Hi guys
Here are week 1/2's questions. Have a crack at them,
Paul
1. What, arguably, are some of the 'residual' features of 'primary orality' (as defined by Ong, 1982) in Voluspa?
2. How does Ong argue secondary orality differs from primary orality?
3. What is the difference between chirography and typography and how does he believe it affects human thought and textuality?
4. How do Old Norse and Old English literary sources such as Voluspa, Beowulf and Volsunga Saga inform The Hobbit according to Glen(1991)?
5. According to Shippey(2000) how do the idological motivations and use of language by many fantasy writers like Tolkien differ from the agenda of Modernism?
Hi all
ReplyDeleteI’m decoding Q1 as what’s left of primary orality within the written text of Voluspa. And with the definition of primary orality given in class - referring to Ong treating orality as a person totally unfamiliar with writing – may I suggest the “residual” includes for example:
1. “Hear my words. . .”
2. “. . . that I remember.”
Both referring to the oral origins of the saga.
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteThe quotes above come from page 1, the first and second verses.
"I'll speak the ancient lore. . .” also appears in verse one.
HI All
ReplyDeleteQ2 Ong argues that 'Orality is 'evanescent' and that orality is 'close to the human lifeworld' (Ong, W Orality & Literacy(2000) p42-43)Experience is subjective and communal (Powerpoint 1 page 5)Ong describes secondary orality as ....'based permanently on the use of writing and print'(ibid p136)
But he also argues that secondary orality is neither classically oral or literate and has been made possible through 'telephones radio and television'(Pg 13 Critical Reader)
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting stuff. Perhaps to the list for Q2 – difference between Primary and Secondary Orality – we can add:
1. That secondary orality has a larger vocabulary in play than primary orality (Ong, 1982, p.17 – top left p. no. - Crit. Reader). Quoting from this same reference, page number, etc, Ong gives the example of “standard English” having “at least a million and a half words” whereas primary orality would merely have “a few thousand words” (refs. as above).
2. Also, Ong, 1982, p. 17, Crit. Reader, makes the comment that the historical meanings of words can be known in secondary orality, because they have been written down, whereas primary orality has no real “semantic history” (Ong, 1982, p. 17, Crit. Reader).
3. A third point is that primary orality relies on the telling and re-telling of stories for them to exist (Ong, 1982, p. 18, Crit. Reader), whereas words written down puts them into “a visual field forever” (Ong, 1982, p. 19, Crit. Reader).
4. And to get completely carried away here – perhaps another difference is that, only until recently, there was a trend not to study orality (excluding oration) as it wasn’t considered worthy, being deemed “unskilful” (Ong, 1982, p. 18, Crit. Reader).
5. That secondary orality is more dominant than primary orality since once the human mind is filled with writing, the person cannot revert back to just primary orality alone (Ong, 1982, p. 20, Crit Reader).
Ong makes the point that “written words are residue” (Ong, 1982, p. 18, Crit Reader). I must say, I’d never thought about it in these terms before. How about you?
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteTalking about reverting back, I’ll revert back to Q1 for a moment. I was thinking about this one in the weekend.
When Ong refers to the spoken word in that “nothing remains but the memory of the sound” (Power Point Slides, Lecture 1, Ong’s features of Primary Orality, No. 1), I’m taking this as being images left in the mind put there by the sound. If this is the case, then another residual within Voluspa of primary orality are the vivid images. But since we are literate and thus more individual (Power Point Slides, Lecture 1, Ong’s features of Primary Orality, No. 6) our concept will be entirely different, even among ourselves, because we cannot conceive the correct images of the past as residual within the text. We don’t belong to that once existing close-knit, sharing primarily oral community of the past where experience etc. is shared (Power Point Slides, Lecture 1, Ong’s features of Primary Orality).
How say you on this one?
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteMy blogs are many at the moment. Sorry about that, I’ve had a class presentation brought forward, so time has been scarce – you know how it goes. Anyone got any clues on Q3?
Q3, pertaining to chirography and typography and the effects on us humble sapians...be aware, I'm flying strictly by the seat of my pants here.
ReplyDeleteI think (haha, look at that) that on some level, we all fell in love with the written word. I think it was Ong that Paul quoted with the pen being our most human technology - its become something of a mental opposible thumb. These days, there are experts who can tell what kind of person you are from your handwriting; how you dot your i's and cross your t's and flick out the tails of your l's, etc.
