[Table of Contents] [Search]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Book Art Criticism: New Thoughts

I don't mean to be a brat.  But I've got a couple of burning questions that I
hope to get some answers from you:

1) WRT text, is a blank book a book?  If not, why not?  If so, does it
necessarily have less artistic value than the ones that have texts, everything
else being equal?

2) Being an ESL student, I can't spell in English and get the English grammar
wrong all the time.  One reason is that native speakers don't always follow the
grammatical rules, even when they are talking about grammar.  For instance:

Bertha Rogers wrote:

> The artist is ultimally responsible, assuming it's a one-of-a-kind
> work, and that's what I'm talking about here, for the spelling and
> grammar.  And there are rules of grammar--rules that exist to make
> the language/the text possible to read and understand.

Isn't the last sentence odd?  I thought that people who read and understand, but
texts are to be read and understood.  Or this is another one of those English
idioms that is grammatical but illogical?

I really don't mean to offend anyone on the list but I'm here to learn.   My
questions may be unavoidably annoying to some, and I apologize for that.

Yixi Zhang from Victoria,  B.C. Canada

            BOOK_ARTS-L: The listserv for all the book arts.
      For subscription information, the Archive, and other related
            resources and links go to the Book_Arts-L FAQ at:

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]