MDDM Chapter 45: Angels (p.451)

[Terrance]

jbor wrote:
> 
> Otto's original post raised some good issues about the text. It seems a
> shame that the points he made are, yet again, being hijacked.

Wait just a minute. Why are you attempting to upset the chess board
again Robert. 
Lost your Queen again? Who are the hijackers? Got to me or David Morris
or both of us since we are the only ones who responded to Otto's post on
Angels. And yet again? What are we doing yet again? What utter nonsense.
Otto asked a series of questions and we picked up the thread and
replied. Sure we got off topic a bit and sure we had a bit of fun, but
not at Otto's expense and we did not hijack the good discussion of
important issues about the text. The thread is still there. We didn't
hijack it. In fact, you replied to it. Not a bad reply actually. And if
you read my post I think I made the same point as well. Don't start
accusing people of hijacking Robert, it's only going to get us happy few
left talking about the book fighting over BS. 

Apology accepted, 




> 
> I think that Wicks is making up tales about Angels here to try to dupe young
> Nathe. The existence of the miraculous duck has certainly taken the wind out
> of Wicks's sails, and so he needs to find some way to take over the
> discussion again in order to nullify "the Duck's Influence in the Camp" and
> make the Christianity that he's preaching seem more interesting to the men.
> I like the way that Dixon gets annoyed with Wicks's condescension towards
> the two Axmen, sternly posing the question about sin at 451.17. Wicks's
> overly defensive response, again, doesn't engage at all with the topic
> (angels sinning, the duck) or the implicit criticism of his rhetorical
> tactics that Dixon is making.
> 
> Brian McHale has a good chapter on Angelology (or something like that) in
> one of his books on postmodernism - the second one, _Constructing
> Postmodernism_, I think.
> 
> best