Bellum: Placitum Stilus: Partie Trois

To miss a point, yes: to gender it; to presuppose an assumed sexuality: Miss Space; Miss Parenthesis; Miss Exclamation! Indeed, I have missed the point, and why ever should I not? These punctles have not been castrated, no—they’ve been given the opportunity to unveil themselves fertility goddesses amidst a male dominated content—an alphabet fettered by the phallic; thralled by the masculine! Should I feign surprise when a quack of an academic, assuming expertise in the dethronement of the book, attempts to loosen this blog’s supremacy of influence via the pillaging of character? Surprise, I feign not! Misogyny, I admonish! Indeed, content is the sacrificial element of a text. Let us turn to Jesse Weston:

“To sum up the result of the analysis, I hold that we have solid grounds for the belief that the story postulates a close connection between the vitality of a certain king, and the prosperity of his kingdom; the forces of the ruler being weakened or destroyed, by wound, sickness, old age, or death, the land becomes waste, and the task of the hero is that of restoration.”

This certain king: phallic content; the prosperity of his kingdom: the synesthetic quality of the text! I borrow from this fool’s vocabulary to prove a point: castration points to the loss of textual virility, but most pressing, it unveils the need for restoration; the necessity of a “sacrificial lamb” to bring about the resurrection of a “synesthetic-event” within the text. The content, then, shall be sacrificed to the punctles; the male to the female! Hence, a new age of textual scholarship will surface: one marked by the fecundity of the fertile female.

And so this Speaker yelps in a fit of creative ecstasy: "To miss the point entirely is to de-male the text; to bring about a new age of artistic proliferation to replace the wasteland left in the wake of phallic Fascism!"