What, in two words, is wrong with this sentence from Jonathan Culler's "Introduction: Critical Paradigms" in the October 2010 issue of the PMLA:
<<
The future of literary criticism will doubtless depend, in part, on what happens to literature.
>>
(1) "doubtless"
(2) "in part"
(3) the sentence states the obvious
(4) it fails to state the obvious
(5) the quizmaster fails to acknowledge that the author goes on to say that "electronic form makes texts potentially mutable" after asking a lot of needless rhetorical questions, e.g., "Will the move from a print-based to an electronic-based culture have repercussions for the concept of literature and hence for criticism?" This may be dunce-like but "duns" in medieval times meant scholar and in that sense it is scholarly also. Moreover, the idea of "potentially mutable" texts may give the author a rod-on like Nelson's Column, which is something that a more sympathetic quizmaster might have noted.
(6) nothing.
(7) what makes rhetorical questions so obnoxious?
(8) is the notion of the literary text as a finished verbal artifact finished?
(9) who the fuck
(10) "feedback loops"
The most original and most nearly correct responses will plant their footnotes in the "sands of time," a macho vegan art project comingling reminiscences of visits to the landmark Las Vegas hotel in the 1960s, footage from The Sands of Iowa Jima, and a walk in the rain along a spiral jetty with Beethoven's Seventh playing in your brain.
