i wonder what that book would be like if ismell existed at the time of its writing?

A secondary objection, but by no means the last, is that it is another way to deliver manipulative advertising.

As SGC says, deeply, deeply wrong.

Why?

When you read of coffee bubbling in a pot, wouldn’t you like to smell roasting coffee? When you read of sea crashing on to a beach, wouldn’t you like to smell salty sea spray?

Have you ever smelled a smell which you associate with an experience in your childhood, and when you smell it as a grown-up you are immediately propelled back to that childhood experience? And don’t you find that experience cathartic?

As sight and sound can be pleasant or unpleasant, so can smell. But unlike with sight and sound, smell, in our contemporary society, is by default unpleasant.

So when we say someone smells, or an animal smells, what we mean is that the smell is bad, and our listeners assume this. If we meant to portray that the smell is pleasant, we specifically say this.

Think also that, through applying deodorants, we have proscribed the natural smell emanating from the human body. Is this is not as bizarre as applying something so that humans can neither be seen nor heard by any others?

Bring on teleolfaction, is what I say.

Second, Kaufmann quote about Derrida–as ambiguous as Derrida. (‘ambiguous’ being a euphemism in this case.)

Third. Teleolfaction. As I’ve said before, just because technology lets you do something, doesn’t mean you should!