tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3571309.post7169106924708959998..comments2023-10-31T07:32:11.739-04:00Comments on Wormtalk and Slugspeak: Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07566889846240013567noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3571309.post-2405133425179921952007-10-12T16:15:00.000-04:002007-10-12T16:15:00.000-04:00Thanks for yet another explication of the mysterio...Thanks for yet another explication of the mysterious Ins and Outs of Theory. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps someday I will actually read a paper that uses theory to explain to me a work of literature that I am familiar with, so I can see how it all works. Since I am not an English grad student, the chances of that happening are low, I'd guess.<BR/><BR/>On a point of clarity, did you recently give a paper that referred to the Burgess Shale? I would like to hear more about that, being an old sideline fan of the Gould/Conway Morris duel.squirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14280609151416389163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3571309.post-74777409936909726882007-10-11T23:10:00.000-04:002007-10-11T23:10:00.000-04:00Hey, neat--I don't know that I've even been linked...Hey, neat--I don't know that I've even been linked before! <BR/><BR/>I suspect that your distaste for unquestioning or rote use of French/post-structuralist Theory is a large part of why I so enyojed your approach to theory in the Burgess Shale paper. <BR/><BR/>And it's so funny to me that it came up just now--we just finished reading <I>Graphs, Maps, Trees</I> and I was again reminded of that paper.Ecce Equus Pallidushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17636956975047785616noreply@blogger.com