The lead to this column from the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2009/sep/04/why-reading-dickens
suggests that Dickens is "even more ubiquitous" than he used to be. Are there degrees of ubiquity? Can you be "even more omnipresent"? Is it childish to be annoyed by this sort of thing?
I don't want to be ungrateful, though. I learned a new word from the column, aptronym, then, from looking it up, another, the synonymous euonym. I feel more omniscienter than ever.
2 comments:
I missed that class, but I think it's a calculus concept. Or maybe a unified field theory concept. Even the universe is expanding, no? So long as everywhere is finite, it's entirely possible that there could be a bit more Dickens today than yesterday even though he occupied the entire field both days.
Well, yes, of course, that's just what I was going to say, except that I was going to include some uninformed and inappropriate comment about Schrödinger's Cat.
Post a Comment