I prefer the un"corrected" version, wherein the passive subject of "never seen agen" is the dog, not the duck. It is deeply provocative and opens up intense polyvalent speculation; whereas the later editorial insertion, while predictable, limits the possibilities of the first, authentic version to stereotypical cliche and/or hegemonic selfevidential norms. Editors can be hell.
you know, bff, now that you mention it, I do have this vague memory of objecting to that correction because it missed the *point* I was trying to make...
I prefer the un"corrected" version, wherein the passive subject of "never seen agen" is the dog, not the duck. It is deeply provocative and opens up intense polyvalent speculation; whereas the later editorial insertion, while predictable, limits the possibilities of the first, authentic version to stereotypical cliche and/or hegemonic selfevidential norms. Editors can be hell.
ReplyDeleteHappy Easter. In so many ways.
Waaaait.... What?
ReplyDelete@bff: I agree wholeheartedly.
ReplyDeleteyou know, bff, now that you mention it, I do have this vague memory of objecting to that correction because it missed the *point* I was trying to make...
ReplyDeletefascinating. I wonder if that memory is real.