Just what we needed--sludge after mud. The only accurate statement in the
first paragraph is the claim about knowing "the difference between public
and private commentary," a distinction on which back-channels to lists
turn--and turn foetid.

I appealed to Keith, b-c, to post a follow-up that would at least correct
the inaccuracies involved in his accusing me of publicly savaging Nate while
overlooking the prior sneak attack on me, so that I wouldn't have to defend
myself again and we could all get on with the choir practice. But he
declined; in fact, Keith's sense of "the difference between public and
private commentary" actually led him to suggest that I post Nate's original
e-mail to the whole list. So let me decline, in turn, since not even Nate as
I've experienced him deserves that.

Candice


Keith Tuma wrote:

> Apparently the (original) controversial message we're talking about was
> sent backchannel, and, while this medium blurs public/private boundaries
> like many other boundaries, it thus has a status different from the running
> commentary or innuendo concerning Nate that the list has seen in recent
> days and now and again before that.  Nate like too few others these days is
> given to saying what he thinks in print and in public as well as in
> private, as his posts and reviews demonstrate, but he *does* know the
> difference between public and private commentary.  Whoever forwarded Nate's
> no doubt hasty and ill-advised words re Candice's work to Candice has the
> tact of a warthog.  Nate has a right to his opinions, and he also has a
> right not to be savaged *in public* for what apparently was a comment made
> to one person, which now has been used to abuse him before many.  I hope
> this person knows now that there are other ways to start and watch a
> mudfight.
>
> Recently, to cite just one example,
> Nate learned from me that Charles Altieri was to give a paper on Prynne's
> work at this last December's MLA.  Nate learned that, as is sadly often the
> case, the library at UC Berkeley where Altieri teaches lacks almost all of
> the criticism available on Prynne's work.  This same work Nate has
> carefully collected and kept record of in his Prynne bibliography.  At his
> own expense he xeroxed and mailed much of this criticism to help Altieri
> write his paper.


P.S. I went to that MLA panel and thought Altieri's paper was good precisely
because he didn't waste time on the criticism (what little there is), but
instead got up close and intelligently personal with a couple of Prynne's
poems. Most refreshing.