It seems to me that your question had to do with
the mix or ratio of commentary to information.
It seems to me that Williamson got the mix about
right, esp. for a beginner. YOUR intended audience
may be different. As for Jennifer's wildly prejudicial
remarks as to the quality of Williamson's work, well,
they leave me smiling, but I don't think they are
pertinent to what you are trying to accomplish.
Some people have absolutely no concept of what it's
like for 1st year students, esp. when confronted
with strange beasties like Eliot. Williamson is/was
not one of those people.
As for the oh so sad case of F.O. Matthieson, I have never
heard anything but very high praise for his work, and I have
always found that work most illuminating, but I'm
not so sure he had the right information/commentary mix
for porpoises such as yours. I think he was assuming his
reader was much more familiar with the work than Williamson
Perhaps if we are to be helpful to you, you might define
the task a little more fully. That might also help us
carry on in our wildly prejudical ways in a different thread
altogether, and not be such a nuisance to your excellent
Dr. Peter C. Montgomery
Dept. of English
3100 Foul Bay Rd.
Victoria, BC CANADA V8P 5J2
[log in to unmask]
From: Rickard A. Parker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 12:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: George Williams (was Annotation)
Peter Montgomey wrote:
> If you are looking for a madel as far as
> commentary goes, why not try Williamson. He
> seems to have just the right mix.
Jennifer Formichelli wrote:
> Do you mean George Williamson, author of A Reader's Guide to T.S.
> Eliot? His commentary (not the same thing at all as editorial
> commentary) strikes me as a mix of wildly prejudicial remarks
> andthoughtless restatements of the words of the poems couched in
> meaningless prose.
Were you maybe thinking of F.O. Matthiessen?
He added much to my appreciation of Eliot.
At any rate I'll checkout both.