--On Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:34 AM -0500 Nancy Gish
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I am rather puzzled about why this scholarship is seen as incompetent,
Apparently it is not difficult to be relieved of that puzzlement. The
latest indicator I've read is in a letter in the Dec. 21 TLS in response to
the review in that publication of Nov. 30. The letter writer seems to know
his Eliot very well and characterizes the book as "spurious scholarship"
and "manipulative" (shades of A. Julius!). The TLS review was fairly even
handed, I had thought, but characterized the book as "a high pitched,
punitive attack" on TSE. Easy to hand, the review URL posted by Raphael the
weekend after Christmas (I remember because, out of town, I was able to
read it but not to respond) gave an indication of the book's weakness.
Interestingly if not surprisingly, some of the reviews seem to fall in line
with the bias of the publications in which they appear. Maybe you are not
reading the ones that expose the deficiencies, though as glaring as they
appear to be, you will no doubt note them yourself should you read the book.