Re: RARA-AVIS: Historical analysis books...

From: jacquesdebierue (jacquesdebierue@yahoo.com)
Date: 20 Feb 2009

  • Next message: Ron Clinton: "RE: RARA-AVIS: Historical analysis books..."

    --- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Steve Novak <Cinefrog@...> wrote:
    >
    > I very strongly support this.
    > The remark about Œcollegiate/doctorate pufferyš is totally uncalled
    for in a
    > literary discussion group, which is what we are.
    > We have had this sort of ghettoization remarks before in our many
    years of
    > discussion, so it is best to leave it at that for now.
    >
    > Montois who happened to go to college here and over there...
    >

    It's much more useful to refer to particular critics and particular books or essays rather than to a diffuse class of "puffs". There are sharp guys and there are thick and sticky guys. Let's not lump them together. And there are bright guys who write in a thick, soupy style but who have really good ideas. It would be a shame to throw out the ideas with the soup.

    Also, if you read in several different languages, there is an additional problem: the idea of what constitutes good writing in, say, France or Spain, is not at all the same as in the US. Even from the US to England there are notable differences. But if there are good ideas or insights to be had, a bit of an effort might be warranted.

    Best,

    pt



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 20 Feb 2009 EST