I love Stef's articles because they begin, often, similarly to her reviews--"We know [broad sweeping theoretical generalization], & of course [other broad sweeping theoretical generalization]." And in a few adroit strokes she gives a silhouette or a calligraphy-ink suggestion-sketch of the shape that her argument will take, a frame to hold it in. E.g., "we know that literature and plastic + moving arts are mutually influential processes; if in the 19th century literature had more of an influence on visual arts, now we are seeing a change of direction, as cinematic forms begin to influence literary language." Then she launches into the specifics of her argument or the works that she's reviewing/analyzing. And I am starting to get a sense of how she lectured! There's a didactic, there's a pedagogy inside of the structure. I can feel myself being guided, actively, through a threaded loom of aesthetic-philosophical-theoretical strands that become a tapestry at the end when you pull back. What is that little wooden thing that goes back and forth across the loom as you weave? That's what my brain feels like following her arguments, like she's making you a co-conspirator, making you feel that you, in the process of understanding, are thinking together with her, you are coming to the conclusion collectively. She would be such a good teacher, I wish Stefania were my teacher!
