections or care for readability. Please bear with me; it's ages since I wrote anything serious in English, and Jameson is dauntingly difficult to summarize adequately. The quadriga allusion beats me, though. ¿Care to expatiate? --Taragui 02:08, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Quadriga is sometimes used for the four-level medieval scheme of Biblical interpretation literal/allegorical/tropological/teleological. Wikipedia may not have caught up with this, yet. Charles Matthews 08:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Litera res gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia, right? I didn't know about the term (though I had quite my share of the stuff reading the Church Fathers). Will add that when I have some time. Could you pinpoint me to a specific locus in Jameson for his take on the stuff? Thanks. Taragui 11:19, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

The Political Unconscious, Chapter 1, section II on Frye: '... Frye's work comes before us as a virtual contemporary invention of the four-fold hermeneutic ...'; so he nearly equates the two, explaining that in the following pages. Charles Matthews 12:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm a bit baffled by the section "the critique of postmodernism." This gives the reader the impression that Jameson is an adversary of pomo, whereas if you read him carefully Jameson celebrates postmodern art at least as much as he critiques it. And you yourself mention this at the end of the section, where you talk about his critics' perception that he'd endorsed pomo. This sub-heading should be edited, don't you think? Nostalgiphile 05:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold and rewrite it, although I don't think that Jameson can be construed as an endorser of postmodernity in any sense (apart from considering it an authentic expression of the Zeitgeist, but the authenticity is also a notion to be critiqued). I'm barely active in this wiki nowadays. Best, Taragüí @ 20:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed link to New Left Review abstract page for The Politics of Utopia. URL is .org not .net.
chacal la chaise (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Political scam[edit]

As documented by Captain's Quarters [1] and Middle Earth Journal[2] somebody registered imwithfred2008.com, originally made a bogus site that linked possible Republican candidate Fred Thompson with the KKK. The registration entry was not hidden very well: Henry Reynolds 500 California Ave. #5 Santa Monica, California 90403 United States

Eventually and currently as of this writing the site points to the Fredric Jameson article page, attempting to hide the original intent. As a 2008 dirty trick about a notable candidate should there be a mention? Should it have its own page and disambiguation? Inquiring minds... TMLutas 01:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for history's sake, here's the offending page available at http://www.imwithfred2008.com

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> <html>

<head> <title>www.imwithfred2008.com</title> <META name="description" content="Fred Thompson, Fred Tompson, Fred Thomson"><META name="keywords" content="Fred Thompson, Fred Tompson, Fred Thomson"> </head> <frameset rows="100%,*" border="0"> <frame src="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredric_Jameson" frameborder="0" /> <frame frameborder="0" noresize /> </frameset>

</html>

And there it is TMLutas 03:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely irrelevant to any possible encyclopedic discussion, present or future, about Jameson. I don't really even see any point in preserving the page source or the details about the domain registration here -- it just seems completely irrelevant. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following message removed from the article referred to this. Charles Matthews 19:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.imwithfred2008.com was originally used to smear Fred Thompson's presidential campaign. Please see http://www.imwithfred.com/
All of the aforementioned links (http://www.imwithfred2008.com and http://www.imwithfred.com/) are now dead. The whole affair seems far too transient and petty, ephemeral even, to be worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, particularly in an encyclopedic entry regarding Fredric Jameson, whose critique of our obsession with the Present verges on disapproval. Oulipal (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern theory?[edit]

I'm not sure why "Category:Postmodern theory" was deleted from this article by User:Woland1234 on November 26, 2010: the very same user who added this category to the Jameson article on October 28, 2010!!??

Let's put this article back into the category "Postmodern theory". Surely putting Jameson in this "category" is a helpful marker for readers. Surely it's not an "unreliable" marker! (??) Christian Roess (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality among others[edit]

The article style borders on hagiography at times. Combined with the meager sourcing for the article, I'd also question whether the article violates the original research policy. Horrorshowj (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge this. As someone quite familiar with Jameson's academic biography, this article is perfectly adequate. There are no major scandals being obscured, and the coverage of Jameson's work is fully commensurate with his status as a leading intellectual figure in the U.S. Also, there is no reason given by Horrorshow for this article to be in dispute. Personal distaste for an intellectual, or an intellectual's work, has no bearing on the Wikipedia article. As such, I request that the contested nature of the page be revoked.-TED, 19:41, 14 March 2011

