Daniel -- I wasn't referring to anyone in particular when I said we
shouldn't be kidding ourselves, you know, but my point didn't require
knowledge of O'Connor -- it was just that we shouldn't be kidding
ourselves about the presence of dogmatism in Salinger's work, even the
later stuff.
And, yeah, there are plenty of atheist dogamtisms out there that serve
the purpose of religion, but this seems off the point to me.
You said in another post:
> He is quick to point out our filthy rags but he has yet to say
> anything illustrative on this odious topic.
We actually did have quite a long discussion of this topic. I don't see
the point in expecting him to go over all this again when it wasn't
heard the first time.
Jim
Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:
>I'm not about to disagree. Doesn't sound too different from what
>Flannery O'Connor said about Catholicism and her art. Just don't want
>us kidding ourselves about what's going on here.
>Jim
>
>
>I haven't read a shred of O'Connor so I have no clue of what I am not
>supposed to be kidding myself about. And when I talk about dogmatic
>religion I am including humanists, atheists, anarchists and any other
>ideology out there including Kafka's proto-existentialism.
>
>
>Daniel
>
>Ps I find it hard to believe that John frequents cafes with Kafka since I am
>sure that I got him the other night when I startled him with a sudden flick
>of the light switch.
>
>
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Mar 4 11:08:22 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 10 2003 - 21:58:23 EDT