9th February 2009, 09:10 PM
Hodder once argued that "complex issues require a complex language". My counter- proposal to this is that after reading Hodders work, I feel that he is describing simple concepts but filling entire books in the process. As a display of grammatical virility, Hodders work succeeds. In the race to get to the point before the entire audience dies of old age, jumps in front of the 8.45 to Victoria or dissolves into a sobbing inconsolable mass-he fails miserably. There are plenty of superb theoreticians who are more than capable of driving concepts home using one or two nails. Clear, concise and unambiguous. Hodder (and others of the same stamp) don`t impress the majority of their reading audience. Word ballet is unbelievably crass, pompous, exclusive and well, frankly...testicles. Complex symantics have a nasty habit of applying brakes on happliy runaway trains and bog issues down in completely irrelevant goo.
Many solutions are indeed simple in themselves. Unfortunately, when we saturate ourselves in mulch, it really is hard to see the wood for the trees.:face-thinks:
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Many solutions are indeed simple in themselves. Unfortunately, when we saturate ourselves in mulch, it really is hard to see the wood for the trees.:face-thinks:
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)