(Fwd) Re: Schmuck Amuck

[calbert at pop.tiac.net]

>  What is weird is that you all get so huffy about his not liking 
> the novel and calling it a sham.

Hey Jesper
Does calling a book a "sham" constitute serious criticism? Isn't such 
a term reserved for items like The Protocols of Zion and the Hitler 
Diaries?
Sham would describe a deliberate attempt to con, but where is trp's 
motivation to do so? He's got his rep and the genius grant, and he 
has NEVER played to any notion that he is in competition with his 
contemporaries.
So you and Dr. Brecher don't like M&D, fine, I've got no problem with 
that. However, the tone that the good Dr. has seen fit to employ 
suggests that only the zealots and the undiscriminating could find 
enjoyment in the book. DOGWATER! (see claude brown's Manchild in the 
Promised Land)
Should I go back and congratulate my Russ. Hist. prof for his 
perspicuity, after all, he wrote off GR more  20 years ago as dense 
and meritless? Actually, the moment he said this I was convinced that 
he was another fraudulent academic asshole.
Though I believe that TRP ranks with Shakespeare and Conrad as the 
finest practitioner in this beloved tongue, I will entertain 
arguments to the contrary, but they will have to offer more substance 
than "Gee those twins really grate on me, and what's with the teenage 
chicks?"
Want to make a reputation as the most discriminating reader on the 
list? Go on, step up and take your shots, but don't be distressed to 
see your meatballs coming back at you faster than you threw them. 
And, for God's sake, don't presume to patronize other members of the 
list by suggesting that they are blinded by reverence, that don't 
good criticism make.
love,
cfa

> Instead of actually discussing 
> anything, we're all just insisting of a low level name calling which 
> really does lead me to believe that perhaps Keith wasx right, and that 
> you all have been played for suckers.