Deep waters.

A perverse passion for the English language always makes me suspicious: when people use that word 'critical' as an adjective to qualify the phrase 'architectural theory'. You muse on the nature of uncritical architectural theory, to which of course no one would admit. You ponder the necessity to differentiate critical from non-critical architectural theory. And you come to the conclusion that the people resorting to this device are just a tad, a tiny tad, unsure about whether people will really accord them the respect, admiration and amazement which that little word 'critical' is meant to evoke. The website, sorry portal, in question is that of Haecceity Inc at www.haecceityinc.com. You immediately know that its authors are from the academic realm, because its text operates from that insufficiently discredited principle that three words are preferable to one. Hold on, you say, these guys are just starting up: the editor is one Daniel Pavlovits and he is advised by Andrew Benjamin at Sydney University of Technology plus a small galaxy of people from, and this is how the Web should be exploited, around the world. And don't we need better, more intelligent, more widely discussed architectural theory? Of course we do. But the stilted and leaden review of the excellent Simon Sadler book on Archigram, the only real text on the site so far, suggests that it may not happen here. Nevertheless it is a site to watch. You hope that the designers, Aussicom, will soon abandon the indistinct, warped, pale grey lettering on a darker grey background; doubtless fetching, it renders more or less unreadable the real text in white which overlays it. Oh, and in English, we use capital letters strictly for names and the beginnings of sentences. Not Things you think are Really Important.

Sutherland Lyall bountiflly unloads cyber goodies from his bulging sack.