The Harmless Yank Hobby

[jd]

*cough*
http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1790651,00.html

(I think Jarvis might be a wanker)

On 6/9/06, Dave Monroe <monropolitan at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Aagin, it's simply The Way We (or, at least, Some of
> Us) Read, and is no less obtrusive, and in many ways
> more accurate, than many of the other tropes
> available.  What I thought y'all WOULD appreciate
> there is precisely that "facultative act" thing:
> "Following a link is not compulsory....  It does not
> abolish linear reading ....  It makes linear reading
> more complex, enriches or enhances linear reading
> ...."  Seems to be that the standard set of tropes
> here, allusion, reference, symbolism, allegory, et
> al., are more insistent, insisting that they be
> recognized, or else.   Most critics simply don't go to
> the trouble to explain allusion, reference, symbolism,
> allegory, et al., first, is all.  It's ALL jargon,
> much if not all of it technological in
> origin/etymology ("reflection," anyone? and so forth
> ...), it's just that some of it is more "naturalized"
> than others, is all ...
>
> Any such objections would require objecting to pretty
> much the entire literary/critical vocabulary ...
>
> --- Monte Davis <monte.davis at verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > Ummm... because some scholars in the humanities have
> > a cargo-cult compulsion to display their
> > techno-with-it-tude?
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>