academic commentary

Lee Berman · 30 Nov 2010, 13:57 · from 2010-November.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: severiansola at hotmail.com (Lee Berman)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:57:24 -0500
Subject: (urth) academic commentary
Message-ID: <SNT123-W34DF28524EFFA57A2C241ECF250 at phx.gbl>

>Antonio P. Marques: it would be dishonest to tamper with the evidence in order 
>that the public wouldn't follow it into disliked territory. But Wright doesn't 
>do that at all. So my view is that he doesn't find the obvious, likely superior 
>interpretation that obvious and likely superior. And not to mention it at all 
>suggests he finds it unhelpful. He doesn't close the path either, he just leaves 
>it for the public to follow on their own.

I would agree. Perhaps Wolfe's mild taunting of Wright in the interview I previously
quoted could be more construed as an ad hominem attack since they were in conversation.
But since we here are dealing with Wright only in literary form I think knowledge of 
his atheistic or socialist tendencies is fair game for understanding his work as much as
knowledge of Wolfe's religious/political leanings.

In some ways it is a sign of respect of an artist to show interest enough to explore their
personal aspects in a quest for deeper understanding of their art.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net