I guess I should be clearer. My point is that publishing executives are
_not_ literary critics. Neither are censors literary critics. Of course,
"literary criticism" is a pretty sloppy concept, and I actually don't
have the slightest idea as to what we should consider it to be.
Something like the good SC judge and obscenity: he knew it (he claimed)
when he saw it, but couldn't define it. I would think the most useful
but imprecise characterization would be "public discourse on publicly
Happy 47th Anniversary of the Cuban Revolution. Vive Fidel!
Tom Gray wrote:
> From: "Carrol Cox"
> > What relationship is there between Publishing executives and literary
> > criticism? I don't see any relationship at all.
> I suppose that this is part of the more general question of the relationship
> between literary criticism and the reader. Books that are not published will
> not be read.