Wheat, chaff, stalks, seeds

[alice wellintown]

'It is competent,' said Mr Barnacle, 'to any member of the--
Public,' mentioning that obscure body with reluctance, as his
natural enemy, 'to memorialise the Circumlocution Department. Such
formalities as are required to be observed in so doing, may be
known on application to the proper branch of that Department.'

'Which is the proper branch?'

'I must refer you,' returned Mr Barnacle, ringing the bell, 'to the
Department itself for a formal answer to that inquiry.'

That's not a fish license!

But why the Dickens would anyone buy an argument?



On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Robin Landseadel
<robinlandseadel at comcast.net> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2009, at 1:59 PM, alice wellintown wrote:
>
>> How do these conjectures account for _Against the Day_? Was the author
>> without age or wisdom when  he wrote and published his last Romance?
>> Also, if the novel is an imperfect form for conveying moral truths,
>> the Romance is, while by design less perfect than the imperfect novel,
>> a better form if one's objective is to convey the blackest truths in
>> the darkest heart of Man. So, with _AtD_, P's unloadings of layered
>> stuff doesn't break the reader-writer contract; we get what we
>> deserve, if not exactly what we expect. As far as a book that appeals
>> to a larger audience goes, it seems this is exactly what he tried to
>> do. Let us pray he never attempts this trick again; it's dangerous.
>> And, beside(s) the point to booot [sic].
>
> So let me get this straight, did you come here for the argument clinic or
> was it abuse?
>