Joseph Duemer wrote:
> Ken, you just don't like that I'm a professor. That's your problem, not
> mine. I quoted a workable standard definition of sentimentality. Why not
> respond to that.
>
> jd
>
No Joe, I will respond to what I please and as I wish to do so: you
ventured into *my* playground this time and I just threw the ball at
your face. But let's go here first: for your observation, dead on,
Joe. You swung where I pitched it, and indeed connected first try. A
very palpable hit. I've been haunted and infuriated by my exclusion for
34 years. Me: not sharp enough, not original enough, no cleverness to
sell, didn't write my director's dissertation, plus he was not even of
ill repute--and all this happened at a 2nd rate university where you'd
better be sharper, more original, and cleverer than people from "good"
places. A l'enfers avec moi, alors. Angel with the flaming sword and
all that. Though I gather Academe isn't necessarily the Garden of Eden
either.
But jealousy is only part of the issue, it's the idea of assumed
meanings that we are *all* supposed to get. I still don't know what it
means to go over the line from sentiment to sentimentality. Where's the
line? I don't know about commonly accepted definitions. I'm not in the
field, remember? I'm a fucking proofreader this week. Not much call
for Standard Definitions at ETS unless you're taking a GRE.
Maybe it's just as well I didn't clear the cut to get into the
professoriat. More reasons than I wish to get into right now. Imagine
me at a department meeting asking a question like this? I'd have
received tenure about the same time a Rottweiler sang arias from *Carmen*.
'Night, folks. Gotta get up in the wee small hours of the morning and
till His Lordship's field. Till then....
ken
------------------
Kenneth Wolman rainermaria.typepad.com
"I agree with the Chekhov character who, when in a crisis, he is
reminded that 'this, too, shall pass,' responds 'Nothing
passes.'"--Philip Roth
|