The essential nature of the Romantic genre is that it is eternally becoming and can never be perfectedFragments

I stumbled on an odd little book a while back, Introducing Romanticism.

While I’ve been courting Romanticism for quite some time, I’m always happy to get a formal introduction. This one’s a bit different. It uses comics to convey the key concepts. I like the idea; if I were teaching a course in Romanticism, I’d consider using this book.

Though I’m resistant to clubs that would have me as a member, I must admit a certain blush of excitement of being named as a faculty member at U Blog. I like this part of the mission statement:

The heart of U Blog lies in receiving patiently and giving freely.

Patience is certainly a key in dealing with my meandering rants, which I do give freely.

Whatever it takes to move the project forward, I say. Delacour suggested that I might be moved to the Szarkowski photographic chair, and I don’t find anything wrong with that either.

However, Rhetoric, being the no-discipline discipline, suits me fine. Rhetoric butts into everything.

Alex is on a roll, both with his posts on filtering and his reaction to Weinberger’s book. I think it an opportune time to point out that rhetoric has only shifted to an emphasis on the written word in the late nineteenth century; prior to that, it was both written and spoken discourse. But when Speech Communications started serving up the milk and cookies, Rhetoric ran to the literature departments. It’s only started to break free again recently.

Ultimately though, they’re all fragments in the same puzzle.