Re. Dietary Fibre

[Malignd]

<<What I meant was that you do not 'appreciate'
Vineland, therefore you do not think it's any good.
Ie., your failure to appreciate it is what leads to
your failure to recognise that the book is good. I was
using 'appreciate' in the generally accepted sense of
meaning 'perceive the inherent quality'.>>

I see.  It's not that you're accusing me of tautology;
you're trafficking in tautology yourself, apparently
without recognizing it.

There are fair criticisms one can bring to judging a
novel beyond a subjective appreciation of "inherent
quality," an empty tub of a term suggesting some
ghostly spirit waiting to be tapped, and which one can
fill with whatever stupid notion one wants.  

And there are qualities (or lacks thereof) one can
point to in noting the success or lack of same in a
novel:  failed humor, shallow characterization, banal
ideas, shopworn cliches, in the case of Vineland. 
They're the fruit of choices the writer makes and they
can be noted and enumerated; there's nothing inherent
about them.

<<And could you stop with the 'Carvill' shit? We don't
all hide behind embarrassing self-applied nicknames.>>

If you think Carvill is shit as a name, why not come
up with something different?  Carvill's the only thing
you've given us. 

Car Man?  Jackie Boy?  Blue Moon?  Digger? The Duke?  
Sheiky?  

Use your bean, Carvill.

     

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com