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.
``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]