I should add that I have not read Rainey and have no opinion on the
book; but I did notice that all the misquotations listed in the original
post were, as far as I could tell, did not change the meaning much if at
all. It's still obnoxiously sloppy, but not _necessarily_ fatal. Does
the article go into the effect that the errors have on the core
arguments of the book?
Carrol Cox wrote:
> > Marcia Karp wrote:
> > The only error I've found so far in _Understanding Poetry_ one in
> > Blake's "London."
> > I disagree that sloppy editing is not a discrediting factor.
> Yes -- a discrediting _factor_. I agree. One uses such a work more
> cautiously for that reason. Example: Tocqueville's _Democracy in
> America_ is riddled with stupidities, i.e., with discrediting factors.
> It is still a work of some importance.