Print

Print


TOM K HAD ORIGINALLY WRITTEN:>   
> I still don't see how Julius reconciles the fact that Wagner thinks Jews in  
> Western societies cannot write as anything but Jews, while Eliot thinks it  
> "miraculous" when they do precisely that.  

PAT REPLIED:   
> Tom, Julius has a new book out on Jewish art, and publisher's weekly said it read like a hastily put together lawyer's brief...which in my opinion is also   
true of his first book. If what he's saying doesn't make sense to you, why not file it away as exactly that? I thought a lot of the things he said  didn't make sense. Some people make more sense than others.  
>   

TOM K RESPONDS:
That's about where I'm coming out.  Still, I thought it worth asking this forum, which has more interest in the subject than most folks I know, if perhaps I was missing something . . . both to possibly learn something, and to stimulate a little discussion at a time when things were slow.

>
TOM K HAD ORIGINALLY WRITTEN:
 Passing for the moment on their respective merits, the difference between these position seems so obvious to me, I am baffled by Julius' suggestion that they are in the same ballpark.  
>   
PAT REPLIED:
> If it's of this much concern to you, maybe you'd better read the book.  
>   

TOM K RESPONDS: 
The simple answer is, it is of *this* much concern (to prompt what I'm doing), not *that* much concern (to prompt what you are suggesting).

There are many things that grab my attention in passing for their possible excellence.  This is true of things about Eliot and other subjects.  Of these, I manage to read lamentably few in their entirety.  So, if something catches my attention for its apparent error, it is unlikely to vault ahead of its competitors.   

I remain interested enough to write and read a few posts with people who may know more about the book than I do, in order to determine if I'm misreading the author.  If I become convinced that the book has greater merit than I presently believe, I may read it one day.

As of right now, I'm not in any rush.  Not only because of the questions I've highlighted and the concerns they raise about its value, but also because of your own reactions to it, which I value, and other things I've read and heard.  In a perfect world, I'd read the book, of course.  But I think it is reasonable to ask questions about itwithout doing so. (As opposed to making general pronouncements about it, which I recognize would be foolish based upon snippets.) 

Tom K