I read the B text at school. I thought it was wonderful. But you
can't please everyone. Od, though, that Cockburn would store up a
schoolboy resentment for later use.
Mark
At 07:46 AM 12/8/2008, you wrote:
>>would Oxford have not been doing the right thing, I wonder,
>>whenever that was...
>>?
>>M
>
>I'd guess they pretty likely *would be using the B-text as standard.
>Glasgow certainly did when I studied it in the sixties there.
>
>But I had to read the text in an utterly foul three-column edition,
>of the A, B, and C texts in parallel.
>
> :-(((
>
>Things are much better now with Schmidt's Everyman ed. of the
>B-text, and various possibilities of reading it conveniently on-line.
>
>A convenient, readable and well-presented text makes things *so much
>easier. And allows PP in particular to come through in a way not
>possible if you have to fight gainst a crap edition to read it in
>the first place.
>
>Robin
>
>>Quoting Robin Hamilton <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>>><<
>>>From: "Max Richards" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>>from Alexander Cockburn on counterpunch.org
>>>
>>>Four more years of anxious articles about the impending attack on Iran?
>>>I'd rather read Piers Plowman again, the dullest work I ever had to trudge
>>>through when I read Eng Lit at Oxford.
>>> >>
>>>
>>>Depends which version, Max. I might feel the same about the C-text, but the
>>>B-text is a different matter -- like the difference between the 1815 and
>>>1845 versions of Wordsworth's _Prelude_.
>>>
>>>Robin
|