The problem of "Derrida's Haunt" is that it is a (re)(re)interpretation.
That is fine after you've been closer to the source, but as a first book
on the subject, I think that it can be more than (mis)leading. If
we must read secondary sources - let's read Gasche first. In fact -
reading Derrida outside of a dialogue/argument/discussion becomes
extremely tedious. It is in the argument that his work achieves its
voice. But, Derrida is a beautiful speaker/writer . Why don't we read
him first and then go on the to the secondaries with a knowledge
of the origins.
- Ray
That is fine after you've been closer to the source, but as a first book
on the subject, I think that it can be more than (mis)leading. If
we must read secondary sources - let's read Gasche first. In fact -
reading Derrida outside of a dialogue/argument/discussion becomes
extremely tedious. It is in the argument that his work achieves its
voice. But, Derrida is a beautiful speaker/writer . Why don't we read
him first and then go on the to the secondaries with a knowledge
of the origins.
- Ray