A radical critique of Western philosophy, a disorientating reading of familiar texts, a stunning verbal agility, not to mention a disconcerting tendency to ‘deconstruct’ his critics – all this already adds up to a formidable and subversive intellectual enterprise. But Derrida does not make things easy for his readers. His elliptical and convoluted style is quite deliberate. Refusing to make clearcut distinctions between the philosophical and literary uses of language, and contesting the view that any such thing as an ‘objective’ account or summary of a philosophical text is possible, he embodies this theoretical position in texts that forbid consoling illusions of simplicity.
Follow Literary Review on Twitter
This 'jaunty narrative raises fundamental questions about the role of popular history. Should this just be a matter of telling tales, as the general public often seems to think?'
@DrLRoach weighs up Charles Spencer's account of the White Ship Disaster.
'Amis clearly belongs to the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do school of pedagogy. More or less everything he says is demonstrably contradicted by elements of his own work, be they here or elsewhere.'
'The bar is set high at the outset, and readers are primed to wonder if Mikhail can make his case.'
Does Alan Mikhail's new life of the Sultan Selim I really overturn 'shibboleths that have held sway for a millennium'? Caroline Finkel investigates.