ps and Kasper: glad what i meant became clearer. sorry to have been so
vague!
Gabriel Gudding wrote:
> In reverse order.
>
> Rupert: I like the verb "diatribed" but do beg your pardon. I looked up
> "diatribe" and found that it's a bitter attack. There wasn't a trace of
> bitterness in my mind when I wrote that. I feel only great fondness
> toward Ron -- and would say the same thing to his face with a smile on
> mine. What his blog does is less a function of Ron than a function of
> the field. You're probably pretty correct in saying that my blog has
> Ronnic features.
>
> Joe: I have a thing about cheeks.
>
> Mark: I don't oppose Ron qua Ron. I oppose that approach to the field.
> It's not that I disagree with Ron in particular; it's that I don't
> believe in literature *in general*. There is nothing inherently Ronnic
> that I find bothersome. I see that very approach to literature (where
> literature is an object of fetish about which one constructs, furthers
> or bolsters belief) as fundamentally problematic.
>
> I see what Ron does as no different from what many others do. His
> particular project isn't that much different from what William Wimsatt
> did, or Monroe Beardsley, or Cleanth Brooks, or John Crowe Ransom. He's
> just using different terminology. Its effect is the same. So, there is
> no anti-Ron there. Just anti-fetish.
>
> Anny: I seriously doubt any fetishizing of you would have side effects!
> But let Joe be the judge of that.
>
> Gabe
>
|