<p>@ Van_Sant </p>
<p>The point of view was that “thinking” (serious) pursuits were on the back burner now (in essence). They would be unhappy about that since they are writers, artists, etc. Nothing to be uncertain about.</p>
<p>Hawking one was essence and incarnation, right?</p>
<p>unhappy, yes. dismay? thats a huge difference. and yeah they had something to be uncertain about-- being a “serious” artist versus. a more successful one.</p>
<p>WHAT WAS THE EXPERIMENTAL? can someone answer pleaseeeee</p>
<p>yea essence and incarnation…incarnation generally is used with the soul or spirit and essence worked there…</p>
<p>I think this is the Lousiana/Russia passage dude:</p>
<p>[Anisfield-Wolf</a> Book Awards](<a href=“http://www.anisfield-wolf.org/Winners/Biography.aspx?id=642]Anisfield-Wolf”>http://www.anisfield-wolf.org/Winners/Biography.aspx?id=642)</p>
<p>I had a weird passage (short ones) about nonnative plant species…was this experimental?</p>
<p>^i have no idea. i thought it was venice, but others are saying conformity…i for one have no recollection of conformity. maybe there are two?</p>
<p>The venice section. Read the thread entitled “MAY EXPERIMENTAL” …</p>
<p>Anyone get indulgent? I was torn between contentious and indulgent, but it didn’t seem like she was trying to pick a fight.</p>
<p>I didn’t have a venice section…conformity/celebrity was not an experimental</p>
<p>I thought the writer was mildly ridiculing herself because she “toots her LITTLE horn” which made it mild, and ridiculing herself because the sentence before it says that the author finds herself pathetic. I don’t think pathetic and “shamelessly conceited” carry the same weight.</p>
<p>yeah, i got indulgent. was that the archaelogist one?</p>
<p>@may09 - yeah it was either contentious or indulgent. </p>
<p>others here have said contentious. </p>
<p>i can’t even remember which i chose.</p>
<p>It was definitely contentious because the first sentence of that paragraph said that “sometimes I argued with my colleagues” or something like that.</p>
<p>Confirmed answers
Let’s keep this updated:</p>
<p>flippant;
dismay;
platitudinous…permissible
cavalier?
sardonic
mildly ridiculous? or shamelessly conceited
particular…universal…
photographer one: flustered
russian one: details;
satirize her job?
contentious
thoughtful</p>
<p>confirm the ones with ?s
WHAT ELSE</p>
<p>cavalier is correct.</p>
<p>i think we can confirm cavalier right?</p>
<p>satirize her job?
I disagree I believe the purpose was to characterize</p>
<p>conceited?
I put mildly ridiculous, not shamelessly conceited</p>
<p>It was to characterize. She <3’s her job.</p>