<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for RES</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/RES/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/RES/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:53:32 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Keith Gessen Blog - The literary world is up in arms over comments by...</title><link>http://keithgessen.tumblr.com/post/53444737#comment-2926062</link><description>&lt;p&gt;A reader writes in with a correction: Maybe this is a translation error, but Nature Methods doesn't have "administrative assistants", they have editorial assistants. (Still degrading, though, right?)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RES</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:53:32 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: let&amp;#039;s not sit around and give each other hand jobs</title><link>http://keithgessen.tumblr.com/post/52747158#comment-2885586</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think you're right that no Infinite Jest would appear in another national literature, or at least not a European one. A European writing a giant novel will put in there a history of philosophy, civilization, symbolic hierarchy of the fine arts, etc, and the end result will be a book about The Idea of Literature. IJ, and the American writer, are unique on the world stage for the same reasons: the problem for them is the fate of ordinary people ("taxpayers", maybe) living in a mangled but authentic-in-certain-important-respects culture with certain vulgar possibilities for redemption, like *entertainment* or 12-step programs. Their subject is not ' Culture', which is totally Sebald's or Houellebecq's even, or Harry Mulisch's or whoever will wins the Nobel.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ryan&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RES</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:47:42 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Question for Lit Historians</title><link>http://renataespinosa.tumblr.com/post/51457455#comment-2743453</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I just remembered this early this morning: Daniel Defoe invented the interior monologue, in Moll Flanders. I think that was written in the 1660s or 70s. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RES</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:38:46 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Question for Lit Historians</title><link>http://renataespinosa.tumblr.com/post/51457455#comment-2635933</link><description>&lt;p&gt;(Russians think in centuries)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I was taught that Dujardin invented the 'stream of consciousness' monologue. I think the interior monologue as a primary storytelling device might come out of the English epistolary novel, in the 18 century,,,&lt;br&gt;Ryan&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RES</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:47:23 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: before i lose my style - MOTHERFUCKERS I’M ILL
(I made this)</title><link>http://nick-lcc.tumblr.com/post/51696711#comment-2635637</link><description>&lt;p&gt;hot dude&lt;br&gt;very well done&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RES</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:19:15 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>