--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Steve Novak <Cinefrog@...> wrote:
> I very strongly support this.
> The remark about collegiate/doctorate puffery¹ 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
> 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 20 Feb 2009 EST