<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Directions in Literary Criticism: Studying War and the Military</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.oup.com/2008/08/war_literature/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/08/war_literature/</link>
	<description>Introducing brilliant authors to the blogosphere.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:43:07 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Freddy Rivers</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/08/war_literature/comment-page-1/#comment-147250</link>
		<dc:creator>Freddy Rivers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:12:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=2029#comment-147250</guid>
		<description>&quot;If English wants again to be in the position Brooks remembered of the 1980s of exporting its analytic and having an influence even in the larger world outside of academia, then it needs to attempt to develop a more accessible style of expression as well as to import from other disciplines.&quot; True. Some philospohers/academics will tell you that some concepts, being new can only be expressed using &quot;new&quot; languagee, ie. langage impenetrable to most readers. But if you are writing about subjects such as war, surely you have a duty to speak clearly. To criticize politicians for using doublespeak - &quot;collateral damage&quot; etc. - whilst yourself hiding behind a mask of academic jargon, smacks of hypocrisy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;If English wants again to be in the position Brooks remembered of the 1980s of exporting its analytic and having an influence even in the larger world outside of academia, then it needs to attempt to develop a more accessible style of expression as well as to import from other disciplines.&#8221; True. Some philospohers/academics will tell you that some concepts, being new can only be expressed using &#8220;new&#8221; languagee, ie. langage impenetrable to most readers. But if you are writing about subjects such as war, surely you have a duty to speak clearly. To criticize politicians for using doublespeak &#8211; &#8220;collateral damage&#8221; etc. &#8211; whilst yourself hiding behind a mask of academic jargon, smacks of hypocrisy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: War Stories &#171; Mark Athitakis&#8217; American Fiction Notes</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/08/war_literature/comment-page-1/#comment-147133</link>
		<dc:creator>War Stories &#171; Mark Athitakis&#8217; American Fiction Notes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:52:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=2029#comment-147133</guid>
		<description>[...] &#183; No Comments  At the Oxford University Press blog, Keith Gandal writes something of a, er, call to arms to academic critics to engage more deeply with the subject of literature and war. Gandal is a [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &middot; No Comments  At the Oxford University Press blog, Keith Gandal writes something of a, er, call to arms to academic critics to engage more deeply with the subject of literature and war. Gandal is a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
