This is one of the most egregious and insulting ad hominem attacks ever on this list, as I really think "Gadarene swine" is over the top. Please do not speak for "us" in such a way: it is clearly you, I hope alone.
>>> Ken Armstrong 12/01/14 4:55 PM >>>
That's a line of argument, though it could be seriously asked whether it isn't voiced out of that very (theoretical) abyss formerly proprietary only to " so many Gadarene swine." Self-reflection, at any rate, would seem to require of us that the question at least be asked. Authentically. Apart from that, there are so many loose ends here I'm tempted to say the ends not so much justify as stand squrely on the mean.
On December 1, 2014 3:37:03 PM EST, Carrol Cox wrote:
>"I have never, by the way, seen a cogent refutation of Thomas Rymer's
>objections to Othello." (Footnote to " Hamlet and His Problems")
>I don't remember what these objections were, but Eliot's proposition is
>unacceptable on theoretical grounds: Evaluative propositions on
>works are not subject to "refutation" (or, for that matter,
>And this is a theoretical and historical error that disfigures quite a
>of Eliot's critical essays. For example the following from his remarks
>***Unless something is done to stem this flood of poetastry the art of
>will become not merely superfluous, but ridiculous. Poetry is not a
>which a thousand flappers and hobbledehoys ought to be able to master
>week without any training, and the mere fact that it seems to be now
>practised with such universal ease is enough to prove that something
>gone amiss with our standards.... This is all wrong, and will lead us
>into the abyss like so many Gadarene swine unless we resist it.***
>Pope turned this (false) fear of bad poetry into great art (Dunciad,
>to Arbuthnot). But there is no evidence (historical or theoretical) of
>need to "resist" bad poetry.
>The theoretical error is the same in both the note on Othello and the
>over poetasters: In each instance, the "problem" is simply
>one has refuted Rymer because no one is particularly interested in his
>remarks. Here is a sample:
>"The Character of that State is to employ strangers in their Wars;
>But shall a Poet thence fancy that they will set a Negro to be their
>General; or trust a Moor to defend them against the Turk? With us
>a Black-amoor might rise to be a Trumpeter; but Shakespear would
>not have him less than a Lieutenant-General. With us a Moor might
>marry some little drab, or Small-coal Wench: Shake-spear, would
>provide him the Daughter and Heir of some great Lord, or Privy-
>Councellor:And all the Town should reckon it a very suitable match:
>Yet the English are not bred up with that hatred and aversion to the
>as are the Venetians, who suffer by a perpetual Hostility
>from them. . . ."
>And we need not "resist" the poetasters of the 1920s because it would
>much bother to look up their texts! Who breaks a butterfly upon a
Sent Androidally by K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.