Comparitively, technology gave us the printing press and thus standardization of script on an epic scale. Speaking from expirence, I have to say I prefer the standardized version; my handwriting has always been shocking. That, and I can type much faster than I can write (and Word has a spellcheck). Suddenly, our mentality has shifted towards the written word and if it isn't printed how official and real can it be? Handwritten assignments don't get accepted, or very rarely, and woebetide the officeworker who hasn't put those minutes for thursday's meeting through a word processor.
Though it has to be said, there's still something very emotional about the written word. Its how any sensible person writes a letter to a friend or loved one, because the uniqueness of one's handwriting sort of, I dunno, is like sending them a piece of you. Its very sentimental.
Anyway, I think I've waxed lyrical for long enough.
Hey,
ReplyDeleteThanks for that. Interesting perspective.
Pressing ahead with Q4 (Wk 1&2) and by no means exhausting the possibilities . . .
Old Norse and old English literary sources underpin The Hobbit. For example, similarities between The Hobbit and Beowulf include:
1. Bilbo goes on an adventure or quest in which he must face life-threatening difficulties (Glenn, 1991, p. 48) as does Beowulf.
2. Dragons make an appearance, for example, Smaug in The Hobbit and draca in Beowulf (Glenn, 1991, p. 50).
3. Drinking halls occur within both (Glenn, 1991, p. 51).
4. There’s a similarity of characters - one who lives a subterranean lifestyle after being banished from their homeland for killing a sibling (Glenn, 1991, p. 50).
5. The crucial development of the characters Beowulf and Bilbo are similar in the timing an antagonist is introduced into their lives (Glenn, 1991, p. 50-51).
Tolkien was a critic of heroes such as Beowulf and this criticism influenced his creation of The Hobbit hero (Bilbo) where heroism comes from using brains ahead of brawn (Glenn, 1991, p. 50 – page no. top right). Tolkien, therefore, offered Bilbo as an alternative to the legendary heroes (Glenn, 1991, p. 47) as can be found, for example, in Beowulf.
Because of this alternative rendering of the hero, there are deliberate contrasts to heroes as shaped within the old Norse and old English literary sources. For example:
1. In Beowulf the hero goes it alone, seeking renown. In The Hobbit, the dragon is slain because of the acts of three characters and with Bilbo seeking no fame, even though he first recognizes how the dragon can be slain (Glenn, 1991, p. 53)
2. The hero in Beowulf undergoes an adventure which ends with his demise and renown, whereas the humble hero in The Hobbit returns from his adventures a worldly individual who can settle back into his quiet life (Glenn, 1991, p. 53)
3. Bilbo generally behaves to protect his life and others (Glenn, 1991, p. 48), whereas Beowulf in pursuing aggrandisement sets a course of suffering for others (Glenn, 1991, p. 53).
4. Thus, in The Hobbit, the “Warrior” of old literature becomes the “Adventurer” and the “Hero” becomes the “Leader”.
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteQ1 in my view, in Voluspa the volva was gived personality, however ,she is a prophetess actually, and what has been described in it were relevant to the daily life in the real world.Therefore, we may see the 'residual' features of 'primary orality' (as defined by Ong, 1982) that Orality is "close to the human lifeworld" (Ong, 1982:42-43).Oral cultures have close, intimate connection with their environment and with each other, rather than having distanced or abstract ways of thinking about their world and their lives. (as is shown in the powerpoint slides)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi, Group;
ReplyDeleteI had changed to this group.
I'm looking forward to disscussion with you.
By the way, I have presented my summaries of Q4 and Q5 in the previous group's Blog. Although I could not summarize them well,can I post them here right away?
Kimiko
Oooh! Yes, PLEASE!!!! Looking forward to reading them!!
ReplyDeleteHello everybody sorry I am so late to join the blog. I have just read everyones comments now and I was going to join my ideas/thoughts on what you guys have said. I will do this straight away once again very sorry.
ReplyDeleteJazz
I am going to start off with the first question. When looking in the dictionary the meaning for "orality" is; a reliance on spoken,rather than written, language for communication.(http://www.yourdictionary.com/orality)
ReplyDeleteMy understandng of this is the story, piece of text is told by word of mouth, rather than written text. Orality was what was used first and as it says in by ong the earlist script was only written only 6000 years ago.
