who's Christian?

[Thomas Eckhardt]

jbor wrote:

> But more to the point, I don't think that there is a stable category (i.e. a
> *definition*) of "inferior fiction" either. What someone else finds "boring
> as hell" you might decide is "superior". Thomas Mann, for example. In
> setting up a hierarchy of textual "quality" (i.e. a canon, or categories of
> "inferior" and "superior" texts) you are also implicitly setting up a
> hierarchy of *reader* "quality" at the same time.

Hierarchy of textual quality, yes, hierarchy of reader quality, no. Else agreed.

> You said "a reader may rightfully assume" that
> the implied author's worldview and that of the real author are aligned, as
> long as "he or she is not a Deconstructionist".

I see. Forgot about that "rightfully". I did not mean to say that a
deconstructionist is not able to make a correct assumption, just that to him or her
the grounds on which this specific assumption re implied author / real life author
is based do not exist. See my last posting. My fault.

Thomas