Dudley Andrew is the mother of Satan
Ok so here's a summary of the weather since last friday: 50 degrees and sunny... three days later its 40 degrees and rainy... and then, one glorious morning, its 25 degrees and dusting lightly with those bitterly icy flakes of winter fun known as "snow".
In other news:
Chris and i are alternatly dragging eachother through this semester day by overwhelming day through a demonstration of sheer will power that would, i suspect, impress even the most experienced and courageous mountain climber... as these giant heaps of academic tasks might be likened even unto the great mt. everest. You've seen photos, possibly even videos of that mighty geographical wonder and those who place it upon themselves to scale its massive, forboding sides? Yes, imagine that as you try to understand this semester, a challenge- both exciting and intriguing,it's true, and one which, i do admit, i voluntarily undertook, but a challenge, no less, unlike anything i have ever dared attempt before.
And so, as i fight my way through tests (for which i can recall not a single word of information), essays (which threaten to send the stablity of my sanity and the strength of my will shattering to a pathetic, whimpering end), and readings (by sickeningly pretentious theorists which mean so much nothing that they test my very grasp on reality) I give you this: a letter to (perhaps)the king of those very same pretentious writers: Mr. Dudley Andrews...
Dear Mr. Andrew,
I would like to expound upon the exceedingly insightful, meaningful, and in all ways significant text, entitled "Valuation (of Genres and Auteurs)" which you have so masterfully constructed. The following is a scan I have made of my personal favorite accompanied by a list of my favorite quotes and some of my own thoughts upon the issues raised:
>(Pg. 108) "This development might best be thought of as progressing from an interest in 'structure' to one in 'structuration'" <-- I generaly find it useful, when describing how something "might best be thought of" to use words that actually exist... you know, just for the sake of clarity.
>(Pg. 111) You quote Heath: "Narrativization is then the term of a fim's entertaining..." <--First I would like to interject a question: What's with you film people and making up words? Seriously, you go on and on about formalism's lack of "semiotic formulas" and then go spouting off words that are not only conspicuously absent from the english language, but from any other language as well. For the love of god, just STOP MAKING UP WORDS! ARGH!
In any event, you, then go on to discuss Heath's "Rarefied Vocabularly"... excuse me? like you really have any right to complain about overly-creative language. I mean, Structuration? You have got to be kidding me!
PS. (What's Phasure?)
>(Pg. 110) "...[T]his age which was condensed into a single month, May 1968." <-- This could quite possibly be one of the coolest statements ever made.
>I enjoyed your comment about cinema's actual physical dependence on "...the operations of laboratories and chemicals"(Pg. 114) in the middle of a paragraph about a likening of cinema to a machine (made "of fragments and parts" no less) and it's function to produce reality for its spectators.
>and finally, I also love how you openly display your contempt for other theories, as you discuss the "insufficiency" of formalism (Pg. 107), Post-Structuralism's obsession with the "apparent but insignificant" differences among texts- I can just hear you scoffing- (Although I originally could have sworn I thought you supported post-structuralism, a closer reading is bringing me to question this initial assumption), snide marks abound, however, my patience for this grows short, and so i leave you with only those meagre samples of your awesome snobbery.
Thank you for your time,
Sarah Wertheimer
In other news:
Chris and i are alternatly dragging eachother through this semester day by overwhelming day through a demonstration of sheer will power that would, i suspect, impress even the most experienced and courageous mountain climber... as these giant heaps of academic tasks might be likened even unto the great mt. everest. You've seen photos, possibly even videos of that mighty geographical wonder and those who place it upon themselves to scale its massive, forboding sides? Yes, imagine that as you try to understand this semester, a challenge- both exciting and intriguing,it's true, and one which, i do admit, i voluntarily undertook, but a challenge, no less, unlike anything i have ever dared attempt before.
And so, as i fight my way through tests (for which i can recall not a single word of information), essays (which threaten to send the stablity of my sanity and the strength of my will shattering to a pathetic, whimpering end), and readings (by sickeningly pretentious theorists which mean so much nothing that they test my very grasp on reality) I give you this: a letter to (perhaps)the king of those very same pretentious writers: Mr. Dudley Andrews...
Dear Mr. Andrew,
I would like to expound upon the exceedingly insightful, meaningful, and in all ways significant text, entitled "Valuation (of Genres and Auteurs)" which you have so masterfully constructed. The following is a scan I have made of my personal favorite accompanied by a list of my favorite quotes and some of my own thoughts upon the issues raised:
>(Pg. 108) "This development might best be thought of as progressing from an interest in 'structure' to one in 'structuration'" <-- I generaly find it useful, when describing how something "might best be thought of" to use words that actually exist... you know, just for the sake of clarity.
>(Pg. 111) You quote Heath: "Narrativization is then the term of a fim's entertaining..." <--First I would like to interject a question: What's with you film people and making up words? Seriously, you go on and on about formalism's lack of "semiotic formulas" and then go spouting off words that are not only conspicuously absent from the english language, but from any other language as well. For the love of god, just STOP MAKING UP WORDS! ARGH!
In any event, you, then go on to discuss Heath's "Rarefied Vocabularly"... excuse me? like you really have any right to complain about overly-creative language. I mean, Structuration? You have got to be kidding me!
PS. (What's Phasure?)
>(Pg. 110) "...[T]his age which was condensed into a single month, May 1968." <-- This could quite possibly be one of the coolest statements ever made.
>I enjoyed your comment about cinema's actual physical dependence on "...the operations of laboratories and chemicals"(Pg. 114) in the middle of a paragraph about a likening of cinema to a machine (made "of fragments and parts" no less) and it's function to produce reality for its spectators.
>and finally, I also love how you openly display your contempt for other theories, as you discuss the "insufficiency" of formalism (Pg. 107), Post-Structuralism's obsession with the "apparent but insignificant" differences among texts- I can just hear you scoffing- (Although I originally could have sworn I thought you supported post-structuralism, a closer reading is bringing me to question this initial assumption), snide marks abound, however, my patience for this grows short, and so i leave you with only those meagre samples of your awesome snobbery.
Thank you for your time,
Sarah Wertheimer