Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Censored edition of Huck Finn
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
This is really trivial. Some politically correct section of the population took
it upon themselves to publish an edited public domain work reflecting their
own political biases. Riveting stuff, another chance to attack the PC
brigade & coincidentally create a lot of publicity to sell these horrendous
tomes that exemplify all that's wrong in modern society.
This rings of "they" situation, i.e. "they" are doing X, "they" are doing Y
& it's symptomatic of what "they" are trying to do to "us". This isn't the
ministry of propaganda this is a group of people who did something they
chose to do & have every right in our current way of living.
I personally think anyone who is willing to buy into it has been abused &/or
brainwashed but I think it's clear that it's a decision of a few people who
are working within the laws our society deems acceptable & not some
official mandate.
Considering the fact that it's an anti-racist book by an old member of the
anti-imperialist league who purposely wrote to make you uncomfortable if
you were on the receiving end of his wit & also considering the fact that
the word ni__gg__er really is exemplary of how the (formerly?) oppressed
can champion that which was formerly derrogatory (queer & gay being
other examples) I really pitty anyone who buys into it in this particular
case compared to other situations.SuperInfinity wrote: »But they shouldn't be allowed to advertise it as HuckleBerry Finn by Mark Twain as this is not a book Mark Twain wrote if they edited it in any way.
But they are, the decent thing an honest person would do is make the
distinction clear, but I don't think you can attribute honesty to these
people in all fairness when the intention is to lie about history from the
get go :pac:Monkeybonkers wrote: »If everybody is so against the word '******' being taken out of the book then why aren't you using it yourselves? Not trying to be controversial or anything but just wondering why everyone's using 'the n word'. If people who are against it being removed won't even use it when discussing its removal then surely this lends weight to the argument for it being removed so as not to offend anyone.
I see now that my post has been auto-edited. Apologies to all. I didn't realise that it would be auto-edited. Now I see why no one was using it.
I'd say a lot of the reason people don't use the word in contemporary
society is because places like boards self-censor words like this & it's
merely symptomatic of how society treats such issues.
There is a lot of self-congratulatory talk of how Freud opened the way
for critical self-reflection & openness on a communal scale rather than a
personal thing you didn't discuss but the way society hides it's little
secrets like this is a joke. Rather than teaching the history of slavery
properly, teaching 19th century slave songs to kids & letting them see
for themselves the logic of why a word like ni)gg)er can cause outrage an
indirect mode of attack is taken.for instance we no longer see a gollywog on a jar or marmalade or Lyon's Tea promote the b&w minstrels as neither ads are deemed art.(so the function of the images are not integral to the art of the work (as they are not art), in this case an advert - (adverts can be art, but these are not deemed such)
I don't know how you can class that which purposely sets out to deceive
the senses of the beholder in a way so as to coax money out of them &
fill their heads with manufactured desires as art
now, as for Enid Blyton's use of such phraseology... different story. rightly changed.in short (very short really) if a word is integral to the art of the work, it stays. otherwise, if same word has connotations deemed offensive and is not integral to the work, it goes.
I think you want to be consistent and say that if a word/concept/part is
integral to the art of the work according to whoever in power decides then
it is "rightly changed".
I was reading the reviews on amazon of a guy who grew up in the USSR &
was reading the books about the "real" history of Russia & the real story
behind contemporary biology after being inoctrinated with that fluff since
youth & what you're saying just reminds me of that so much.
The exact same logic of yours is used in far more extreme cases to
justify editing history. The amazon guy spoke of how well & detailed his
knowledge of Roman & Greek history was because there was no conflict
of ideology there, similarly with censoring the word ni_gg_er, as long as our
personal ideology is not shaken up it's justifiable. There's always an excuse
by madmen to transcend honesty, read Pol Pot's for instance. There is no
justifiable excuse for editing anyone's work, especially when the motives
are clear & illustrate as severe a hypocrisy as is the case here.
The simple fact that you'd agree with Blyton being censored while I
wouldn't shows how subjective an issue this is & how illogical your view
is when we generalize it beyond your personal tastes, i.e. you don't
discuss trousers around a lady because it's not 'the thing to do', this
was the subjective societal bias over 100 years ago & hinted at a deep
injustice but it's coming from the same place.