A culture that I can talk about that used this form to tell stoies is the Maori culture for example, but other culture that used it were Greeks.
Hi, Neo-Walt:
ReplyDeleteRegarding Q4 and Q5…
There is a criticism that my writing includes so many quotations (for the other writing in the other paper, but I think so too). So I’d like to post them after a modification…. Please wait a little.
Kimiko
Hi, Neo-Walt, Karen and Jass:
ReplyDeleteRegarding Q1…
I agree with Karen’s point of view that oral cultures have close, intimate connection with their environment and with each other, rather than having distanced or abstract their world and ways of thinking about their and their lives.
The grounds for my opinion;
1. “Persons rooted in primary orality, who want literacy passionately but who also know very well that moving into the exciting world of loved in the earlier oral world” (Ong, 1982, p.19).
2. “Speech is inseparable from our consciousness and it has fascinated human being, elicited serious reflection about itself, from the very early stages of consciousness, long before writing came into existence. Proverbs from all over the world are rich with observations about this overwhelmingly human phenomenon of speech in its native oral form, about its powers, its beauties, its dangers. The same fascination with oral speech continues unabated for centuries after writing comes into use” (Ong, 1982, p.16).
Kimiko
Hi, Neo-Walt:
ReplyDeleteRegarding Q2….
I think the differs of secondary orality from primary orality is that secondary orlaity depends on writing and print with visual transformations. On the contrary, primary orality was not only unfamiliar with writing but also any vidual transformations.
The grounds for my opinion:
1. “The electronic age is also an age of ‘secondary orality’ the orality of telephones, radio, and television, which depends on writing and print for its existence” (Ong, 1982, p.13).
2. “The orality centrally treaded here is primary orality, that of persons totally unfamiliar with writing” (Ong, 1982, p.15).
3. “I style the orality of a culture totally untouched by any knowledge of writing or printing, ‘primary orality’. It is ‘prymary’ by contrast with ‘secondary orality’ of present-day high-technology culture, in which a new orality is sustained by telephone, radio, television, and other electronic devices that depend for their existence and functioning on writing and paint (Ong 1982, p.17).
4. “All language have elaborate grammars and have developed their elaborations with no help from writing at all, and that outside of relatively high-technology cultures most users of languages have always got along pretty well without any visual transformations whatsoever of vocal sound” (Ong, 1982, p.19).
Kimiko
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Kimiko
ReplyDeleteThanks for that, re. Q 4 & 5. Am busy digesting above too. Thank you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi, Neo-Walt:
ReplyDelete(First, I’m sorry, I had used the page no. at the bottom of page. From this posting, I use the page no. at the top of page. )
This posting is my re-summary regarding Q4. I pointed out the following points in pp.50-53.
1. The source of the first and fourth episodes and Beorn of The Hobbit is Beowulf .
2. However, Beorn’s immediate source is the poem, the Norse Hrólfssage Krake (Glin, 1991). Tolkien uses the Old English word Beorn, which means ‘warrior’, ‘hero’ more generally ‘man’ and is cognate with the Old Norse bjiöm ‘bear’, for the name Beorn for suggesting his character (Glin, 1991). The character of Beorn is created from of two characters in Hrólfssage, father Bjor and his son Bothvar Bjarki (Glin, 1991).
On the other hand, the alterations of Talkien from Bjorn to Beorn are the followings.
2-1. The alterations
2-1-1. “Unlike Bjorn—who as a bear kills and eats the king his father’s cattle and is explicitly cursed to do so by White (Jones 265-67)—Beorn is a vegetarian” (Glen, 1991, p.51).
2-1-2. Although Bjorn’s bear-shape is assumed by day and his man-shape by night, Beorn’s bear-shape is assumed by night and his man-shape by day at least while Bilbo and the dwarves visit him (Glen, 1991).
2-1-3. Beorn is “at all time either wholly man or wholly bear: he chooses his form for the time and for the tasks he must do” (Glen, 1991, p.51).
3. The source of the Gollum-episode is Beowulf’s adventures in Heorot (Glin, 1991) . There are different views on the matter (Glin, 1991), and then, Glin (1991) supports Hodge’s view that Beowulf”s conflicts are conflated the members of the Grendel family.
