Ron Houssaye wrote:
> Thank you [Rick P.] for the level-headed comments. Sounds like in
> your view the "Painted Shadow" excerpts add up to Swiss cheese in
> terms of scholarship.
Ken Armstrong wrote:
> 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.
I'll say that there are three issues here. The research, the
presentation of the research and what can be inferred from the facts.
I haven't read the book yet but, from the accounts I read, Carole
Seymour-Jones has done a fairly good job with the research. From the
excerpts that Steve sent in I get the feeling that the presentation is
not so good. I wanted to know more facts. Maybe they are elsewhere
in the book. Seymour-Jones does seem to want us to come to the
conclusions that she did and this would be the reason for the use of
the word "manipulative" in the review. Because the facts she gives
support her view, but don't prove her right, she has to try to persuade
Seymour-Jones made have had to resort to including controversial
claims in order to get the more scholarly portion of the book
published. For now I will give her the benefit of the doubt and when
I read the book I'll try to seperate the two. I'm sure that I'm going
to add this book to my collection but I may wait until the American
edition is out.
Some "Painted Shadow" links found: