jforsyth at equinox.unr.edu
Tue Nov 6 00:19:36 EST 2001
That had occurred to me, but it also seems that being "right" isn't always the
purpose of a discussion. Part of the nature, and the art of literature -- and
therefore the reader's experience of literature -- is that its construction is
linear. Addressing a work in chunks, then, seems natural. I think this is as
true for DWJ as for, say, Jane Austen, whose works, I would argue, are more
enjoyable when experienced/discussed a bit at a time. But I didn't really have
a fixed answer in mind when I asked, so this isn't meant to be a defense of
the right way for us to proceed.
Paul Andinach wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Jennifer Forsyth wrote:
> > Should we read the whole thing and discuss it in its entirety, or do
> > it in a few chunks over some span of time? That will make a
> > difference in how soon we can start.
> I don't think it's a good idea to read and discuss _Hexwood_ in
> sections; it's one of those that an opinion offered halfway through is
> probably wrong.
> "Hold fast to the one noble thing."
> To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
> Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
More information about the Dwj