IP address challenged and untagged the article in the space of 5 minutes. I put forward reasons for the tag, which you ignored. Saying "style borders on hagiography" is a strong indication that I feel it violates NPOV. The tone of the article is reverent, not encyclopedic. When religious figures seem less miraculous and worthy of worship than an academic, based on their respective articles, it's a pretty good indication the article on the academic needs to be toned down a wee bit.
Further, this is a very large article that has only 8 references. Most of these are used for 1-2 lines, which results in less than 10% of the article being sourced to anything. This has me wondering if the article violates No Original Research. These tags were added so that the people interested in the topic would have a chance to fix the violations. I would have been justified in removing the unsourced portion of the article, as it is a BLP. Horrorshowj (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Hagiographic" is not a good description of this article. This challenge is not warranted, in my opinion. However, the section on postmodernism needs some serious cleaning up. It is very unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.253.218 (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tagging[edit]

I've removed 2 tags (OR and NPOV) and replaced them with {{refimprove}} as there a) is no indication in the article of need and b) no reasoning actually given. Please take more care when tagging articles. If there is a neutrality issue explain in detail where that issue in the article text. Wide generalizations like reads like a hagiography is neither helpful nor specific--149.5.40.6 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"skepticism towards metanarratives"?[edit]

This article's section entitled "The critique of postmodernism" reads as follows:

"Jameson here [the 1991 full-sized book Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism] viewed the postmodern "skepticism towards metanarratives" as a "mode of experience" stemming from the conditions of intellectual labor imposed by the late capitalist mode of production."

In fact, Jameson refrains from fully embracing Lyotard's soundbite ("skepticism towards metanarratives"), and goes as far as actively distancing himself from it in the introduction (xi):

"Achille Bonito-Oliva's version of postmodernism theory [...] seems to me a more interesting and plausible story than Lyotard's related one about the end of "master narratives" (eschatalogical schemata that were never really narratives in the first place, although I may also have been incautious enough to use the expression from time to time)."

It seems to me that portions of this article may have been written by undergraduates paraphrasing lectures, rather than individuals who have actually read any critical and/or cultural theory.

Either way, Lyotard's actual quote from The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (1979, xxiv) reads as follows: "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives." (Emphasis in the original.)

Again, this is a much (mis)quoted citation. As Lyotard himself is quick to point out, this is an extreme simplification, to the point where it was not even included in the actual body of the text, but merely in its introduction. Undergraduates quote introductions because they rarely make it to the actual text itself; encyclopedias ought to be more thorough. Also, note that skepticism and incredulity are certainly close in meaning, but they are not exact synonyms. Metanarratives and master narratives, on the other hand, are regarded as synonymous in some quarters.

In any case, connecting Jameson to Lyotard's statement seems foolish and inaccurate, to say the least. Oulipal (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

China?[edit]

An entire section dedicated to Jameson's influence in China seems to be out of balance with the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.137.216 (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This part is one of the best in the whole article, and there is no conflict of composition because of it Konstantin.V.Azarov (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideologeme`s contradiction[edit]

There is a conflict between sentences in this article concerning question who exactly coined term 'Ideologeme'. Question is seemed to be complicated to clarify, so compromise version is probably the best decision.

On this ground this paragraph:

The term "ideologeme" was originally coined by Julia Kristeva. She defined it as "the intersection of a given textual arrangement...with the utterances... that it either assimilates into its own space or to which it refers in the space of exterior texts...".)[1] < this is incorrect for the term was actually used by Volosinov well before Kristeva [2]

was transformed to this:

At the first time the term "ideologeme" was used by Valentin Voloshinov[3] and then was popularised by Julia Kristeva. Kristeva defined it as "the intersection of a given textual arrangement...with the utterances... that it either assimilates into its own space or to which it refers in the space of exterior texts...".) [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konstantin.V.Azarov (talk • contribs) 09:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kristeva, Julia. "Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art". Ed. Leon S. Roudiez. Trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine, and Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia UP, 1980. pp. 2, 36.
  2. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=fIPuRyFvDKIC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=volosinov+ideologeme&source=bl&ots=Xk1O07neO6&sig=YI9vvQQkhvymIRhCWsTTTeFMQMY&hl=en#v=onepage&q=volosinov%20ideologeme&f=false
  3. ^ Volosinov V.Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. 1976. p. 33. Original edition - 1929.
  4. ^ Kristeva, Julia. "Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art". Ed. Leon S. Roudiez. Trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine, and Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia UP, 1980. pp. 2, 36.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fredric Jameson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fredric Jameson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fredric_Jameson&oldid=1194466125"