Terrestrial comments from Will Schryver thread

[_EAllusion]

When I was in college I was smitten with Frederick Crews' Pooh Perplex and Postmodern Pooh. Both works are hilarious collections of satires of various schools of lit-crit.

For a literature class I wrote my best attempt at a parody of Marxist literary criticism for an assignment I had on evaluating a short story. My arguments for Marxist symbolism were intentionally ridiculous and my writing was my best attempt at parodying dense lit-crit jargonizing ala Alan Sokal. Obviously I'm no Crews, but I was happy with the result.

My professor gave me a %100 - a rare feat in his class. He did not, however, see it as a satire. He read it straight. I took it to a professor friend of mine in the department and he laughed and laughed.

[cacheman]

When I was in college I was smitten with Frederick Crews' Pooh Perplex and Postmodern Pooh. Both works are hilarious collections of satires of various schools of lit-crit.

For a literature class I wrote my best attempt at a parody of Marxist literary criticism for an assignment I had on evaluating a short story. My arguments for Marxist symbolism were intentionally ridiculous and my writing was my best attempt at parodying dense lit-crit jargonizing ala Alan Sokal. Obviously I'm no Crews, but I was happy with the result.

My professor gave me a %100 - a rare feat in his class. He did not, however, see it as a satire. He read it straight. I took it to a professor friend of mine in the department and he laughed and laughed.

For my money, this is the best parody of postmodernism I have ever read:

L'Isle de Gilligan

Best quote ever: "The absence of any influence of Habermas is itself a testimony to the all-pervasiveness of Habermas's thought."

[_Runtu]

When I was in college I was smitten with Frederick Crews' Pooh Perplex and Postmodern Pooh. Both works are hilarious collections of satires of various schools of lit-crit.

For a literature class I wrote my best attempt at a parody of Marxist literary criticism for an assignment I had on evaluating a short story. My arguments for Marxist symbolism were intentionally ridiculous and my writing was my best attempt at parodying dense lit-crit jargonizing ala Alan Sokal. Obviously I'm no Crews, but I was happy with the result.

My professor gave me a %100 - a rare feat in his class. He did not, however, see it as a satire. He read it straight. I took it to a professor friend of mine in the department and he laughed and laughed.

I did sort of the same thing at BYU. I was given the exact same assignment in two classes: apply a critical theory to a piece of literature. So, I wrote a satirical DeManian (or DeManiacal, as I put it) deconstruction of a single sentence from Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein."

One professor thought it was brilliant and hilarious and gave me an A. The other gave me a C and wrote two pages explaining why he disagreed with DeMan. So, I went to see him in his office and asked him if he thought it was a good representation of what DeMan would have done. He said it was, so I said it deserved better than a C, particularly since he gave me the C simply because he didn't like DeMan. He changed it to an A-. He went on to write my letter of recommendation for the P.A. Christensen award, which I won. :)

I was going to say the second-best parody of postmodernism I ever read was Gayatri Spivak's preface to Derrida's "Of Grammatology," but I have it on good authority that she was dead serious. Still, I giggled a lot when I read it.

[_wenglund]

I know it does no good, but as a professional writer, I can tell you that overuse of secondary vocabulary marks one as a poor writer, whether one is or is not. For example, a good writer would never say "thinks and cogitates" because the phrase is redundant and thus comes across as overblown.

Not even for nuance and metering?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor Scratch]

I know it does no good, but as a professional writer, I can tell you that overuse of secondary vocabulary marks one as a poor writer, whether one is or is not. For example, a good writer would never say "thinks and cogitates" because the phrase is redundant and thus comes across as overblown.

Not even for nuance and metering?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, Wade. Not even for nuance and metering.

[_wenglund]

It’s amusing, given you have a serious case of unwarranted self importance.

It becomes less amusing given that this is a condition that ails most everyone on this board--present company not excluded. :-/

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

No, Wade. Not even for nuance and metering.

My question was a test to see who really knows what they are talking about when it comes to writing in general. I am sorry to have to report that you failed the test. Better luck next time.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor Scratch]

No, Wade. Not even for nuance and metering.

My question was a test to see who really knows what they are talking about when it comes to writing in general. I am sorry to have to report that you failed the test. Better luck next time.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade:

Go ahead and cite the style guide that affirms your point here that redundancy is okay "even for nuance and metering." Where is your cite? The Elements of Style? Writing with Style? The Little English Handbook? By all means, Wade---demonstrate that you know what you're talking about.

[_wenglund]

Wade:

Go ahead and cite the style guide that affirms your point here that redundancy is okay "even for nuance and metering." Where is your cite? The Elements of Style? Writing with Style? The Little English Handbook? By all means, Wade---demonstrate that you know what you're talking about.

I said nothing about redunancy. Sorry to report that you failed the comprehension test.

Besides, if you think that good writing is only determined by style guides, you again fail that test of knowing what you are talking about in terms of general writing. Sorry. Three strikes and your out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor Scratch]

Lol. Wade, why don't you just say, "It's all subjective"? That's pretty much the extent of your argument, isn't it?