>>Rickard A. Parker wrote:
>>A topic suggestion:
>>Pietros Maneos sent in a review of "Inventions of the March Hare"
>>a few days ago.  Why not use that to attack Ricks' notes and commentary.
>>Or rather, was Ricks' editorial material and/or style appropriate for
>>this book?

Marcia Karp wrote:

> What do you think?

"Inventions of the March Hare" was one of my early additions to my TSE
collection and I was absolutely flabbergasted by the material.  As the
review said, there wasn't any/much interpretation supplied by Ricks.
I would have liked that but I can see why it wasn't included and I
don't fault Ricks for not including it.

> I'm not sure whether by "this book" you mean Eliot's notebook or the
> edited _Inventions_.  If the latter, how can you separate the
> "editorial material and/or style" from "this book," since that's what
> the book is?

I agree.  It is pretty much the same if not identical.

> If not, what sort of elements would you (or others) think need to be
> considered in order to answer your question?

Well, it was a question that I put up as a way of getting a discussion
going, not really one that I wanted an answer to.  But recently I've
read some criticism of my TWL website that the amount of annotation
there can be bad (too distracting.)  An additional comment compared it
with heavily annotated texts.  "Inventions of the March Hare"
certainly would be considered one of these.  So, how much annotation
should be done?  And should commentary be thrown in?  Although I have
thoughts I'm refraining from sending it in unless I see some interest
in this thread.

    Rick Parker