Ed. Note: While our Readers are on their Christmas break, Pistrina thought you might enjoy some of the correspondence we have received. Even at this time of the year, we will not stop reminding everyone of the Terrible Trio's bizarre circus act. Be sure you starve the beast this season. Keep your wallets closed!
Dear Pistrina,
I am new to the site, so I read through all the posts critiquing Anthony Cekada's Work of Human Hands. I also managed to borrow a copy. Let me first say, that you Readers have done a thorough job of exposing that sham piece of pseudo-scholarship. Let me add, that I am in a unique position to add to your condemnation.
My academic speciality is pragmatics (language usage) and, in particular, discourse analysis. Your detailed post mortem of Cekada's book ably demonstrated his ill preparedness and absence of mastery of fundamentals. For my part, I decided to test whether the distribution of such elements as syntax, vocabulary, sentence structure, etc. also suggested that as a writer he falls outside the normative context of scholarly prose.
I compared sample passages from Work of Human Hands to randomly selected passages from 20 recent works by recognized scholars in the humanities. The result was conclusive. Without boring you with all the methodology, the study showed that, statistically speaking, Cekada as a user of written language does not fall within the expected norms for American scholarly discourse. My model indicates that his register is that of, say, an average college junior, or perhaps a sophomore.
As you have said, Work of Human Hands can by no means pose as a work of scholarship. Perhaps if I have the leisure time, I will write up my findings for future publication.
"...I will write up my findings for future publication."
ReplyDeletePlease do.
It's truly a shame. The reality is that there are no true scholars and theologians in the sedevacantist world.