If I can make it clearer, the nasty part of Russian history was "deemed
offensive and is not integral to the (work)⇔(Russian vision, &) it goes"
according to the USSR, similarly with Lysenko & genetics.
Even boards censors the word, that's how deeply entrenched the
ideology is, there is uproar about censoring the word from the historical
record while daily society censors itself from usage of this word & therefore
in real time removes the word from the historical record as it marches on.
Crazy stuff.0 -
Advertisement
-
sponsoredwalk wrote: »This is really trivial. Some politically correct section of the population took
it upon themselves to publish an edited public domain work reflecting their
own political biases. Riveting stuff, another chance to attack the PC
brigade & coincidentally create a lot of publicity to sell these horrendous
tomes that exemplify all that's wrong in modern society.
This rings of "they" situation, i.e. "they" are doing X, "they" are doing Y
& it's symptomatic of what "they" are trying to do to "us". This isn't the
ministry of propaganda this is a group of people who did something they
chose to do & have every right in our current way of living.
I personally think anyone who is willing to buy into it has been abused &/or
brainwashed but I think it's clear that it's a decision of a few people who
are working within the laws our society deems acceptable & not some
official mandate.
Considering the fact that it's an anti-racist book by an old member of the
anti-imperialist league who purposely wrote to make you uncomfortable if
you were on the receiving end of his wit & also considering the fact that
the word ni__gg__er really is exemplary of how the (formerly?) oppressed
can champion that which was formerly derrogatory (queer & gay being
other examples) I really pitty anyone who buys into it in this particular
case compared to other situations.
But they are, the decent thing an honest person would do is make the
distinction clear, but I don't think you can attribute honesty to these
people in all fairness when the intention is to lie about history from the
get go :pac:
I'd say a lot of the reason people don't use the word in contemporary
society is because places like boards self-censor words like this & it's
merely symptomatic of how society treats such issues.
There is a lot of self-congratulatory talk of how Freud opened the way
for critical self-reflection & openness on a communal scale rather than a
personal thing you didn't discuss but the way society hides it's little
secrets like this is a joke. Rather than teaching the history of slavery
properly, teaching 19th century slave songs to kids & letting them see
for themselves the logic of why a word like ni)gg)er can cause outrage an
indirect mode of attack is taken.
I don't know how you can class that which purposely sets out to deceive
the senses of the beholder in a way so as to coax money out of them &
fill their heads with manufactured desires as art
I think you want to be consistent and say that if a word/concept/part is
integral to the art of the work according to whoever in power decides then
it is "rightly changed".
I was reading the reviews on amazon of a guy who grew up in the USSR &
was reading the books about the "real" history of Russia & the real story
behind contemporary biology after being inoctrinated with that fluff since
youth & what you're saying just reminds me of that so much.
The exact same logic of yours is used in far more extreme cases to
justify editing history. The amazon guy spoke of how well & detailed his
knowledge of Roman & Greek history was because there was no conflict
of ideology there, similarly with censoring the word ni_gg_er, as long as our
personal ideology is not shaken up it's justifiable. There's always an excuse
by madmen to transcend honesty, read Pol Pot's for instance. There is no
justifiable excuse for editing anyone's work, especially when the motives
are clear & illustrate as severe a hypocrisy as is the case here.
The simple fact that you'd agree with Blyton being censored while I
wouldn't shows how subjective an issue this is & how illogical your view
is when we generalize it beyond your personal tastes, i.e. you don't
discuss trousers around a lady because it's not 'the thing to do', this
was the subjective societal bias over 100 years ago & hinted at a deep
injustice but it's coming from the same place.
If I can make it clearer, the nasty part of Russian history was "deemed
offensive and is not integral to the (work)⇔(Russian vision, &) it goes"
according to the USSR, similarly with Lysenko & genetics.
Even boards censors the word, that's how deeply entrenched the
ideology is, there is uproar about censoring the word from the historical
record while daily society censors itself from usage of this word & therefore
in real time removes the word from the historical record as it marches on.
Crazy stuff.
yup.
ETA. try and make one point at a time. that way i might be able to respond. and by one point i mean one. not two. or three. not a point then a qualifier, then a sub-point then a side point. just one. one point.
0 -
-
ETA. try and make one point at a time. that way i might be able to respond. and by one point i mean one. not two. or three. not a point then a qualifier, then a sub-point then a side point. just one. one point.