4. The source of Gollum is Grendel in Beowulf’s episode, “a fratricide and had been exiled from his home to live in a subterranean” (Glen, 1991, p.50).
5. The source of Smug is Beowulf’s draca (Glin, 1991).
Kimiko
Hi, Neo-Walt:
ReplyDeleteThis posting is my re-summary regarding Q5.
My summary for this question bases on the pp.313-316 of the reading material (But, I’m sorry, I use the page no. at the bottom of page again, because the critical reader misses the pp.312-313 of this reading material).
There are still too many quotations in my posting. It is very hard to improve my writing…
Anyway, in the previous posting regarding Q5 for my previous group, I pointed out the following points:
1. Modernist has a tendency to rely on literary allusion (e.g. Eliot’s ‘Waste Land’) (Shippey, 2000,) Therefore, if the reader cannot not realize the contrast between the original context and the modernist context, the point is lost (Shippey, 2000, p.314). Tolkien used this kind of allusion too. However, he used ordinary language for avoiding such misunderstandings when he felt to need the adaptations for his readers’ understanding (Shippey, 2000).
2. Modernists did the experiments of introspection, the stream of consciousness technique and the characteristic trick what the characters are thinking, because they wanted to see what interesting effects could be produced (Shippey, 2000). Tolkien did the experiments too (Shippey, 2000). However, his purpose was not the same as modernists. He did the experiments seriously for “the use of ‘threads’ of story alternation and contrasting; and of course, the deliberate creation of unknown languages and unrecorded dialects” (Shippey, 2000, p.313). He did it for different purposes of modernists as playing around with the experiments (Shippey, 2000).
3. Modernism made it possible to replace narrative method by ‘mythical method’ (Shippey, 2000). For examples, Eliot alludes to the tales of Greek myths, and Milton alludes to the tales of Bible (Shippey, 2000). Tolkien did this too, however, Tolkien’s sources of his fantasies are the native and Northern tradition (Shippey, 2000). Shippey (2000, p.314) criticizes that “Milton never knew and Eliot ignored: Beowulf, Sir Gawain, Sigurð, the Eddic gods – a tradition seen by most modernists as literally barbarous”. Shippey (2000, p.315) notes “he [Tolkien] used ‘mythical method’ not because it was as interesting method but because he believe that the myths were true” (, although I cannot find the evidence in this reading material).
4. Modernism is distinguished “by rejection of the ‘realist illusion’” (Shippey, 2000, p.313). However, Tolkien wanted to create to the ‘realist illusion’ in his fantasies (Shippey, 2000), and tried to do so in his fantasies. Because “he thought all our views of reality were illusions” (, although I cannot find the evidence in this reading material, too) (Shippey, 2000, p.315).
The ideological motivations:
The above differences between modernists and Tolkien indicate that modernist were to be snobbish and elitist, and the works were intended to produce for only “the thoroughly cultivated individual, the fine and superior sensibility” (Shippey, 2000, p.316), although Tolkien has not such ideology.
Kimiko
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi, Neo-Walt and Stranger:
ReplyDelete(I'm sorry Neo-Walt. I found some of my grammatical mistakes, so I had deleted the previous posting. This is the re-posting regardeng Q3. I adopt the page numbers at the bottom of pages of the reading material in this posting.)
Regarding Q3 (how does he believe it affects human thought and textuality?)…
Firstly, ‘alphabetic writing’, which is one kind of Chirography, affected humans thought. Oral expression became to be contrasted with only ‘alphabetic writing’ and people became to regard speech, which is orally delivered, as ‘part of rhetoric’. Then, typography have encouraged trimming off ‘purely oral dialects’.
Now, people cannot image ‘primary oral culture’. Moreover, they cannot regard that oral expression exists without any writing.
The study of textuality has also stood on the same biases of rhetorical thought, and then, has focused on written texts.
The grounds for my opinion;
Chirography & Typogrphy
1. ”Literacy began with writing but, at a later stage of course, also involves print” (Ong, 1982, p.13).
2. “Chirographic cultures has contrasted orlity with alphabetic writing rather than with other writing systems” (Ong, 1982, p.13).
3. “The print culture that brings writing to a new peak” (Ong, 1982, p.13).
4. ”Writing, commitment of the word to space, enlarges the potentiality of language almost beyond measure, restructures through, and in the process converts a certain few dialects into grapholects” (Ong, 1982, p.15-16).
