Print

Print


At 06:24 PM 12/3/2003 -0500, Nancy Gish wrote:

>Oh don't be silly.

    Hope springs eternal.

>  I just finished my third book on Eliot (this one co-
>edited).  No one spends a life doing that out of animus.
>  If you can't make a point, why blether?


   Making a point to you, Nancy, is no easy proposition. If you have no
animus for Eliot, no one does. The number of books under your belt does not
attest to your attitude toward your subject. Critics have no animosity
toward their subjects or they wouldn't bother? Is there anyone so naive as
to accept this for writ?


>Katherine Anne Porter, like everyone before the necessary research
>on language, was taught that "man" and "he" were grammatically
>correct terms for the third person.  Everyone else was taught the
>same.  It happens to be nonsense.

   That it is nonsense is beside the point. The point is, if I were to
continually harp on KAP for what "Everyone else was taught" and commonly
used, it would rightly appear, wouldn't it, that I had it in for KAP. Why
constantly be correcting her for what everyone did? Why step on Eliot every
chance you get for what everyone else did? It has nothing to do with your
handy summary of how "he" came to be used for third person everyone. That
is a red herring by which you evaded my question. Why? Because when someone
disagrees with you, it must be because they are wrong?

. If you know
>nothing about it (as your comment suggests), why carp?

>  it is pointless to respond courteously to trolling and
>sniping.

   However, it is your practice to carp and snipe at Eliot and then to take
offense when anyone points it out. I can only disagree with you, you
imply,  if I "know nothing about it."  If you are unable to admit or see
any of this, then the only point in responding is to open better
possibilities for others. Did you think at all about the suggestion
regarding artistic expression?

Ken A.