:pac:
If only you could demand that all the people challenging your statements
would follow your rules. I'll just say that I only made two points, one
challenging your nonsense about advertising being considered an art &
a second about your nonsense that anyone is justifiably in a position to
judge what is deemed offensive & to therefore remove it. If it's tough to
read a challenging opinion all I did was show that your logic is akin to that
used by the Russian state capitalists (colloquially called communists) of the
20th century in both the political and scientific arena & it led to monstrous
results for humanity. I just used your own words to explain how Russian
history was censored while Greco-Roman history was thoroughally analyzed
to illustrate a bit of motivation for what I was saying, you know, offer
evidence of my assertions so that I can show I'm not talking nonsense?
It's a lot harder for a person to refute actual evidence. It's not up to you
it's up to the creator of the work to decide if a word stays of goes, if
that person wanted word X removed they had plenty of time to do so
themselves so your latest argument doesn't stand up.
But obviously seeing that I made two points instead of one (and by one point
you mean one) everything I've said is obviously null and void. When are we to
expect a criticism of the shape of my posts, or the big posh words I use
or some other fun aspect of my posts?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
How can it ever be acceptable to change anything in any work of art be it a book , a painting , a film , a sculpture ?
Going back to the Vatican putting 'whitewash' on the Sistine Chapel and the Victorians puting fig leafs on the statues and Bowdler making Shakespeare suitable for family reading. Thats a funny one though , he took out all the lewd and lascivious lines but left in all the anti-semitic ones, thus showing what a waste of time this type of censorship is. What is acceptable in one age is offensive in another.
Do we take the anti-semitism out of Shakespeare, the ****** out of Faulkner, the golliwog,woggers and wogs out of James Joyce ?
And to say that one word means the same as another is just laughable,
I presume Twain,Faulkner,Joyce knew that and still choose the words they did.
If those words have changed meaning in the intervening years, well if you are brainy enough to be reading these authors than you are brainy enough to understand them in their original context.
If those words have not changed their meaning and had a racist or sexist context when used , then so be it .The reader is entitled to know that despite being a great writer/painter whatever he/she was also sexist or racist.
If these word make the books unsuitable for younger classrooms then so be it, dont use them in classroom. The Irish experience of of banning books
has shown that this is a guaranteed way of ensuring that those books will be read at a later time when they will be understood.
This whole business is just so arrogant and really condescending
great post. and you woke me up to an important consideration. i stated that even if blyton was art, the N word should be removed, as it was not integral to the piece. however ,rather than take the risk going down such a road might lead, i retract that rather flippant remark and state that NO word should be removed from a work of art.
on the rest of the post.
yup, one word of a piece of literature is not automatically interchangeable with another.
yup, nice point (the bold bit)
yup, no word integral to a work of art (literature) should be changed. Indeed as stated above, NO word should be removed from a work of art.
however, 1/ blyton's work is not art, they are averagely written children's books. so if the choice is a/ deny children the books, or b/ remove the word n**ger from said book, i say the second option is the better, as a child can still enjoy aspects of her work.
in this instance as her work is not art, it will not be read as an adult - except for analytical/historical purposes for a wider topic.
ETA: Blyton's work is not art/ literature. If it was there would be academic work / analysis etc etc on it. Any criticism work mentioning blyton would be referencing her work as an illustration of a a bigger topic ( the war, societal change, the increase of literacy in post war england etc) or as part of a biography and not as a subject in itself.
of course if anyone finds an academic work which contradicts this, (ie offers critique of her work using one or many of the literary criticism techniques and refers to her work as literature) please feel free to humiliate me.
0 -
sponsoredwalk wrote: »:pac:
If only you could demand that all the people challenging your statements
would follow your rules. I'll just say that I only made two points, one
challenging your nonsense about advertising being considered an art
em, advertising is considered art - not all of it of course. same as not all writing is considered art.
&
a second about your nonsense that anyone is justifiably in a position to
judge what is deemed offensive & to therefore remove it.
i said that? where?
If it's tough to
read a challenging opinion all I did was show that your logic is akin to that
used by the Russian state capitalists (colloquially called communists) of the
20th century in both the political and scientific arena & it led to monstrous
results for humanity.
