The quote sounds to me like just so much meretricious persiflage.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Armstrong" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: Patricia Sloane's Bleistein book (was Re: Patricia Sloane's Key
to 'The Waste Land')
> 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.....
> Ken A