Fomalism: a continuation....

James Tata responded to my question on Nobel Laureates and Formalism on HIS BLOG. I encourage you to read, not only part two, but his whole essay (see below). It's well worth your time.

I'd also encourage the author of this provocative blog to reconsider his policy on comments. There's no obligation to publish every comment that comes along, let alone respond to those that take one's thoughts on merry-go-round rides. Weblogs distinguish themselves from printed media by their immediacy of engagement and dialog--and this may be their best justification.

Tata wrote:
Thanks for writing. I'm in kind of in a quandary, because although I make it a policy to answer readers' mail, I see you posted your message to me on your blog, making our discussion public before it even started. As you noted there, I don't make space for comments on my own blog. Most of the reasons for that are probably more dull than you might think, but among them is that I think my posts should stand or fall on their own without me rushing to their defense and getting involved in circular arguments. As you know, it's hard anticipating every objection when writing about anything, let alone a subject that people obviously have a lot of passion for. My decision to post the essay in sections rather than in one long, inevitably unread post apparently stripped my argument of context. One of the many hazards of the web. Given I've already written close to 10,000 words on this subject, I'd rather let the essay speak for itself.

Having said that, in answer to your question, part 2 of the essay attempts to define the terms I'm using.

posted by James at 2:41 PM