To me Sherwin's assessment sounds most like his record of being equally
unable to understand Pat's book or Eliot's poems. The one thing in it
that is pretty much on the mark, besides his observation that a review
of the book belonged in a different forum, is this gem that says more
completely and circuitously what the other reviewer noted about Pat not
missing anything: "And yet. The net result of this and other extended
comparisons and allusion huntings is that one however skeptical at first
realizes that Sloane is in fact bringing to our attention some important
insights concerning Eliot's work and Wilde's upper-class protagonist's
antisemitism; the differences are as important as the similarities. This
conflictive technique forces the reader to be continually on guard
against the empirically weak argumentation, and at the same time to
remain alert to the creative perception of the author, who seems not to
have found a discursive framework capacious enough to hold all her
diverse perceptions." The two ends of that quote carry the freight,
especially, and I say this with great affection for Pat, that last
subordinate clause. I think anyone who was on this list during the
Ultimate Burbank days will recognize Pat in both reviewers'
assessments. As Sherwin notes later in his review, he is confused by
Pat's book, and with the dawning of that insight, he should probably
have left it alone or foregone publishing his review, since he adds
nothing new to any Eliot discussion.
Chokh Raj wrote:
> *I mean Sherwin's assessment of the book sounds "fair" to me in view
> of what little I've gathered about the book without my actually having
> read it. So you'll kindly excuse this impropriety.
Don't worry, CR, it's a discussion list, not the TSE-L Inquisition.
After all, your interlocutors don't say whether they've read either the
book or other reviews, and some of them, we're lead to believe, are paid
I see Nancy has just posted the question to you that you already
answered above. Plus c'est le meme chose.....