Camille's battery of posts this morning troubled more than anything else so far in the thread. So I have developed an exercise: Read the post reprinted below. > Yes, by God! I've nearly unsubscribed 7 times just this evening. I > simply can't stand it when there's mail in my Salinger box that isn't > about Salinger. I mean, let's be reasonable. There are lists for > discussions of Tarantino--in fact, just now, on > Tarantino_and_Warhol_and_postmodern_moves_of_appropriation_and_recontextualization-L, > they're discussing this very topic. > > We never stay on task, here. The first chance somebody gets to wander > from the topic, he jumps on it. We're having a nice little chat about > "Teddy," and all of a sudden, somebody's talking about *Buddhism*. > Living Christ. *Please* be considerate of the other people on this > list. There is a place for all these asides. Do a critical analysis of each of the two main points. In the first paragraph, what does the writer *literally* say? How does he feel about non-related Salinger material on the list? Now, read the paragraph more carefully, paying close attention to phrases or even sentences that seem to have a playful component of exaggeration. Is there anything funny, for example, about the name of the listserve that the writer mentions toward the end of the paragraph? Could it be nominated as an "overstatement"? How about the writer's second sentence, in which he says he has "nearly unsubscribed 7 times just this evening"? What evidence is there in this paragraph that the writer, indulging the rich capacity of the narrative device known as "irony," is really only kidding? Now, consider the second paragraph. The writer expresses indignation at the idea of bringing up Buddhism in a discussion of the story "Teddy." Without straying so far from the current project as actually to re-read the story, consider how Buddhism and "Teddy" might be related. From what you remember about the story, is Buddhism really unrelated to the story's momentum? Is there not rather a strong case for arguing that "Teddy" is extensively wrought with the detail of Buddhism? If, at this point, you still are not sure whether the writer of the post we have been reading is kidding or not, consult the rest of the posts in the exchange. Does the writer at any point in subsequent posts (they are easy to spot because they have a similar subject line) come more or less directly out and tell you he was joking? You might also want to review in your head the poster's history on the list, as far as you can remember it. Supposing you've had an exchange or two of length with the writer, ask yourself Is it the writer's own habit to stay "on topic"? -- Matt Kozusko mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu