On 29/07/12 01:23, Douglas Barbour wrote:
> Whose 'masculineness superiority' Chris? The reviewers?
Ah, sorry... yes I did not attribute enough. I got the sense that this
was more a reading then a review, even with the examples given. And
perhaps, more interesting, something that was setting up a
deconstructive reading, or a discursive analysis type of reading.
I enjoyed the review/reading, hence my response, which was more an
addition or a reading of the reading (a meta thing?)
The curious thing is that a masculineness superiority cannot be actually
attributed to a personage, it is always going to be somewhere else.
Hence the reflective lens as a sort of meta-(metaphor) or meta-trope. It
does link to the boy who need not fear starvation, according to that
Emerson quote, from Dominic, in a curious way.
I can only go as far as enjoying the review or reading, but can't say
the quoted examples attract me to the book. I wouldn't bother, unless I
was very well paid to do so and the book was sent to me for review, of
course. Then I would be forced to read it (and hope I survive such a
professional dread at a few dollars a word: make that $20 a word.)
(I Still have not got around to reading for review Urbanomics edition of
Nick Land's articles. I should send a review of this to "The
Australian" as a provocative gesture, in the hope News Corp will be so
upset they have to publish my novel. Now there's a thought! Not the
first I have been published by Murdoch, however. )
|