I just used your own words to explain how Russian
history was censored
did you?
while Greco-Roman history was thoroughally analyzed
to illustrate a bit of motivation for what I was saying,
was it?
you know, offer
evidence of my assertions so that I can show I'm not talking nonsense?
??
It's a lot harder for a person to refute actual evidence.
evidence?
It's not up to you
it's up to the creator of the work to decide if a word stays of goes, if
that person wanted word X removed they had plenty of time to do so
themselves
fair nuff. if it's a work of art.
so your latest argument doesn't stand up.
i had a latest argument? what was that?
But obviously seeing that I made two points instead of one
em....
(and by one point
you mean one) everything I've said is obviously null and void.
well, ahem...
When are we to
expect a criticism of the shape of my posts,
what shape is that? oblong?
or the big posh words I use
er....
or some other fun aspect of my posts?
well, they are fun i have to admit.
sorry. i shouldn't be so dismissive.
and yet i am.
sorry again.0 -
:pac:
If only you could demand that all the people challenging your statements
would follow your rules. I'll just say that I only made two points, one
challenging your nonsense about advertising being considered an art
em, advertising is considered art - not all of it of course. same as not all writing is considered art.
I don't consider any "art" created for advertising purposes to be art
because I don't think it's artistic to create something that has the sole
purpose of subconsciously forcing manufactured wants on the viewer.
But you're wrong about "all writing" because you'll always find someone
who considers piece X as art. Just because I don't agree that advertising
is not art doesn't give me any right to ban it.
&
a second about your nonsense that anyone is justifiably in a position to
judge what is deemed offensive & to therefore remove it.
i said that? where?
Okay, so it's not justifiable to take words out of Enid Blyton then
But you just said it was justifiable to take words out of Enid Blyton,
of course you didn't use the actual word "justifiable" you just explained
the situation that the word justifiable would sum up.
my argument is that certain words, if not integral to a piece of art (literature) can be removed. for instance the word 'at' or 'river'. or indeed the word n**ger if that word is not integral to the integrity of the work - ie it's artistic essence, it's integral message or sub-message.
in Huck's case it is, therefore it stays
in Blyton's case it's not, therefore can be removed.
^Here^ I think it's obvious that you have graciously placed yourself in the
role of the moral arbiter of what is deemed acceptable in this situation
& justified it with shoddy logic that can be manipulated by anyone to
ban any word they want. Who judges what word is integral to the story?
Everyone, but those in power have the, wait for it, power to ban certain
words or books or passages over others. Now, this is a related point &
not a side point, it's related if you think for a second, but in Russia that
was state policy. My example of the Russian guy on amazon who lived
through this first hand was just an illustration of what your horrendous
logic is like in practice.
If it's tough to
read a challenging opinion all I did was show that your logic is akin to that
used by the Russian state capitalists (colloquially called communists) of the
20th century in both the political and scientific arena & it led to monstrous
results for humanity.
I just used your own words to explain how Russian
history was censored
did you?
Yes,in short (very short really) if a word is integral to the art of the work, it stays. otherwise, if same word has connotations deemed offensive and is not integral to the work, it goes.sponsoredwalk wrote: »If I can make it clearer, the nasty part of Russian history was "deemed
offensive and is not integral to the (work)⇔(Russian vision, &) it goes"
according to the USSR, similarly with Lysenko & genetics.
The ⇔ sign means "logically equivalent". Notice that I am explaining the
Stalinist justification for removing certain parts of Russian history deemed
unfit or against the spirit of the state. This is your logic in practice, you
are simply arguing for a weakened version of it but it's essentially the
same. Remove words like ni_gg_er from classic works because our
culture cannot face it's ugly past & we'd rather hide it than face it is no
different to the state-sponsored mandate to ignore the history of the
gulag & show trials etc... Shameful stuff...
while Greco-Roman history was thoroughally analyzed
to illustrate a bit of motivation for what I was saying,
was it?
Yes, if you'd read my post properly rather than reply with the weak
response you chose you'd see I explained how the guy learned
Greco-Roman history thoroughly but failed (for some reason) to learn
the history of his own country (& it's just common knowledge anyway).
Similarly in the U.S., Native American history is still only being
uncovered after years of purposeful ignorance of the extermination of
the indigenous population. The point is that in Russia they use your logic
to expunge the negative side of Russian history & in the West we expunge
words like ni_g_-G_e-r to hide the extremely shady side of our history.
you know, offer
evidence of my assertions so that I can show I'm not talking nonsense?