5. “A grapholect is a transdialectal language formed by deep commitment to writing. Writing gives a grapholect a power far exceeding that any purely oral dialect” (Ong, 1982, p.16).
6. “The grapholect known as standard English…” (Ong, 1982, p.16).
The influence on human thought
1. ”They engage our own biases. We – readers of book such as this –are so literate that it is very difficult for us to conceive of an oral universe of communication or thought except as a variant of a literate universe” (Ong, 1982, p.13).
2. “Rhetoric was and had to be a product of writing” (Ong, 1982, p.16). “Writing form the beginning did not reduce orality but enhanced it, making it possible to organize the ‘principles’ of constituents of oratory into a scientific ‘art’, a sequentially ordered body of explanation that showed how and why oratory achieved and could be made to achieve its various specific effects. But the speeches – or any other oral performances – that were studied as part of rhetoric could hardly be speeches as these were being orally delivered” (Ong, 1982, pp.16-17).
3. “Though words are grounded in oral speech, writing tyrannically locks them into a visual field forever” (Ong, 1982, p.18) “A literate person cannot fully recover a sense of what the word is to purely oral people” (Ong, 1982, p.18).
Textuality
1. “Language is an oral phenomenon” (Ong, 1982, p.16).
2. “Oral expression can exist and mostly has existed without any writing at all”. (Ong, 1982, p.16).
3. On the contrary, writing cannot exist without orality (Ong, 1982). “Writing texts all have to be related somehow, directly or indirectly, to the world of sound, the natural habit of language, to yield their meanings” (Ong, 1982, p.16).
4. However, “language study in all but recent decade has focused on written texts rather on orality” (Ong, 1982, p.16).
5. “Human being in primary oral culture, those un-touched by writing in any form, learn a great deal and possess and practice great wisdom, but they do not ‘study” (Ong, 1982, p.16).
6. “When study in the strict sense of extended sequential analysis becomes possible with the interiorization of writing, one of the first things that literates often study is language itself and its use” (Ong, 1982, p.16).
Kimiko
Hello Kimiko
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments on Q4 and Q5. I’ve commented on Q4 above, so I’ll continue our discussion on Q5. I didn’t realize until reading Shippey’s (2000) article that such literary snobbishness existed. I did a little research on Modernism in Literature as I wasn’t too sure about this. So, to our conversation I can now add:
The ideological motivations of the Modernists incorporated outright rejection of the accepted religious, political and social opinions of their time (http://www.brighthub.com/education/k-12/articles/29453.aspx). In other words they were anti-establishment - especially after World War I when disenchantment for tradition and established institutions set in – as they no longer believed in these to find the meaning in human existence (http://www.brighthub.com/education/k-12/articles/29453.aspx).
1. We can see this rejection of established religious institutions, etc, in Shippey’s (2000) article where Tolkien’s Catholic faith, his “religious sensibilities” (p. 309) are an anathema to the Modernists. Also Green (as cited in Shippey, p. 317) states that Tolkien (among others) placed orthodox Christian theology and evil as pivotal to their views thus not aligning their thoughts, etc, with the ‘Sonnenkinder’, that is the “literary coterie” (Shippey, p. 306) that were exponents of Modernism (Shippey, p. 316).
2. Whereas the Modernists wrote for a specific sector of the market, for example, ‘Ulysses’ was for the elite alone, Tolkien’s work appealed to the masses (Shippey, p. 316). Again this was an anathema to the Modernists’ ideology (Shippey, p. 316) as a large portion of their work they considered could “only be appreciated by the thoroughly cultivated individual, the fine and superior sensibility” (Shippey, p. 316). Hence, for example, the readers of Tolkien being described as “anorak-clad” (Shippey, p. 309), and his work being labelled “[p]opulist, not elitist” (Shippey, p. 308).
3. The Modernist ideology shaped not only the content of their work, but also its form ((http://www.brighthub.com/education/k-12/articles/29453.aspx). This can be seen in Shippey (2000) in many instances which you mention. Also, Shippey talks of the Modernist style as “local, limited” (p. 313) and concentrating on the mundane (p. 313). For example, Shippey states the book ‘Ulysses’ is confined to one day and one location (p. 311). However, Tolkien’s work is far grander in its scope, both in locations and time span (p. 311).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi, Neo-Walt:
ReplyDeleteThank you for your posting for my summary of Q5. Then, I ‘d like to try to argue against your posting.
