Hmm. I suppose a "panopathogen" is his coinage for the opposite of a panacea, and I suppose that "diegesis" is a leading through where "exegesis" derives from a

Hmm. I suppose a "panopathogen" is his coinage for the opposite of a panacea, and I suppose that "diegesis" is a leading through where "exegesis" derives from a leading out. But 'their very existence is predicated on the distinction between cultural and financial capital that, under existing neoliberal conditions, is being comprehensively annihilated... Of course, people will object along these lines: “Joyce’s Ulysses only garnered a smattering of writers during his lifetime—and considering it’s regarded by many critics to be the most important novel of the 20th century, it’s hardly attracted that many since his death…”' I don't understand how neoliberal conditions--or anything else--would comprehensively annihilate the distinction between cultural and financial capital, or how one "predicates" the existence of difficult novels on that distinction. In fact, "cultural capital" doesn't make much sense to me in this context. And surely Ulysses only gained a few readers during his lifetime--I'd have thought a scattering rather than a smattering.