Tuesday, May 3, 2011

The book I am reading

would be better if it did not have sentences like this, "With this dichotomy between the spirits that move the body and a prophylactic 'reasoning', we come to an issue we touched on in the last chapter, the destruction of the esemplastic powers by an overvaluation of analytic cogniton and the related destruction of gift exchange by the hegemony of the market."

I mean, really, is that necessary or could you simply learn to write.

12 comments:

PicklePits said...

Okay, so that dude has GOT to break away from the thesaurus. I do hope that this was an assigned reading and not a free choice. Yikes.

elpadawan said...

sounds like a bed time story.
*snoooore*.
"Goldilock and the Thesosaurus"?

mmichele said...

and s/he meant to say...?

Boo and Trev said...

Blimey, what book is that? I think I need to avoid it.

Helen said...

Ugh

Jan said...

Give it up.

Anonymous said...

Anybody that convoluted cannot possibly have opinions worth listening to
Sea Dog

Tiffany said...

ha ha ha hahahahahahahahhah

oreneta said...

Quite.

It is voluntary, I must be nuts....though I should have known when I found out that it is a book that Atwood is recommending that EVERYONE read....

There are elements in it that are more than worth it, but it does read just a weeeee bit too academic, and not enough like life.

J.G. said...

Silly me. I thought writing was about communicating your ideas to the reader. Clearly I am missing something!

kate said...

Yikes! But at least there aren't in-text citations every fourth word!

oreneta said...

Oh my goodness, JG, what were you thinking!!!!

Kate...there is that to be said for it anyway...bet you've been reading all to much of this kind of stuff, no?