(no subject)

Does teaching Norwegian mean scattering mindless Ibsen-propaganda? Is there a conspiracy of Norwegian teachers, and teachers of respective native tongues, that Brown has yet to uncover? Perhaps there is really a secret code in "Angels and Demons" telling us of this world-wide conspiracy to quench young minds, and make sure they read and love their classics without a second thought. That must be it, they're all out to get us. Brown's got it, and now I'm on the verge of the same discovery.

Not that I can argue for the life of me, or am interested in doing anything but proving the opposing part an idiot. The latter is the hidden agenda of all discussions, I presume, and as such, the objective of rhetorics must be to prove the opposition an idiot with style. But how to do that? My brother is hardly a challenge there, he does so quite adequately himself: assuming the other idiot will shut up when you tell them to, and telling them to do so because you have no interest in further discussion is hardly the way to go; swapping stands halfway doesn't really work wonders for the credibility, either.

Would a simple essay on why I think "Hunger" is a wholly miserable piece of prose do the trick? I think I'm coming to the conclusion that it would. And if not, it'll be a fun thing to do. Can't get much worse than arguing with her now, can it?

(no subject)

Does teaching Norwegian mean scattering mindless Ibsen-propaganda? Is there a conspiracy of Norwegian teachers, and teachers of respective native tongues, that Brown has yet to uncover? Perhaps there is really a secret code in "Angels and Demons" telling us of this world-wide conspiracy to quench young minds, and make sure they read and love their classics without a second thought. That must be it, they're all out to get us. Brown's got it, and now I'm on the verge of the same discovery.

Not that I can argue for the life of me, or am interested in doing anything but proving the opposing part an idiot. The latter is the hidden agenda of all discussions, I presume, and as such, the objective of rhetorics must be to prove the opposition an idiot with style. But how to do that? My brother is hardly a challenge there, he does so quite adequately himself: assuming the other idiot will shut up when you tell them to, and telling them to do so because you have no interest in further discussion is hardly the way to go; swapping stands halfway doesn't really work wonders for the credibility, either.

Would a simple essay on why I think "Hunger" is a wholly miserable piece of prose do the trick? I think I'm coming to the conclusion that it would. And if not, it'll be a fun thing to do. Can't get much worse than arguing with her now, can it?