But when all has been said (and written), what does it add up to—the satire, the analysis of art, faith, and personality, the pagan sacrifices, the symbolic deaths, the Catholicism, the experimental writing? In my opinion it adds up to nothing more than an encyclopedia. Or perhaps one should say nothing less, for behind an encyclopedia there is a formidable amount of knowledge and some of the entries are bound to be useful. But an encyclopedia is not a work of art.
I try to read them, but my eyes start to glaze over after a while. There's one in that same section where he starts listing loads of people named after plants and trees.Lots of lists in the bible and in Homer. Rich literary precedents. But I always skip them.
because to intensively cover a territory necessarily means cursorily covering the adjacent/neighboring territories that were otherwise completely uncovered before such an intensive covering of the first territory.Its as if you are being led along a tour that spans such vast extents (extensive and intensive being the two dimensions) that some of the territories can only cursorily be covered, compressed into lists/whatnot that can be extrapolated should you choose to, but that requires an intensive effort that the tour itself isn't capable of covering, even if it were thousands of pages.
no you don't you use them all the time and you like whitman too wtf are you on aboutI hate lists. So tedious.
Whitmans lists are the only ones I can tolerate. Rabelais is big on lists which is why I didn't get very far with that. That and a silly translation.