

In Defense of Naïve Reading - edw519
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/in-defense-of-naive-reading/?hp

======
devmonk
NY Times articles usually fall into one of three categories for me: 1. good,
2. closed-minded liberal that thinks he/she is open minded but really hates
Republicans and everything they stand for, and 3. pompously intellectual. This
fell into the latter category. I should've known this when the writer wrote
naive as "naïve".

Thanks for sharing. I love literature.

~~~
Jun8
I'm sorry to say, that is so off, "it's not even wrong" as they say. Prof.
Pippin's piece is _against_ pompous intellectualism that is currently reigning
supreme in English Departments. I suggest you read about the Sokal Affair
referenced in the essay (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair>) and, if
you're interested, take it it from there.

The correct was to spell is "naïve", BTW. Open a MS Word document and type
"naive". It will correct it to the above form. Now, MS is pompous but I don't
think it is in general intellectually pompous :-) Here's a discussion about
the topic:
[http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=61217](http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=61217).
Here's the link to the ultimate authority on the subject, The Chicago Manual
of Style:
[http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/access/intercept.epl?pat...](http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/access/intercept.epl?path=/15/ch05/ch05_sec202.html),
alas it's not free.

