Wood's "common reader"

[Paul Mackin]

On 10/21/2012 5:34 AM, Matthew Cissell wrote:
> Ciao,
>
> Since this has been mentioned a couple of times I thought I might weigh in on it. This "common reader", a scholastic invention of Mr. Wood, is so uncommon as to lack any real existence. Of course his faith in the typology is unshakeable, otherwise he would not profess such claims. However, a bit of scepticism is not out of place. Where has Mr. Wood found this strange creature? Has he spied it through the lens of some empirical study? Or did it come to him in a waking dream?
>
> I fear that Mr. Wood could not rid himself of the "scholastic stink" by any manner of scrubbing or any amount of perfume. Oxford airs, like others, are embodied. No one (i think) has mentioned the deckle edge cut pages that are meant to give the book (HFW) a sophisticated appearence, which is surely not aimed at some "common" reader, but rather at the consumer who has the corresponding competence and taste to acquire this cultural product and thereby acquire it as cultural capital. One could argue that the design was a creation of the publisher (or some contracted 3rd party) but surely Mr. Wood's approval would be required, afterall he is aware (as is our own beloved TRP) of the impotance of how one presents their wares to the public.
>
> lantern aloft
> mc otis, uncommon reader
>
Is it possible James Wood may does not actually know what  a "scholastic 
stink" is?  May never have smelt one?  Even though Oxford was once a 
Medieval university?  No, he knew well enough, but still chose the 
phrase, for its cachet rather than how it fit his context.

Young Stephen is trying to base his developing aesthetic principles on 
those of Thomas Aquinas, the scholastic stinker par excellence.

Am I wrong on this?

P