Course Blog 3-Second Responder Jenna

Forgive me, but after Kelly’s Princess Bride/Wallace Shawn reference I just had to acknowledge the “inconceivable” moment that occurred in my mind! (ps- both of these images are from photobucket. <http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/Emo-tional_Child/inconceivable.jpg> and

<http://s870.photobucket.com/albums/ab267/me_onthenet/oddpics/?action=view&current=inconceivable.jpg&sort=ascending>)

But, slightly more to the point, Inigo’s comic response to Vizzini’s repetitive “inconceivable” may be useful. I could name this blog post, “Theatricality”… or ‘You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.’” 

I was struck by the pattern emerging from Davis, Sara, and Whitney’s posts. All three begin their assessment of theatricality by referencing the OED’s definition of the word (Davis) or Davis’ use of the OED’s definition (Sara and Whitney.) What a fantastic performance of scholarship- to indicate our collective touchstone and then proceed to analyze it. Interestingly, this scholarly process is one that Davis fears may “quibbl[e] with the dictionary” (127). Quibbling with the dictionary, as Davis may or may not do throughout her chapter, can be a rather fun and useful exercise. One could take great joy in quibbles. Yet, the action of quibbling carries a negative connotation of ridiculousness and superfluity.

At this moment, I would like to pause and reference the OED. The online OED offers the following definition for “Quibble.”

 1. A play on words, a pun.

 2 a. An equivocation, evasion, or frivolous objection based on an ambiguity or uncertainty of wording, a trivial circumstance, etc. In later use freq.: an objection to a point of detail, a minor complaint or criticism.

2 b. The use of quibbles; quibbling. (Third edition, December 2007; online version June 2012.<http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/156401>; accessed 05 September 2012.)

As the definition implies, interpretation of one’s quibbling rests in the audience. Is it play, equivocation, or both?

 Is Davis’ assertion that the OED’s definition of theatricality lacks subtlety a risky one? Her hesitancy to make that assertion without prefacing it with a fear of being reduced to a pedantic quibbler, combined with the evidence that two of our bloggers specifically chose to begin their critique of Davis by highlighting her use of the OED, suggests that there is such a risk. If there is a risk, then there must also be a body to determine the outcome of that risk, which I’m assuming to be the audience of the piece. Can assessing potential threats to fact receptacles like the OED be equated with spectatorship?