anti Rushdie on Pynchon 2

[MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu]

H. Musikar reveals a stunning virtuosity in his variations on Rice's phrase "the 
man's":
>
>Your response: is it sarcastic or dishonest. By criticizing an 
>author, you imply a familiarity with that author. Your quibbling with 
>"the man's" and asking if  it is a Rushdian constructions suggests 
>less than a passing acquaintence with the author, or would you have 
>preffered the gender neutral "the person's..." Ahhh, perhaps 
>something as "flaccid" as the phrase "the author's..." But then, who 
>am I to criticize such deathless incite and prosody as "nothing short 
>of stupid." Really!

I guess the word "his" doesn't reach those Rushdian heights, eh? 

 I do agree about "nothing short of," however; I should have simply said 
"downright."  And it is.  But, yes, I was being a wee bit sarcastic, though not 
dishonest, to my knowledge (heh heh). 
 What distinguishes between "less than passing" acquaintance and fanatical 
uncritical submersion?
Anyway, I don't wanna start no big flame war,  I often post on a whim or a visceral 
reaction,  Pace, Rushmeisters.

john m