On Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:26:45 +0000, John Wilkinson wrote:
>his article - which I've not seen
- I have to say that this is a significant phrase. Before I read the
article in question I tended to think, yeh, well, it's probably just
another bit of Duncan, so what. But, I have to say I find the
articulation of personal nastiness of quite a different order here.
Worryingly so, as much for those who admire or car about Duncan as for
those who don't. John, please come back when you know what we're
talking about.
> If in this instance he has been
>insulting to others' motives that is deplorable,
- It is. I've read it. I deplore it.
> and if his information is
>false he undermines one of his best claims on our attention which is his
>remarkable range of historical knowledge
- we may well have to re-assess opinions on his compendious knowledge.
Bit by bit, I'm hearing from people who have queried (with good
grounds) the accuracy or content of his sweeping generalisations (not
just about mottramism), and not had any satisfaction from so doing,
and I have to say that this tallies with my own limited experience.
> I think judgements on work, however harsh,
>must be allowed
- in the piece in question Duncan actually makes very few "judgements"
on the poets' *work*, and justifies less. This is why I must insist
that future coment on this piece is made *after* people have read it
in one way or another. That doesn't seem unreasonable does it?
I'm aware of a dichotomy here: I'm saying read it / don't read it.
What I guess I mean is, the piece isn't one which shows Duncan at his
best - quite the reverse - so you may not wish to seek it out. But
please, as a general practice, if you must pitch in, get to know that
of which you speak. I say this generally, and in no way specifically
to John W., whose intentions are pure in this matter.
RC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|