websites

[MalignD at aol.com]

<<To sum, is this to demand a narcissitic, solipsistic, self-referential, 
text, "complete" in and of itself?  Vs. one open to history, politics, 
culture, et al.? >>

This seems to me what David Hackett Fischer would call a false dichotomous 
question.

I have no idea what a narcissistic text would be and any guess I might make 
would have nothin in particular to do with (in)completeness.  Nor with being 
open (or not) to history, politics, culture.  

One Hundred Years of Solititude (e.g.) seems to me a "complete" text, and it 
certainly isn't closed to history, politics, or culture.  Nor would I call it 
narcissistic.      

In any case, I'm not demanding anything, only commenting.  But, I suppose I 
find a text complete unto itself more satisfying more often than one I find 
sketchy, slight, and poorly crafted.