> You cant fix a problem that is intrinsic to the design method you suggest. A > 'path' might go from say interpretive to literal and back to poetic texts to > suit some fool's idea of a good thing. It is easy to do anyway, but dont > make it any easier please. To put texts together like that and call it a > version, is to make crossing interpretive traditions on a whim credible. It > is not credible. If you are going to be literalist, then stick to > literalist, poetic, stick to poetry, and so on. Each style has problems as > you should know, so it is enough to limit the problems to one choosen style.
Who said anything about mixing styles? The main point is choosing styles.
