I hesitated to get into this (I have in the past) because I like Kent, but
I guess I have to. Are you saying that if, for instance, I don't think much
of what I've read of Yasusada it's because I'm involved in academic
corruption or perhaps just not Smart? Would you defend everything else you
like in the same way?
Mark
At 11:16 AM 6/11/2005, you wrote:
>Oh, I agree. The great majority are Smart. It's the complainers who I
>think have been taken in - not by the "hoax", but by some notions of
>literary-cum-ethnic authenticity that are about as plausible as the
>notions of authenticity held by wrestling Marks.
>
>Don't know what came over Bernstein, but there you go.
>
>Double helping of caveats here (extreme liberal-baiting ahead, a
>seething froth of malice and unfairness directed at, e.g., "the smelly
>little orthodoxies that are contending for tenure in the humanities
>departments of our universities"), but take a look at Theodore
>Dalrymple's piece on Rahila Khan. If you set aside the author's own
>smelly little orthodoxies, the subject he's discussing is rather
>fascinating:
>
>http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/may05/dalrymple.htm
>
>Dominic
|