I very strongly support this.
The remark about collegiate/doctorate puffery¹ is totally uncalled for in a
literary discussion group, which is what we are.
We have had this sort of ghettoization remarks before in our many years of
discussion, so it is best to leave it at that for now.
Montois who happened to go to college here and over there...
On 2/20/09 4:57 PM, "Nathan Cain" <IndieCrime@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me suggest that you might be making a mistake if you're avoiding
> lit-crit books because of the well publicized excesses of some in the
> filed. It's not all deconstrution theory.
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ron Clinton <firstname.lastname@example.org
> <mailto:clinton65%40comcast.net> > wrote:
>> > There are a few of that type -- HARDBOILED SENTIMENTALITY, WESTERN AND
>> > HARDBOILED FICTION FROM HIGH NOON TO MIDNIGHT, GUMSHOE AMERICA: HARDBOILED
>> > CRIME FICTION AND THE RISE AND FALL OF NEW DEAL LIBERALISM, HARD-BOILED
>> > MASCULINITY and maybe one of two others -- that initially look good but
>> > to smack of collegiate/doctorate puffery. I've avoided all of them thus
>> > far. I am, however, less familiar with HARDBOILED SENTIMENTALITY than the
>> > others, so will be sure to look into that one.
>> > Ron C.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 20 Feb 2009 EST