nonsense [4]

...continuation of nonsense 1 (a working link this time), 2, and 3...

tonight i hoped to conclude this thread. unfortunately, upon opening my draft of 'nonsense 4' i found the following nonsense; can anyone tell me what i was thinking?

"however, while the occassionally journal-like nature of the 17 point scale makes this blog an ideal space for incriminating introspection, i think its time to mount a defense. me, we he to writing let's you avoid the tougher task...these questions may inspire little laughs, dismissive grunts, or pensive pursing of lips. some writers (like r-o-"lekkerman"-b) argue that "deliberate ambiguity," the delicate layering of multiple meanings, is one of the cornerstones of great literature. simimar. fone noises that stretch a sentence out indefinitely because may strike you as absurdly path."

here's my take:

i think i wanted to say something like this: art is like that crucial last scene in the latest jk rowling film, harry potter and the goblet of fire, where harry casts an 'awakening conscience' spell on the evil voldemort and, instead of killing harry, the dark lord voluntarily serves time at azkaban until, at the end of harry's 4th year, the reformed dead-head is paroled under the care of dumbledore and the headmaster's latest non-profit collaboration, a well-funded attempt to end world poverty and teach muggles to play quidditch. put more simply, art is a medium of change; with a wink of something that defies characterization, it seeks to transform. like harry's edge-of-your seat incantation, it is an ancient magic that they don't teach at hogwarts; it comes from within. excepting prayer, this transforming power of art may be the closest we humans get to the divine. yet, art is preposterous. it has no life of its own; it merely reflects life. like travel fiction (and my harry potter recap) it is a bizarre mix of fact and fiction. and, in our seemingly postmodern world, the difference between fact and fiction is becoming more a matter of perspective than a clear blueprint of truth. however, in some sense, this lack of clarity is not entirely new to the arts, especially literature. in fact, some writers (like r-o-"lekkerman"-b) argue that "deliberate ambiguity," the delicate layering of multiple meanings, is (and has been for some time) one of the cornerstones of great literature. returning to the conclusion of harry potter and the goblet of fire, as the main characters compete in the tri-wiz tourney, they wind their way through a hungry green maze. now, if hp&tgof were somehow situated in the context of an overarching metaphor of maze-builders and rats, we might consider the two-pronged interpretation of these events (mazebuilders/rats metaphor and the surface drama of main characters and their scary, near-death navigation of the maze) as ambigiguous in a 'good' way. likewise, (here comes my point) if you approach my original questions with an understanding that great writers tend to anticipate multiple meanings and responses to their work, you may find the use of multiple questions considerably less hypocritical. you see, the repetive sequencing of such silly-serious questions may inspire little laughs, dismissive grunts, or pensive pursing of lips, and this multiplicity of responses must mean that they're grrrreat questions!

ha! now can anyone tell me what i was thinking the second time around?! i hope to explore ambiguity in literature more coherently in an upcoming review of gk chesterton's the man who was thursday. by the way, what's the deal with the GOBLET? According to both dictionary.com and andrew's general sense of words, GOBLET is a device used for drinking not a magical burping trash can. do these silly sorcerors think that just because they can break the laws of physics they are also granted the right to misuse our lexicon? maybe its a brit thing.