Reply to comment

I'm amused to imagine that the critical voice you'll be "ventriloquizing" this week will not be one of the writers we read--Hyde, Gunn Allen, Pollan or Schwartz--but rather one of the professors who visited our class in person. Paul's insistence that "incoming information is always ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations," that in a world in constant flux, our brains "locate and give meaning to randomness" forms a striking framework for judging the usefulness--because ambiguousness--of the texts we're using in this course. I look forward to your critique of Kingsolver's explicit "linking."