??
I'm sorry, I thought you'd recognise the digression into Russian history as
evidence. Obviously not. Well a bit of knowledge of Russian state-
sponsored suppression & reading these reviews will help you see what I
meant. Employing some ridiculous rationale for editing historical works,
i.e. your argument, has been done in history & it's always was done to
hide a particularly negative trait of those hiding it. In this situation it's no
different.
It's a lot harder for a person to refute actual evidence.
evidence?
As I explained above. Also, remember in my earlier post I went and
explained how the Russian state employed your logic to further Lysenko's
foolish science? Mendelian genetics was "deemed offensive" in the eyes
of the Russians & scientists advocating it were murdered. They were
very proud of their scientific acheivements & spared no expense to
ensure their population seen Russian superiority. They produced some
absolutely unbelievable math & physics books, but in biology :pac:.
It's not up to you
it's up to the creator of the work to decide if a word stays of goes, if
that person wanted word X removed they had plenty of time to do so
themselves
fair nuff. if it's a work of art.
Enid Blyton is a work of art too, maybe not to you because your
subjective perception of what art is is shaped a certain way, but the
whole world doesn't (shocker) think the way you do.
so your latest argument doesn't stand up.
i had a latest argument? what was that?my argument is that certain words, if not integral to a piece of art (literature) can be removed. for instance the word 'at' or 'river'. or indeed the word n**ger if that word is not integral to the integrity of the work - ie it's artistic essence, it's integral message or sub-message.
in Huck's case it is, therefore it stays
in Blyton's case it's not, therefore can be removed.as i said if the word is deemed as carrying connotations deemed offensive, it can only be left if it is integral to the art, in this case (Huck) it is (thematically and structurally)
I don't know why but I think you knew that.
But obviously seeing that I made two points instead of one
em....
(and by one point
you mean one) everything I've said is obviously null and void.
well, ahem...
When are we to
expect a criticism of the shape of my posts,
what shape is that? oblong?
or the big posh words I use
er....
or some other fun aspect of my posts?
well, they are fun i have to admit.
Cheers
Don't mean to get all hysterical but if you're seriously going to
argue that there is any rationale behind editing literature or the historical
record the claws come out :P
0 -
however, 1/ blyton's work is not art, they are averagely written children's books. so if the choice is a/ deny children the books, or b/ remove the word n**ger from said book, i say the second option is the better, as a child can still enjoy aspects of her work.
c/ give the children the book & tell the truth when that part comes up 0 -
-
-
ETA: Blyton's work is not art/ literature. If it was there would be academic work / analysis etc etc on it. Any criticism work mentioning blyton would be referencing her work as an illustration of a a bigger topic ( the war, societal change, the increase of literacy in post war england etc) or as part of a biography and not as a subject in itself.
of course if anyone finds an academic work which contradicts this, (ie offers critique of her work using one or many of the literary criticism techniques and refers to her work as literature) please feel free to humiliate me.
That seems like a very narrow definition of art/literature. Anyway, I'd be very surprised if there were not some academics somewhere that studied Blyton to some degree (here's one on Amazon, don't know anything about how good it is but it doesn't look like just a biography but treats her work as a subject in itself). Regardless, to view academia as the gatekeepers of art is foolish. Art should be experienced on a subjective basis and one person's art is another person's dross.
Regardless, this does not impact on whether a book should be censored or not. If the book is so abhorrent that it cannot be sold as is without corrupting the youth of today, then do not buy it for children. However, perhaps actually talking with young people when they are reading any books is a better way of going about it. Get them to explore the differences between what was acceptable in the book and what is acceptable in the real world. Get them to compare it with something like Lord of the Flies or The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and let them see how culture is not just what they know from their day to day life, it has changed immensely since Blyton wrote her stories and it will change again in the next century. Give them some food for thought and encourage critical engagement with what they experience in life instead of being spoonfed and led blindly down a corridor instead of exploring the wide plains of writing and art in general.
