Many merci's for all indications...it makes sense now, in this context...
I did like the use of the word "puffery" though, which I hadn't heard in
many years...very useful and witty..I think I might find a way to use it
tonight at a dinner we are invited to...I know some of the peacocks that
will be there (Univerisity profs mind you...of the businees school kind) and
their "puffery" in the 'financial crisis' context is as deep as the Sargasso
Montois longing for cream puffs...
On 2/20/09 10:29 PM, "Ron Clinton" <email@example.com> wrote:
> I'm frankly a bit surprised anyone took offense at my benign, quantitative
> remark. Rather than seeing it as uncalled for and blindly ghettoizing a
> type of analytical work and, for that matter, even the fundamental purpose
> of this group, I do wish it had been read in the context in which it was
> I clearly indicated I had not read any of them, so am not passing judgment
> on any of works, nor am I calling that type of analytical work or analytical
> discussions "puffery" in general. Quite the contrary...I respect and
> *enjoy* works and discussion of that sort, hence my reason for starting a
> discussion about them, and for remaining a member of Rara-Avis for more
> years than I can recall.
> My comments were instead meant to quantify that A). that specific, narrow
> type of puffery -- elitist, indulgent puffery that adds little value to any
> real-world discussion -- exists, and B). those works, from what very little
> I've read of them, seem to smack of it. My comment was not intended to cast
> aspersions on literary discussions, nor was it intended to paint the entire
> breadth of written genre analysis with that an indiscriminate brush.
> I'm regret you took offense at my comment, but I do hope that my intended
> message was more clear in the minds of the other members; I hope, too, that
> I've clarified it for you. I don't intend to clutter the email boxes of the
> RA members any further on this subject, so that's my final comment on the
> matter. Happy reading everyone.
> Ron C.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
>> Behalf Of Steve Novak
>> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 5:42 PM
>> To: RARA-AVIS
>> Subject: Re: RARA-AVIS: Historical analysis books...
>> I very strongly support this.
>> The remark about ?collegiate/doctorate puffery? is totally uncalled for in
>> 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
>>>>> HARDBOILED FICTION FROM HIGH NOON TO MIDNIGHT, GUMSHOE
>> AMERICA: HARDBOILED
>>>>> CRIME FICTION AND THE RISE AND FALL OF NEW DEAL LIBERALISM,
>>>>> MASCULINITY and maybe one of two others -- that initially look good
>>>>> to smack of collegiate/doctorate puffery. I've avoided all of them
>>>>> far. I am, however, less familiar with HARDBOILED SENTIMENTALITY than
>>>>> others, so will be sure to look into that one.
>>>>> Ron C.
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
734 429 4997 - off
313 300 0770 - cell
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 21 Feb 2009 EST