Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

17278Re: [mythsoc] Re: mythology for England

Expand Messages
  • Walter Padgett
    Nov 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On 11/29/06, David Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >By the way, you don't mean Textual Criticism, which is a not an exact
      science at all, but one requiring vast amounts of deduction, inference, and
      even guesswork. What you mean are the rules of citation, which are indeed
      exact. And while different systems of rules exist, they're all the same on
      the point of quotation. However, there are still several points of
      confusion, most specifically here:

      >It is something as simple as the _rule_ for when to use one quote ' instead
      >of two quotes " when quoting someone who is quoting someone (and the
      >confusion that can and does surround such instances in all of academic
      >writing) which seeded and sprouted the vast and amazing world of
      >criticism surrounding the phrase "_Tolkien's Art: A Mythology for
      >England_ by Jane Chance Nitzsche."

      Both Carpenter's biography and the original edition of _Tolkien's Art_ use
      single quote marks around the phrase not because they are
      quoting-within-quotes (whch would require triple quote marks) but because
      they're using British rather than American punctuation style, in which
      primary quotes use single rather than double marks. But, as on a previous
      occasion, I'm not quite sure what you mean here: your prose is not always
      intelligible to a poor Earthling like myself.
      ------------------

      Yes, David.

      Thanks. This is new to me. It will be helpful in the future. I
      recite your explanation not only for myself, but for its value in a
      continuing discussion of Anders Stenstrom's [sic] quest into the
      resolution of the question of the way "myth" can operate through texts
      to localize linguistically connected experiences, and provide ground
      upon which mere Earthlings can communicate meaningfully, within a
      context familiar to others.

      I really do think of Stenström as a hero, for his critical focus
      apprehended the most minute issue, the exact fulcrum, if you will,
      upon which my understanding of the larger discussions of "A Mythology
      for England" can be balanced, if only within the context of my own
      understanding.

      To be grounded in the rules with which Textual Criticism is concerned
      is, to me, a safe place from which to defend. A "Helm's Deep" that at
      once gives quarter to attackers while offering shelter and resistance
      within in its many coloured caves to the rear.

      A metaphor, if you like. Even if it is a little over the top.

      Thanks, Walter.
    • Show all 28 messages in this topic