I agree that a link or citation is not only valid but useful--if it is part of a discussion. I do not think a constant stream of one person's interests with no context is the same as what I wrote.
I raised this topic because I think it both important and, though discussed in a few key books and articles, not discussed in the depth of other topics. So it seems, with the centenary of WWI next year, a potentially rich idea to consider anew. I am interested in the reactions of others.
>>> "Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]
> 08/10/13 8:26 PM >>>
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 11:29:35 -0400, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]
>This sending of articles one agrees with as if they were somehow proof
>of an opinion is pointless because the history of Eliot studies is far
>too extensive and controversial. There are many readings, and unless you
>have an argument for specifically why this is somehow "true," it is not
>really relevant to discussion. I rather doubt you would appreciate it if
>I sent citations and quotations and statements from my own books and
>articles and those of others I find compelling.
Nancy, I don't think this is really fair. It's the same thing that goes on
in footnotes all the time. Your previous post actually had something similar:
>One would think, from some of the responses to this topic, that it
>was some radically unconventional topic thought up by me. I wish I
>could take credit, but as it happens Paul Fussell in The Great War
>and Modern Memory showed how frequently it appears in the allusions,
>and Vincent Sherry, in The Great War and the Languages of Modernism
>included a long section on Eliot and the War.
For a discussion list I think a either a link or a citation is valid. Its a
way of saying that here is something similar to what I think but I'm sorry I
don't have time to write a dozen or so pages about it in an email.