Someone wrote: "No, it's a load of hooey--unless 'accessible' is very narrowly defined." Accessible, as I define it, means something akin to canonical -- topics that have become part of the QB mainstream. Accessibility and difficulty are two different qualities, in my opinion. As I stated earlier in the ACF Nationals announcement, questions about Mann are preferable to Klopstock; i.e. Mann is more accessible. A TU on Mann's "Felix Krull" is more difficult (i.e. more challenging) than a TU on his "The Magic Mountain," yet "Felix Krull" is still accessible since it's a work by a canonical author. Also, keep in mind that these terms are all relative. Mann is more accessible than Klopstock, but maybe not as accessible as Goethe, for example. And "Felix Krull" is more difficult than "The Magic Mountain," but perhaps not as difficult as, say, "Tonio Kroger." Finally, more accessible could still mean more difficult. If we assume Goethe to be more accessible than Mann, we can still say "Elective Affinities" is more difficult than "The Magic Mountain." I hope this clarifies the accessible/challenging issue. But I guess that all depends on your definition of hooey. R. Bhan Editor ACF Nationals 2002
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST