Papagena, thank you for your insightful and thorough review of the talk. I think we're actually in more agreement than you might have initially imagined.
First, I am in no way denigrating Nietzsche (I would never have that kind of hubris I hope!). Since my approach is primarily indebted to the historical/geneaological work of Foucault, I recognize that much of that approach has its roots in just what you isolate in Nietzsche's work. Lacan rewrites Freud. Althusser rewrites Marx. Foucault in many ways rewrites Nietzsche, and has always been the most useful in my own work.
I was in a bit of a hurry toward the end of the paper, so I apologize if some of it got garbled. My point was to address Kittler's pride in proclaiming he would be teaching a course on 20th-century audio-visual media but the actual media would not make any appearances in the class--unless of course it was silent or experimental film. By saying he wants to conjure the "Nietzschian ghost of pen, paper, and ear,' I'm referring to a reference in "Optical Media" where he states he wants to recreate the exact pedagogical environment of Nietzcshe's era: students listening with the ear and occasionally putting pen to paper. My point was how artificial and oddly conservative it is to enforce such a dated regime when teaching, as if he wants his students to return to the Discourse Network of 1900 to understand the media technologies and environment of our current era (He claims it will give his students an "outsider" perspective to study Optical media without actually looking at any Optical media--I just disagree, and wanted to move on to the point that his students are probably wholly competent at balancing several media flows simultaneously).
I apologize also if the exchange between Professor Carroll and myself was more about insider gossip than actual intellectual debate. But the remarks were not really directed at "post-structuralism" in all its guises, but rather at a very ascetic brand of psychoanalytic film theory (again, SLAB theory according to Bordwell) that was extremely influential in the '70s and '80s. I said many Lacanians tended to be humorless, and this was more a joke (a cheap one admittedly) at the zeal with which they embrace and defend that paradigm. Most other "schools" of French theory from that era were, if not necessarily compatible, at least in a type of dialogue or open for further development. To be a Lacanian, however, is very often to accept something almost akin to a closed cosmology--complete and total in its theoretical perfection (its also why I'm such a fan of "Anti-Oedipus," which artfully seeks to challenge that paradigm). Please know, I have immense respect for Mary Anne Doane's work and teach much of it in my seminars. As far as psychoanalysis goes, I am often torn between awestruck "belief" in Freud's discovery of the unconscious and Foucault's rather trenchant dismantling of the Freudian project. As for Professor Carroll's takes on all of this, I'll let him speak for himself!