20th Aug 2005

My dearest Agha,

When there is something to be said on criticism, then to severely criticize its’ every corpus is it not all cynicism? I will try to rare words of criticism sanctimoniously. Marrouchi has marveled Edward exemplary on his literary, personal, patriotic {Palestine}, aesthetic, music, politics and culture accounts though he admits to have criticized him too but much remains to be seen as I will read him further. I am also very behooved by Eddy’s every ambiguity to criticize and describe the very groove of things with insulated emotional flair and depth. He was a Palestinian Christian by origin who felt Out of Place and took exile eventually in States. He is beyond a soldiered pillar of literature, keen observant, creative metaphor, impenetrably deep and professionally learned. He has defined criticism of four kinds. The Practical ‘book reviews and journalism’, Academic literary history, Appreciation and Interpretation and fourthly Literary Theory which he thinks eccentric in theme but came of age in 1970’s. He claims to have gone further beyond all four.

The purpose of his book is to review the critical consciousness of intellectuals and probe on their inhibitions of identity which is greatly overshadowed by orthodoxy and territorial idiosyncrasy. He has taken precursory notes from Mimesis of Auerbach a Jew who had taken exile in Istanbul during World War two. So far Auerbach is being hammered tenebrously with every nail of nuisance on crucifix in his description of Istanbul because Edward seems to think that Auer though must have caricatured objects and events around him correctly but his despise had more to do with nostalgia for Europe and let alone not forgetting that Turkey was an Ottoman Empire, scourge for Christendom. So what he tries to explain are the shady and missing areas when intellectuals seem to write about a certain event by not including the whole history behind it. Auerbach’s disliking of the circumstances around him is not circumstantial but rather enforced upon him that led him with beleaguering hatred due to absence of privileges and necessities. The inhibited abode of Auerbach had perpetual events not just the grave situations mentioned in his text surrounding him. Edward due to his intellectual exposure expatiates on immense extremes on the entire ideology with cultural diversity on Auerbach’s nostalgia. The other interesting thing about Edward is that though his excerpt of Auerbach is only a paragraph but Eddy’s incremental portion of cross comparisons are extremely extraneous, astoundingly amplifying, with wide thinking span and his academic learned abilities. Furthermore, he is scientifically prolific in building up the filiation and affiliation system in cultures. From what I have comprehended by filiation is the fear that every culture bears and migrates further to another generation through intellectual media but the affiliation is a biological reverberated embryo of modernism which has emerged inversely due to filiation. I think it is the sort of inheritance being transgressed from one era to next and by the time it reaches modernism the contention to deject the previously held theories due to the existing urge within a present culture causes affiliation.

I am holding the key in my hand with many scattered keys around it. I cannot see any key. But am aware my key is there. I want to describe its every shape and size in words. Once I have found it, I will describe it without the care to look or think about it. Take Care.

Love Moody 20 August 2005


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