Gordon Fitch wrote:
> >Privileging authorial intent, are we?
Kelley:
> Well, maybe. But I was talking about SUVs.
>
> We *are* legion, but we are rilly rilly not quite energetic enough to also
> be, like, practitioners of reader response theory.
I'm just trying to get with the program, after being informed:
jimmyjames at softhome.net:
> Well, yeah, since the theoretical underpinnings of most of this is a
> rejection of essentialism, then you're waaaaaaaay outta touch.
As you may recall, I asked where the essentialism lay, but only silence ensued (at least in my perhaps imperfect view of LBO-talk). I've been very curious about it; being from another planet, I have to take outta-touchness seriously. It is not the only loose end remaining from the Sex Excursions, but it's the most recent one. Of course as you say people may be too out of energy now to pick them up, and I'll just have to stand in the darkness with my alien face squished against the bright windows of enlightened theory. If so I'll try to be brave. Do let me know, though, if you can manage it.
-- Gordon