Nancy Gish wrote:
> You do seem still obsessed with some problem about anything I say.
A compositionally rich vein of problems is hard always to ignore.
More to the thread, I trucked off to my local university library to look
for reviews of Pat's book. Curiously, there were none that I could find.
To be sure, I'm not an expert in searching electronic data bases
(Humanities Index, MLA, International Humanities, etc.), but with all
those pages to fill in all those academic journals and review
periodicals, I did think some reviews would turn up in at least a few of
them. I wonder if anyone else has found any?
I agree with Rick Seddon that Pat's first in her proposed three volume
study deserves much more attention. The voluminous research evident in
it does not, I think, close the circle on Burbank:Bleistein, but it does
something quite useful, i.e. it widens that circle and calls into
question most current Eliot criticism (as opposed to scholarship). Not
to put too fine a point on it, most current Eliot criticism returns
negative judgments on the poet as being anti- one thing or another, and
Pat's scholarship and observations do not shore that criticism up.
Perhaps this is why at least in part the book has found so few
reviewers. As energetic as Pat was and prone to rise to any challenge,
little is more difficult to break through than "what everyone knows."
Speaking of anti- one thing or another, my search did turn up a volume
published just a few years ago, "Anti- T S Eliot Stance in Recent
Criticism." Not too expensive, so I ordered it from Abebooks and expect
it from India shortly. Anyone else read it?