Seems to me that responses which distract from the porpoises
of other remarks, are wild, and remarks which are flung out
without corroboration are prejudicial.
Both of which I happen to enjoy!
Sharpness, on the other hand, in criticism, as in cheese,
is to be relished.
Dr. Peter C. Montgomery
Dept. of English
3100 Foul Bay Rd.
Victoria, BC CANADA V8P 5J2
[log in to unmask]
From: Nancy Gish - Women's Studies [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 3:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: George Williams (was Annotation)
I want to say that while Jennifer's remarks were sharp, they were
not either prejudicial or wild. She is knowledgeable and makes a
valid contrast. It is not simply a matter of mixing commentary with
sources; it is the quality she addressed.
On 6 May 2003, at 15:18, Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Rick,
> 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
> Camosun College
> 3100 Foul Bay Rd.
> Victoria, BC CANADA V8P 5J2
> [log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> 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.
> Rick Parker