Barthesian demon
Feb. 23rd, 2009 09:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
This was received by webmaster (presumably intended for the department that actually does a creative writing course):
Anyway, I forwarded the email to the right people.
I was thinking about doing your creative writing course but can't afford the fees.Well, obviously I was delighted; it's not often my Eng. Lit. background actually becomes directly relevant in answering the enquiries which webmaster receives. So I had a lovely response prepared about how critical theoreticians probably didn't feel themselves bound by the rules one learns at school, and that while you may regard lisible and scriptible as risible neologisms, "readerly" and "writerly" seem entirely reasonable translations of them, and that in any case Barthes was sadly unavailable to debate the point, having ended his discourse of the Death of the Author with uncharacteristically unstructuralist closure by falling fatally under a laundry van in early 1980. But sadly, a) I was discouraged from sending it, and b) on closer inspection it turned out that they were actually using "writerly" in the context of "writerly support", ie "support from writers", so I'm afraid morally I may be forced to side with the pompous have-your-sayer who can't tell the difference between a Creative Writing department and a Computing department.
However I should be grateful if you could let me know the origin of the word "writerly". When I was at school you took an adjective and added 'ly' to make an adverb. Writer though is a noun.
Have the rules changed?
Anyway, I forwarded the email to the right people.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 10:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 11:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 10:09 am (UTC)Dear Burj Al Arab Hotel:
Date: 2009-02-23 10:10 am (UTC)Have the rules changed?
no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 11:57 am (UTC)I'm afraid the rules have changed, partly due to pressure from Durham City Council who were tired of being asked what "rham" was and having to explain that it was what you ate with reggs and rchips. You wouldn't get that sort of nonsense under the Imperial system, I can tell you.
Yours,
Brigadier-General Branes (Mrs)
no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 10:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 10:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 11:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 11:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 11:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 11:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 12:00 pm (UTC)* meaning "like a rep"
no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 12:03 pm (UTC)The -ly1 OED entry notes that the same construction gives forms like "goodly", "lovely", and "daily", as well as the more obvious "kingly", "beastly", "womanly", and so on.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 12:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 01:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 02:44 pm (UTC)I hope the original author came from Ely...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 12:20 pm (UTC)When out of control, it also gives rise to the horrible lily words: 'She did it lovelily'.
Loverly jubberly
Date: 2009-02-23 12:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 04:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 04:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-01 09:20 am (UTC)