> Those who claim some sophistication in responding to a text (of any
> sort) hardly live up to their claims when they are so utterly
> innocent of genre as West's critics seem to be.
I plead guilty of genre; I commit it all the time. Wilfully, consciously, and in cold blood.
But to what genre, exactly, was West's rodomontade supposed to belong? It wasn't tragical, historical, or even pastoral -- though it was comical; not in a generic sense, however. It wasn't homiletic, exegetic, lyric; wasn't Pindaric, gnomic, Cynic, Phillipic, Jeremaiac, Socratic, rabbinic, scholastic, erotic, panegyric, or even macaronic. I really don't know what to call it except pathetic.
-- --
Michael J. Smith mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://www.cars-suck.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com