Starling Larkwhisk Maybe the solution is not so much throwing in the towel as tearing the towel into strips and tying them together to fashion a makeshift rope.
about an hour ago · Like · Comment

Starling Larkwhisk This too shall fail.

productive discomfort with dominantn modes of apprehension
/ways of seeing
modes of historical apprehension
modes of apprehending experience//


including individualism itself (seeking vocabs for expressing cllective being, subjectivity, etc)

[not ALL canonical writers of course - but note even bloom on shakespeare! Spre suggess something of this]]

I'm trying to dream up an article (solely to soothe my own sense of my worthlessness to the world) "Loose Canon" to argue about Faulk and Melv - in a semi-paradox, that these are authors deserve to keep their canonicity today precisely because their texts, methods raise the very questions about cultural centre and margin that literary studies is now asking. And that the "canon" of so-called "classic" writers, for all its faults, has actually tended to include those who
8:15 AM

break down prejudices/settled ways of thinking - create 'constructive discomfort' with
8:15 AM

established discourses [[partly because of their inner dialectical tensions, off-setting of different forms of discourse, etc]]
8:15 AM

and that it is therefore actually conservative to DEFY the canon
8:15 AM

and progressive to embrace it

"Loose Canon"
F and M - in a semi-paradox: these authors deserve to keep their canonicity today precisely because their texts, methods raise the very questions about cultural centre and margin that literary studies is now asking.

Poofreading is very important.

Tristram false dichotomy between two alternative modes of thinking history. Remarkable given Engels focus.