Print

Print


   Thanks, Rickard, the font linked there is much easier on the old eyes 
than the reprint I found in the library, which latter looks like it is a 
copy of an original manuscript reproduced on a mimeograph machine 
without enough ink and with the pages out of order. Or maybe that's the 
way the original appeared. At any rate, with access now to the Complete 
Prose and that magical item called the "index," I see now where the note 
falls.

    As no one else has mentioned it, I'm fascinated by Carrol's claim 
that "cogency" is not a proper principle to bring to a literary critical 
discussion, in this case of what makes good, or at least acceptable, 
literary criticism. I'd have thought that asking for a cogent critical 
argument sets the bar as low as possible before the next step down to 
random rambling followed by nothing at all. Since it was a literary 
critical argument against cogency in literary criticism, wouldn't 
Carrol's argument have to be illogical and unpersuasive (the definition 
of "not cogent") in order to be true to his claim? What a conundrum. It 
reminds me of the Bob Dylan line, "There's no success like failure, and 
failure's no success at all."

  Just a thought.
  Ken A

On 12/19/2014 7:00 PM, Rickard A. Parker wrote:
> Ken,
>
> If you want to read Rymer go to
>     http://www.angelfire.com/oh5/spycee/rymer.html
>
> Rymer on Othello
>
> Othello: A Bloody Farce
> by THOMAS RYMER
>
> >From A Short View of Tragedy, London, 1693. The standard modern edition
> is in The Critical Works of Thomas Rymer, ed. Curt Zimansky (New Haven:
> Yale University Press, 1956), pp. 132-164. [Bracketed page numbers are to
> this edition.]