Firstly, my summary is tried to be “according to Shippey (2000)”, which is in the question, and not to include the other opinions (my opinion for modernists, too). So, I think that I do not need to mention the websites because those are not shippey's opinions.
The contradictions for your opinions (the numbers is adopted from your posting);
For No.1:
a. “His ‘religious sensibilities’“ is implied in Joseph Pearce’s 1997 book Tolkien: Man and Myth. I think that this is just one example for Shippey’s (2000, p.308) criticism that “they were looking for a literary revelation, but when one came they denied it”.
b. About Green’s citation, Shippey (2000, p.317) notes that “I understand and respect Green’s position, though it is not mine” right after the citation.
For No.2:
a. I think that the citations from p.316 support my summary.
b. The citation from p.309 is Humphrey Carpenter’s opinion. I think that this is just one example for Shippey’s (2000, p.308) criticism that “they were looking for a literary revelation, but when one came they denied it”, too. Shippey (2000, p.309) criticizes that “the reference to anoraks is easily understood, is intended to be understood, as class-hostility from those who habitually carry umbrellas: a very clear case of the haute bourgeoisie insisting on retaining its monopoly of culture”.
c. I think that the citation from p.308 also support my summary.
The grounds for my summary are the followings (the numbers are adopted from my posting):
For No.1:
a. “Modernist works tend to rely very heavily on literary allusion - as, for instance in Eliot’s ‘Waste Land’. If the reader dose not follow the allusion, does not realize the contrast between the words in their original context and in their modernist context, then the point is lost” (Shippey, 2000, pp.313-314).
b. (for Tolkien’s work) “The words work best when they have become quasi-proverbial, common property, merged with ordinary language” (Shippey, 2000, p.314).
For No.2:
a. “Modernists love of introspection, of the ‘stream of consciousness’ technique, of the characteristic trick of even simplest of modern novels of telling you what the characters are thinking. Tolkien does this too” (Shippey, 2000, p.314).
b. “Tolkien was however well aware of works which had tried it, and tried it successfully” (Shippey, 2000, p.315).
c. “He [Tolkien] experimented with language not see what interesting effects could be produced but because he thought all forms of human language were already an experiment. One might almost say that he took the ideals of modernism seriously instead of playing around with them” (Shippey, 2000, pp.315-316).
For No.3:
a. “Modernism was said […] to have made it possible to replace narrative method by ‘mythical method’; and the whole drive of Tolkien’s work, as one can see, was towards creating a mythology which his major narrative was there to embody” (Shippey, 2000, p.313).
b. “Joyce’s schema depends on Homer, Eliot alludes continually to the tales of Agamemnon and Tiresias, Oedipus and Antigone. Milton attempted to supersede these (through he knew them better than anyone alive) by the heroes of the Bible. But Tolkien’s heroes and his major debts came from the native and Northern tradition which Milton never knew and Eliot ignored: Beowulf, Sir Gawain, Sigurð, the Eddic gods – a tradition seen by most modernists as literally barbarous” (Shippey, 2000, p.314).
c. “Tolkien’s approach to the ideas or the devise accepted as modernist is radically different because they are on principle not literary. He used ‘mythical method’ not because not because it was as interesting method but because he believe that the myths were true” (, although I’m not sure what the evidence is) (Shippey, 2000, p.315).
For No.4:
a. “Modernism is distinguished […] by rejection of the ‘realist illusion’” (Shippey, 2000, p.313).
b. “He [Tolkien] showed his characters wandering in the wildness and entirely mistaken in their guesses not because he wanted to shatter the ‘realist illusion’ of fiction, but because he thought all our views of reality were illusions” (Shippey, 2000, p.315).
Kimiko
Hi Kimiko
ReplyDeleteThe Web site appears, not as extra work for students, but as a reference for those in our group who wish to broaden their knowledge base. More importantly, it allows deeper insight into Shippey’s (2000) article. The Modernists’ ideological motivations deal with far more than snobbishness. I merely illustrate three points which enlarge on yours, and to which Shippey alludes. They do not detract or contradict your efforts. So I’m not sure why there is an “argument”.
Anyhow, look forward to our future discussions.