On a personal note, even as a young boy I had no interest in Blyton because it was so old fashioned. Young people need to be given more credit for their ability to think and see through such nonsense.0 -
-
That seems like a very narrow definition of art/literature. Anyway, I'd be very surprised if there were not some academics somewhere that studied Blyton to some degree (here's one on Amazon, don't know anything about how good it is but it doesn't look like just a biography but treats her work as a subject in itself). Regardless, to view academia as the gatekeepers of art is foolish. Art should be experienced on a subjective basis and one person's art is another person's dross.
hmmm. so Jeffery Archer is art if someone believes it to be? naw. the business of what is art is a pretty serious one and detailed one - check it out. it's certainly not a 'each to his own' thing.
Regardless, this does not impact on whether a book should be censored or not. If the book is so abhorrent that it cannot be sold as is without corrupting the youth of today, then do not buy it for children. However, perhaps actually talking with young people when they are reading any books is a better way of going about it. Get them to explore the differences between what was acceptable in the book and what is acceptable in the real world. Get them to compare it with something like Lord of the Flies or The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and let them see how culture is not just what they know from their day to day life, it has changed immensely since Blyton wrote her stories and it will change again in the next century. Give them some food for thought and encourage critical engagement with what they experience in life instead of being spoonfed and led blindly down a corridor instead of exploring the wide plains of writing and art in general.
I think blytons work is the children's version of Archer's work. nice on a rainy day, or to get kids reading. i dont really see parents getting in too deep, comparison wise etc. So, to allow the secret seven etc to continue the handiest way is to remove the offensive material. in exactly the same way with other commercial entities - like the example i gave with lyon's tea or the golliwog on marmalade jar.
now if blyton's work was art, that'd be different. but it aint, it's a commercial product and can be approached as such.
JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS IN PROSE FORM AND IS BETWEEN TWO COVERS AND HAS SOLD WELL, DOESNT ACTUALLY MAKE IT LITERATURE.
but of course, we all know that. right?
On a personal note, even as a young boy I had no interest in Blyton because it was so old fashioned. Young people need to be given more credit for their ability to think and see through such nonsense.
to reiterate a previous statement, it's a what is art question. Blyton's work isnt. neither is Archer's. Neither is the lyon's minstrel song, dance or imagery. neither is...well, the list goes on.A crucial point that David Rudd develops is that it is unhelpful to judge these books
in terms of what adults consider as good or worthwhile literature. They are uniquely
for children and are not 'developmental', but are about being rather than becoming.
Moreover, it is misguided to view each book as an artistic work in itself since its
value lies in its being part of a series and its readers being part of the club (whether
this be metaphorical, through the reader's imaginative identification or literal, as in
membership of the readers' clubs and correspondence with the author).
David Rudd considers the accusations levelled against Blyton - accusations of low
literary merit, sexism, racism, 'old-fashionedness' and the idealisation of Lost
England, and uses research methods to provide a balanced view which seems
ultimately on the side of Blyton and her fans - children past and present.
from one of the two 'customer' reviews of the link you gave -and this is a positive review
he he he.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
hmm. patronise is it?SuperInfinity wrote: »That's what I'd like to know...
I don't see how this follows from your previous statement. I think I smell a false dichotomy.
Don't patronize him please. I would hope your debating skills extend further than: "are you really suggesting that? do you really want to say that John? Be honest John, do you actually want to say that in reality? Now come on John, is that really what you believe?".
Well, I don't really care what some people call art or not. I have no idea about Enid Blython's work, but I'm sure some of the books must be "okay" for her to have sold so much.
You've called yourself an ignoramous, maybe it's time to get off the soapbox.
anyway, my work (art) here is done.
@superinfinity - if you do want an answer to that (bold bit) it might be worth checking out definitions of art, the role of literary criticism, etc etc etc. fascinating stuff.0 -
hmm. patronise is it?
? - Is this supposed to be an allegation I spelt it wrong? I spelt it the American way which I prefer, I don't really care if it's incorrect here. You who don't even bother capitalizing the first letter of your sentences are one to be talking.anyway, my work (art) here is done.
@superinfinity - if you do want an answer to that (bold bit) it might be worth checking out definitions of art, the role of literary criticism, etc etc etc. fascinating stuff.
It might...0 -
SuperInfinity wrote: »? - Is this supposed to be an allegation I spelt it wrong? I spelt it the American way which I prefer, I don't really care if it's incorrect here. You who don't even bother capitalizing the first letter of your sentences are one to be talking.
no no, not at all. i just dont think i was patronising John. I'm no grammar nazi
It might... 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement