Oh I've been to Tridentine masses. I'm a church organist. I literally "play" a part in liturgies.
I don't really see that much of a difference to be honest. A lot of people make a big fuss out of the details but the shape of the liturgy as a whole is practically the same.
It's only stylish because of the imagined qualities of prestige vested in a language you're not fluent in. It's the same as how you get English-speaking people realising how cringe-inducing anime dialogue really is when they hear it in English instead of Japanese, and then championing "the only REAL way of consuming anime is in Japanese dub!", not realising the Japanese used in that is also extremely cringey.
People finding the mass somehow less holy and sacramental when celebrated in their native tongue need to reflect on their own perspectives on what makes something holy.
A bit of correction: the version you'll most likely see being used across the Church of England nowadays is NRSV. It's the scholarly translation.
NIV is the preferred translation for the low-church side, the evangelicals, so definitely won't be used by the bells-and-smells high church crowd. KJV is preferred by a niche who also prefers the Book of Common Prayer liturgy over Common Worship. Usually this is either an older population, a certain ethnic subgroup with calcified traditions, or old-school low church folks (so not modern evangelicals) who prefer the old ways and even the Thirty-Nine Articles.
The Death of the Author came about in 1967, even New Criticism, which foreshadowed Death, came about only at the earliest the 1930s-40s, after IA Richards published his Practical Criticism.
Shelley wrote in the Romantic period, when the artist's personal "genius" was paramount as a conduit to the "sublime". Saying that he somehow whipped up a criticism of "author as the arbiter of meaning" in what is practically a product of a friendly poetry contest is plainly absurd.
Strangely you also attributed this anachronistic reading to Shelley, making it somehow the author's intent to be counter-author-intent. Just... why?
This is not a new idea. Playing with the boundaries of presentation in literature is just a subset of post-modernist lit.
If you want a prime example, OP, you should look into 4chan /lit/'s massively collaboratively written post-ironic tome "Hypersphere"[1]. It's the epitome of this sort of hyperliterature.
>a) Someone thinks so many people can be divided into just two groups
Ah, but they all look the same! Surely dividing them up into two groups is already doing them a favour.
>b) the idea that validating an assumption should also automatically validate the reason. People in the north might be more individualistic than in the south, and yes they grow wheat and not rice but that doesn't mean one depends on the other. It just doesn't seem all too scientific to confuse correlation with cause.
Who cares? It's called the "Rice Theory" and it's about the Mystical East! It'll sell and it's sure to annoy a whole lot of people for various reasons. What's not to love?
It's wonderful that the Mac ecosystem is one of these unique computing communities where things that are normally taken as a standard are further refined into a professional level of polish.
We see how the rest of the world used to be content with clumpsy MP3 players, then came along iPod which redefined the whole landscape. It seems the same is happening again with the venerable but outdated Vim with Project VimR.
I don't really see that much of a difference to be honest. A lot of people make a big fuss out of the details but the shape of the liturgy as a whole is practically the same.