Nancy can sniff out an unsubstantiated claim the way a bloodhound follows a trail.
 
That ability of hers has helped me to think through my posts to the list before I send them, and generally has improved my critical writing.
 
Thanks for that Nancy! You are rare!
 
Diana
 

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 03:13:32 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: T.S. Eliot : "The critics" versus "the critics"
To: [log in to unmask]

I don't recall saying anything about either repetition or understanding.  If CR had shared an understanding of Schuchard rather than an arbitrary statement that he is "one of the best and most perceptive"--a claim for which he gave no reason or evidence--I would not have responded. 
 
So I don't agree with anything you say, and I don't see what it has to do with what I said.
Nancy

>>> Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> 4/24/2009 3:46 PM >>>
Nancy Gish wrote:
> Exactly:  you share your view.  Schuchard's book is well known.\

  However, there is a difference between "well known" and understood. On
the latter score, CR seems to me well-advised to feel free to highlight
his finds, whether from Schuchard or Raine or TSE or whoever. I see no
reason at all that he shouldn't. As Marshall McLuhan noted, his critics
who assailed him for seemingly repeating himself were mere categorizers
who did not acknowledge the value of drilling down, i.e. progressing
intellectually by repetition. I know that you appreciate that value; if
you were to limit your posts to what you haven't already many times
said, they would be very far and few between.

Ken A
> Nancy
>
> >>> Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> 4/23/2009 12:24 PM >>>
> The proof of the pudding lies in its eating.
> It's only after enjoying its flavor that I share it.

> Best,
> CR
>
>
> --- On *Thu, 4/23/09, Nancy Gish /<[log in to unmask]>/* wrote:
>
>
>     From: Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>
>     Subject: Re: T.S. Eliot : "The critics" versus "the critics"
>     To: [log in to unmask]
>     Date: Thursday, April 23, 2009, 9:52 AM
>
>     Ron is a brilliant editor and excellent critic, but there are many
>     views of Eliot and any claim about quality runs into differences
>     of interpretation as well.
>     
>     I think you need to find some possible basis for judgments instead
>     of announcing them as facts.
>     (And this is no critique of Ron's work, just your assertions of
>     truth without any support.)
>     Nancy
>     >>> Chokh Raj <chokhraj@YAHOO..COM> 4/23/2009 9:12 AM >>>
>     an eye opener
>     
>     
>     HULME OF ORIGINAL SIN
>     in
>     *ELIOT'S DARK ANGEL*
>     By Ronald Schuchard
>     
>     You may read it online at google preview -- that is, if it's
>     still there without any missing pages.
>     
>     http://books.google.com/books?id=R6m11INDwUMC&pg=PA52&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0
>     <http://books.google.com/books?id=R6m11INDwUMC&pg=PA52&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0>
>     
>     It forms the crux of a book that "erodes conventional attitudes
>     toward Eliot's intellectual and spiritual development, showing how
>     early and consistently his classical and religious sensibility
>     manifests itself in his poetry and criticism."
>     
>     Here is one of the most sensitive and perceptive critics.
>     
>     CR
>
>
>


Windows Live™ Hotmail®:…more than just e-mail. Check it out.