"Approach but never reach" -Zeno

When I sat down to write this blog post, I had a hard time actually starting.  Of all of Harris' weird ideas, this one is the most difficult to follow.  It might be that he tries to make a contrast between creative works and intellectual works.  I kind of lost him for a while after that point.  

My understanding of "taking an approach" is basically forwarding, but with the style than the content.  The idea being that if you like an authors style or taste, you would make a piece trying to write it as if it was him/her doing it.  Maybe here would be a better place to define a parody.  This seems to be enforced by the line "And what you listen for in a good cover is not an imitation of the original... but a new rendering of it."  

But again, it's when he tries to define writing in this that I start having problems with it.  "But while creative artists often reshape plots or images that strike them as somehow troubling or flawed... academic writers tend to make a more generous and sympathetic us of their influences."  First of all, artists don't make covers (or parodies for that mater) because they don't like them.  Jonathan Coulton's cover of Sir Mix-A-Lot's Baby Got Back is very different, but has gone on record saying that he liked the original, but wanted to try something new.  Not all artistic "approaches" have to be out of any sort of disapproval.  Also, why must "academic" writers be so different from artistic writers?  While writing for, say, school does require a different writing style, it does not mean that it has to approach the work from completely different directions.  In fact, I feel that the best academic papers are the ones that have a lot of artistic voice in them.  

But that's just my thoughts on it.  If you read this, please comment.  It's how I judge how well my blog posts do :P.