SELF-REFERENCE IN "SELF-REFERENCE IN `SELF-REFERENCE IN . . .' "

G. Christopher Hruska


A review of a rather pointless article that aspires to greatness but never even comes close to achieving it. The author seems to suffer from an unhealthy obsession with the type of mindless philosophical diversions encouraged by the esteemed Douglas R. Hofstadter. We advise that the author seek professional counseling before he starts referring to himself as Egbert B. Gebstadter.


Introduction

``I have the grandiose notion of writing a critical analysis of the very analysis I am writing. It will be the ultimate in self-reference.''[1] This opening quotation from G. Christopher Hruska's ``Self-Reference'' immediately sets the tone of the entire paper. Hruska attempts repeatedly to evaluate his own methods of evaluation, searching for self-reference and then referring to it himself. At times, the evaluation seems weak because, in pointing out weaknesses (such as this one), he shows his awareness of them. One wonders why he does not simply remove the weaknesses and write about something more productive. Analyzing such a work is not an easy task, considering the scarcity of actual literary merit in Hruska's writing. The only aspects of ``Self-Reference'' which have any relevance are those aspects that he specifically points out in his thesis. Throughout the analysis of his own writing, Hruska uses style, structure, and comparisons with David Moser's ``This Is the Title of This Story, Which Is Found Several Times in the Story Itself'' to develop the theme of self-reference. ``Please, ignore this quotation.''[2]

Style

Hruska uses the devices of weak logic, transparent attempts to please his English teacher, and misused allusions to refer stylistically to his own paper. Hruska admits in the introduction that ``the evaluation seems weak,''[3] yet his awareness of this weakness, does not stop him from using weak logic well into the first developmental paragraph. Hruska obviously knows what he is doing. Sentences like the preceding one [4] show no connection to the logical arguments leading up to them. In a feeble attempt (free prepositional phrase) to impress Ms. Dunigan (bound infinitive phrase) with his grammatical skills (bound prepositional phrase), Hruska analyzes the structure (base clause) of the sentence (bound prepositional phrase) that she is now reading (relative clause), identifying almost every phrase and clause correctly (absolute phrase). However, even this attempt fails because ``identifying almost every phrase and clause correctly''[5] is actually a present participle verb phrase, a correct example of an absolute phrase being this phrase. Such gross errors will not please his English teacher, a woman with a keen eye for weak arguments and incredible skill at giving high grades. With Oedipal effort, he decides to impress the teacher with an allusion to Greek mythology. Unfortunately he would be better off referring to this effort as Herculean rather than ``Oedipal.''[6] Like Sisyphus, Hruska tries time and again to utilize the skills of A.P. English, but fails due to his obvious incompetence.

Structure

Hruska also develops self-references structurally with vague reference pronouns, run-on sentences, and quotations from within the paper. This usually detracts from the impact of statements such as this one because it is unclear which part of the preceding statement actually ``detracts from the impact of statements such as this one.''[7] Does he mean the ``vague reference pronouns, run-on sentences, [or the] quotations from within the paper''[8]? Not to mention the fact that ``it is unclear''[9] contains both a weak verb and a vague reference pronoun. Hruska most obviously refers to his own paper by quoting from other parts of the paper. Sometimes he even quotes from the very same sentence which contains the quotation, as in the sentence ``This usually detracts from the impact of statements such as this one because it is unclear which part of the preceding statement actually `detracts from the impact of statements such as this one.' ''[10] Perhaps the most unusual quotation is the one which opens Hruska's analysis. He quotes the opening quotation from the paper and uses it as his opening quote, truly ``the ultimate in self-reference.''[11]

Comparisons to Moser

Hruska's ``Self-Reference'' contains many similarities to David Moser's ``This Is the Title of This Story, Which Is Also Found Several Times in the Story Itself.'' For instance, one of Moser's sentences ``wishes to apologize for all the needless apologies found in the story (this one included).''[12] ``This Is the Title'' features many sentences that refer to themselves. Similarly, ``Self-Reference'' contains sentences that refer to themselves, such as the sentence mentioned in the previous paragraph that quotes itself.[13] One obvious difference between Moser's story and Hruska's evaluation is that Hruska uses much greater sentence variety. Almost every sentence in ``This Is the Title'' begins with the words ``This sentence is,'' which gets monotonous even though Moser does it intentionally. Hruska varies his sentences, featuring absolute phrases and participle verb phrases without creating run-ons. Despite the differences, enough similarities exist that the discerning reader can easily see Moser's influence on ``Self-Reference.'' Both works use self-description to create humorous passages, and both authors ridicule themselves. One sentence calls Moser an ``indolent goof-off,''[14] while Hruska admits that he is guilty of ``gross errors [that] will not please his English teacher.''[15]

Conclusion

Even though Hruska develops self-reference with style, structure and comparisons to ``This Is the Title,'' he has no apparent purpose in writing ``Self-Reference'' except to meet the requirements of the final A.P. English assignment. The evaluation contains virtually no facts that can be related to reality. In fact, throughout the entire paper, Hruska argues in circles. He reveals his lack of direction when he admits, ``I cannot remember which quote is supposed to end this paper.''[16]


[Home] [Up]

Written by G. Christopher Hruska, (chruska at math.uchicago.edu) 31 May 1991
Converted to HTML on 10 June 1996.