> Far be it from me to deconstruct the late Mr. Miller -- and anyway
> I happen to believe that readers should take what they can from a
> text and not be "taught" how it goes. But surely, Catherine, you see
> something in this?
Fine, you want to 'lead out' and not 'put in' -- no problem. I just wanted to know what *you* saw, because I just got Miller waxing hyperbolic self-important weak reruns of Dante.
> "Fall back, then, fall deep and fathomless into the ocean of
> annihilation.Fall back into that bloody torpor which permits
> idiots to be crowned as kings."
This Miller too? I continue to think he needed an ecounter with the being-censored-does-not-mean-you-are-any-good fairy.
> Turn to CNN or Fox and I think you'll make the connection.
It's been a while since I watched CNN -- but, 'kings'? You think? Really? Who sees them as such? Fox is more like 'jesters'. But, ok, let's say there's an authority (kingly or not) attributed to CNN (or journalists in general?) and this needs to be recognised and critiqued/undermined. Will 'falling back into anihilation' or, presumably, resolving to not 'fall back into annihilation' help me or you with this?
And, please, don't infer that I 'deconstruct' things -- I've never done anything to you.
Catherine
[PS I was reading the stuff about blogging -- really interesting -- but wondering whether anyone would connect that to what seems to me like a wave of more 'personal' modes of online logging, like live journals. I'm just fascinated. Why, what for, what's it all about?]